Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Liam Byrne (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 13 July 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HC) and Debate on bill on Finance Bill.


Finance Bill

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Chancellor is a member of the Cabinet and, as in all Cabinets—I am sure this is true of the Cabinet today—the then Chancellor was subject to the collective responsibility that we all shared. The judgment that he reached was his final judgment, and that was the judgment that he presented in the March Budget. I want to touch on three aspects of the debate. If I may, I will start with amendments 41 to 43, the purpose of which is quite straightforward: they seek to make good the fact that there is no mandate for the clause. I do not think that either Government party could truly claim to have solicited from voters any ringing endorsement for clause 3. If anything, in their hearts, they could assume that the public voted against the subject of the clause. Today's debate is important for Parliament and for the public, and I certainly hope that we will not be subjected again to the spectacle of the Government Chief Whip, who is not in his place, seeking to force a closure motion on a Finance Bill debate. Over the centuries, nothing has prevented Parliament from debating the wisdom of the Executive's attempts to tax the people of the country, and it would be unfortunate, particularly for the Conservative party, which prides itself on being a party of tradition, if the Chief Whip were single-handedly to put one of our most cherished traditions in the bin.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
513 c823 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Poverty Charities Exemptions Excise duties Fuels Economic situation Pensioners Low incomes Rural areas Taxation VAT Rescue services Tax burden Sunset clauses
Legislation
Finance Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk