Proceeding contribution from Sheila Gilmore (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 18 April 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Finance (No. 4) Bill (Clauses 1, 4, 8, 189 and 209, Schedules 1, 23 and 33, and certain new Clauses and new Schedules relating to value added tax).
(Clauses 1, 4, 8, 189 and 209, Schedules 1, 23 and 33, and certain new Clauses and new Schedules relating to value added tax)
I agree absolutely. I saw clearly, in my city, the follow-through of that financial stimulus. It was followed through to the Scottish Government, and I give them credit for bringing forward some of the construction spending at that stage. We had more affordable homes built in 2009 than we had had for some years. I believe that the figure was 900 affordable homes, which is high for Edinburgh, but that has now plunged right down again. This was not sustained and we are back in the same cycle as we were in before. Such an approach can work, as we get the homes and the jobs, and we ensure that unemployment is not rising as fast as it otherwise would. When Labour Members suggest stimulating the economy, Government Members invariably ask how we would pay for it. They say, ““Oh, you are going to borrow yet more. That is absolutely shocking.”” When we make any proposal on how we would fund it, we are immediately told, ““You cannot possibly do that. You should not do that.”” We are making a genuine proposal here. We have talked about it for several months, but it has not yet been taken up by the Government. The economy is still flatlining and we are seeing all the results of that in our local communities. So, yet again, we are justified in tabling this amendment. We are constantly told about all the people who are going to go abroad if we do such and such a thing—we hear that banks are going to disappear off, to wherever—but there is not a great deal of evidence of that happening. It feels very much as if we are being blackmailed and as if powerful people are trying to say, ““We will take our ball away. We are not going to play.”” We have to be very clear that a lot of this does not actually happen in practice; indeed, there is evidence to suggest that the bankers did not leave the country during the period of the previous bonus levy. There is no evidence to suggest that they suddenly swanned off somewhere else. If we are serious about building and growing our economy, as we have to be, this measure will be one small part—it is not suddenly the answer to everything—of enabling us to get this economy going again. It will stop us from sitting on our hands and expecting that somehow to happen, because it will not.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 543 c400-1
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Devolved matters Aviation Corporation tax Banks Caravans Air passenger duty Income tax Food Economic situation Personal income Northern Ireland Passengers Scotland Wales Tax avoidance Taxation Repairs and maintenance Tax rates and bands Religious buildings Take-away food Wealth Regional airports Bank levy
- Legislation
- Finance Bill 2010-12 to 2012-13
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 16:55:32 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_823727
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_823727
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_823727