Proceeding contribution from Ian Davidson (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 14 July 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Sovereign Grant Bill.
Sovereign Grant Bill
I am very grateful. The Chancellor is undoubtedly correct that some pieces of property are tied in with the institution of the monarchy, such as Buckingham palace, but the coastline of Scotland and the undersea surface are not intimately connected with the monarchy and have never, as far as I am aware, been visited by the monarchy. In those circumstances, I am not clear why the two categories are being conflated. Surely it would be better, if the Chancellor wants a method that is tied to growth in the economy, if it were simply tied to, say, gross domestic product. If GDP went down the Queen and the monarchy would suffer the same as the rest of us, and if it went up, they would benefit in line with the rest of us. That would be better than tying the fund to a measure that I envisage will make it grow at a far greater rate than the economy as a whole.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 531 c537
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Conditions of employment Accountability Accountancy Crown lands and estates Crown Estate Finance Expenditure Historic buildings Minimum wage National Audit Office Travel Repairs and maintenance Royal family Royal household Sovereign grant Committee of Public Accounts
- Legislation
- Sovereign Grant Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 17:52:13 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_764722
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_764722
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_764722