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

No, not at all. The hon. Gentleman does not understand how much money the industry has had to invest to make this scheme work. After the debate, I will happily show him the Government’s own documentation on how employers and employees should implement the scheme. It is very complicated and difficult; it is not straightforward. The Department for Work and Pensions had a significant sized team of officials working on how it should be implemented, but that scheme has now been abolished, when it was on the point of succeeding. As I said, the scheme was difficult and complicated. It did not work in 1999, and it was effectively rebooted in 2003 and relaunched in 2004. It is just beginning to have an impact now, which is what makes this precipitate decision so unfortunate. Evesham Technology will survive this body blow, but income from the scheme represents a quarter of its turnover. About £1.5 million a month will disappear overnight. I was going to make this point to the Paymaster General later, but I have been drawn into making it now. I am about to be nice to her, so I hope that she will listen. No? I will not hold my breath. I might come back to the point later when she can hear. I was about to express my great gratitude to her for the way in which she reacted so diligently—


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
445 c902-3 
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