Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Peter Luff (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 2 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Finance (No. 2) Bill 2005-06.


Finance (No. 2) Bill

Although you rightly rebuked us, Mrs. Heal, for getting a little excitable earlier in the debate, I know the Paymaster General well enough to realise that she will not take it personally. In that spirit, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) in wishing her an extremely happy birthday. I am sorry that she has to pass it here. I have two separate concerns. First, was the scheme a good thing—yes or no? A related question is whether it could have been improved. Secondly, was the manner in which it was abolished satisfactory? Although my colleague on the Committee, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), said that I spoke from constituency interest, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, I am also worried about the impact of the scheme on the Government’s strategy for bridging the digital divide to build new societies. The scheme was originally believed to have played an important part in the process. I freely declare my constituency concern, but I also have a genuine anxiety about the broader issues that precipitate change in Government policy raises. The scheme’s demise deserves a tribute along the lines of Mark Antony’s celebrated speech in ““Julius Caesar””:"““Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;""I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.""The evil that men do lives after them,""The good is oft interred with their bones””." I come to praise the home computing initiative, not to bury it—the Chancellor has done that. The good that the scheme has done lives on. The computers are in homes and much good has been done. The scheme has made a contribution to fulfilling the Government’s key objectives of improving IT skills and productivity and increasing access to the internet in UK homes. I repeat that the Paymaster General made several sedentary comments earlier that suggest that she does not understand the purpose of the scheme. It was not a business scheme but was provided by businesses to their employees for personal use. That was what made it so strong, successful and important. I hope that she has now understood that. The scheme was not for business use of computers at home.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
445 c901-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Clubs Companies Corporation tax Computers Civil partners Housing ICT Divorce Exemptions Inheritance tax Fringe benefits Equipment Remote working Low incomes Property Married people Small businesses Tax allowances Taxation Trusts Tax rates and bands Wills Home computing initiative Civil partnerships dissolution
Legislation
Finance (No. 2) Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk