Finance Bill — 17 Apr 2000
Mr Paul Marsden MP, Shrewsbury and Atcham voted with the majority (No).
[Relevant documents: The Fifth Report from the Treasury Committee, Session 1999-2000, on The 2000 Budget, HC 379.]
Order for Second Reading read.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Finance Bill continues to deliver on Labour's promises, enacting Budget decisions to deliver opportunity and security for the hard-working families of Britain. Through measures for enterprise and fairness, it takes further action to achieve our long-term goals--including new measures to encourage work, to improve productivity and to protect the environment. We are working hard for a stronger and fairer Britain, releasing substantial new resources for health and education, and for tackling child poverty, supporting pensioners, improving transport and tackling crime.
The Institute of Directors welcomes the pro-enterprise flavour of the Budget, coinciding with the Institute's own recommendations. The cut in capital gains tax on business assets, plus the moves to encourage wider employee shareholding, will be a welcome boost to enterprise. We are delighted to see businesses being encouraged to seize the opportunities offered by e-commerce, where moving quickly will have a big effect on our international competitiveness.
I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Finance Bill because its 558 pages impose more complex regulations, introduce further taxes and fail to reverse the increasing burdens of taxation on families, on homeowners, on motorists, on consumers, on savers and on businesses.'
This is out of all proportion to anything we have seen before . . . I do not know how ordinary people have a hope of understanding their tax affairs. Even accountants are struggling.
the increase in the business tax burden which we have estimated at over £20 billion over the five years of this parliament.
as a reduced-rate supply to the extent (if any) that the exempt renewable supplies made by the supplier in the averaging period would have been reduced-rate supplies if they had not been made on the basis that they were exempt.
I defy anyone to make sense of such a provision. It is pure gobbledegook, but everyone will have to understand it. Everyone will have to calculate that ludicrous and unnecessary levy, and that example was pulled out at random.
Smuggling is on a strong upward trend.
there will be a discretionary loosening of the fiscal stance in each financial year over the period 2000-01 to 2003-04 . . .
The publication of the IMF's report on the UK economy clearly demonstrates our commitment to open up the IMF's scrutiny process. Today marks an important step forward by the UK in economic policy making.
money, but only in return for modernisation--[ Official Report , 14 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 187.].
so as to provide for the allowance of credit relief for foreign tax to non-resident persons (companies and individuals) who have branches or agencies in the United Kingdom.
In future, credit relief will be available to all non-resident taxpayers with United Kingdom branches or agencies, in respect of taxes paid other than in the taxpayer's home state.
With the benefit of hindsight, I would have spent the money on health and education two years ago.
In this regard--
the recently announced budget for 2000/2001 appears to be regrettably pro-cyclical.
We have overcome all the objections from government departments as to why PBD--
should not be introduced . . .
The Commissioners may by regulations make provision for giving effect to the exclusions and exemptions . . .
we can expect extreme weather events to become more frequent . . . as temperatures rise.
We cannot doubt that climate change is the result of human activity.--[ Official Report , 20 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1040.]
Observations suggest a discernible human influence on climate change.
It will close plants, which will be replaced by inefficient plants in other parts of the world.
It is becoming incredibly difficult for Business to match the Rhetoric with the Reality.
This is not the Budget for Business that we were hoping for.
Overall this was a Social Budget and a lost opportunity for small business.
Many . . . people were merely taking advantage of a loophole in the tax rules. They were by most normal definitions employees but found a legitimate way of reducing their tax.
Every bar-room regularly knows at least one smart kid with a six figure income who has slashed his tax bills simply by calling himself self-employed and charging for his work through
Question put, That the amendment be made:--
The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 342.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||136 (+2 tell)||0||86.3%|
|Lab||302 (+2 tell)||0||0||73.3%|