Proceeding contribution from Chris Leslie (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 8 November 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance (No.2) Bill.
Finance (No.2) Bill
It might well be that in that written answer the Exchequer Secretary's definition of ““financial services”” extends slightly beyond the banks. I am happy to concede that point. Of course, we framed the new clause in order to explore the tax burden not just on the banks but on financial services more widely. However, even the hon. Gentleman would have to concede that the banks will probably be the principal beneficiaries of the corporation tax cut that he is choosing to give them at a time when he is taking money from young, pregnant mothers—the health in pregnancy grant, to name one example of an incongruous decision that might be questioned by our constituents.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 518 c77
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Children Disclosure of information Child benefit Corporation tax Banks Crew Employment Families Fisheries Incentives Income tax Film Financial services Financial institutions Independent taxation Economic situation Personal income Pay Mental capacity Profits Norway Small businesses Tax allowances Taxation Shipping Terminology Video games Tax rates and bands Self-employed Iceland Bank levy
- Legislation
- Finance (No. 2) Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 13:35:29 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_677997
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_677997
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_677997