Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from John Healey (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 11 March 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Business Rate Supplements Bill.


Business Rate Supplements Bill

I quite understand why the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and his friends are using the programme motion to make arguments that go well beyond the scope of the Bill, and well beyond the issue of the scrutiny that the House will, quite properly, give the subjects before it this afternoon, once we are able to get on to them. He was right to say that the Bill has been well debated so far, so let me remind him of something as he tries to argue for more time this afternoon than the Government have proposed. I say this to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), too, who accuses the Government of undue haste. We had three very good evidence sessions, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said. We then agreed to hold six scrutiny sessions. We finished early on the fifth, and we did not need the sixth. The Bill was, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, well debated and properly scrutinised in the Public Bill Committee. The programme motion gives the House ample time to do its job properly. urge my hon. Friends to support the programme motion if the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst insists on opposing it. Question put. The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 180.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
489 c304-5 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Companies Business Contributions Elizabeth line Greater London Greater London Authority Infrastructure Local government Local government finance Rates and rating Property Business rates Tax allowances Tenants Tax rates and bands Business improvement districts
Legislation
Business Rate Supplements Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk