Proceeding contribution from Jane Kennedy (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 28 April 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Finance Bill.
Finance Bill
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was rather skating on thin ice, as he drew attention to the fact that there was one Conservative Back Bencher in the Chamber, although it is true that the Labour Benches are even more thinly populated. Clause 6 and schedule 2 introduce the central reform elements announced in the 2007 pre-Budget report. The changes replace layers of complex rules built up over many decades with a significantly simpler framework. In particular, a number of old reliefs are abolished, leaving an easy-to-understand tax-free allowance and a single headline rate of tax. I make those opening comments to set the scene, but I want to return rapidly to the brief exchange between the hon. Gentleman and myself. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie), whom I compliment on tabling the amendment and encouraging us to hold this important debate, raised a number of serious points and questions, and I was interested in the examples that he drew from Scottish experience. He spoke on behalf of the Scottish National party, who are in government in Scotland, so he bears a similar responsibility to the Opposition Members whose party would be in government. That is why the comments of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) are important, and why the House requires a clear explanation of what those parties would do if their amendment was not carried, and how they would cost the consequences. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked me to explain the difference between the figures published in the PBR and those published in the Budget. We can argue about the figures, and it is right that we should do so, but there will be significantly more than a little hole if he does not accept that the clause should stand part. The figure in the 2007 pre-Budget report for 2010-11 was £900 million. The figures published in the Budget do not separate out the final estimated cost of entrepreneurs' relief. The decision was made in the light of the whole score card, and the costs of the 2008 Budget are therefore somewhat less—£250 million per year; £350 million next year; and £500 million in 2010-11. We have costed the measures, and the hon. Gentleman needs to explain how he would cost such an action, and the decision that he is encouraging Conservative Members to make.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 475 c62-3
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Companies Capital gains tax Corporation tax Bingo Amusement arcades Licensing Investment Income tax Gaming machines Pensioners Small businesses Tax allowances Taxation Tax rates and bands
- Legislation
- Finance Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:01:32 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_467534
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_467534
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_467534