Proceeding contribution from Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 13 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Finance Bill.
Finance Bill
The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion, but I do not agree with his central premise for two reasons. First, there would be a significant revenue shortfall—I assume that that is why he was not able to get his amendment selected for our consideration. That is a serious point when we have an annual budget deficit of £175 billion. Presumably, the Government's measures are intended simultaneously to effect behavioural change and to raise revenue, which is not impossible. The Government raise revenue and try to effect behavioural change through tobacco duty, for example. There is a trade-off of sorts, but it is possible to pursue both objectives simultaneously.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 492 c896
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Accountability Audit Accountancy Companies Bingo Excise duties Exhaust emissions Large goods vehicles Fuels Gaming Double taxation Motor vehicles Oil Prices Taxation VAT Rural areas
- Legislation
- Finance Bill 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:34:48 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_557687
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_557687
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_557687