Proceeding contribution from Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 25 June 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance Bill.
Finance Bill
The debate has demonstrated the widespread concern throughout the House about creeping retrospection, as was evident from the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark). The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) reminded the House of a point that I omitted to make: the issue of retrospection was very live when we considered trusts during our proceedings on last year’s Finance Bill. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) also made that point. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) was sympathetic to new clause 2. To borrow a phrase from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), we are seeing a large pincer movement on the Government. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who strongly opposes the rise in air passenger duty. He is also concerned about retrospection and I am grateful to him for pressing the issue in such a way. My hon. Friend was right about the pincer movement on the Government because the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said shortly after I finished my speech that she opposed new clause 2, but that her opposition would be justified retrospectively. That set the tone for the debate. She has been joined on the Labour Benches by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). He is in the Chamber retrospectively, given that he was here in spirit right from the start of the debate. The Financial Secretary, like the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, produced a scant argument. He says that the considerations already apply and that new clause 2 is badly drafted, but subsection (1)(b) of the new clause would allow him to introduce any measure and simply claim that it would be justified, despite being retrospective, for the reasons that he wished to set out to the House. However, he did not address that point at all. Having heard the Financial Secretary’s argument, if new clause 2 were agreed to, I would be happy to accept amendments (a) and (c) to it, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. I would look sympathetically on new clause 7, which he also tabled. We will press new clause 2 to a Division. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:— The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 281.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 462 c61
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Companies Costs Air passenger duty Committees Fraud Income tax Excise duties EU internal trade Legislation Internet Personal savings Low incomes Petrol Registration Small businesses Tax allowances Repayments Tax avoidance Taxation VAT Tax rates and bands Rural areas Second homes Tax evasion Revenue and Customs Equity Retrospective legislation
- Legislation
- Finance Bill 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:09:28 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_405311
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_405311
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_405311