(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberI do not know whether my hon. Friend plans to serve on the Bill Committee, but given his knowledge and expertise I think that that would be a great advantage to us. Is not the challenge to try to find something better than the original Government proposals and that addresses the need for the public to feel that they have recall power while protecting people from the political risks of the amendments? Is not the challenge to find something in the middle, perhaps better defining the kinds of offences that would lead to recall—
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberDoes my hon. Friend agree that one difficulty with this proposal is shown in the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies? Robert Joyce, the senior research economist there, says:
“The policy is not a general recognition of marriage in the income tax system”.
So the argument that has been made by the Government is false, in the sense that it gives an impression about this policy which is not actually true. He goes on to say that
“it is difficult to escape the conclusion that an income tax system which makes some people worse off after a pay rise has something wrong with it.”
Order. I think we need shorter interventions rather than speeches—I would sooner save your voice for later.
Order. We are not having two Members on their feet. Let us see if I can help—Mr McCabe, are you giving way?
(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the contents of the hon. Lady’s blog are germane to the debate, is it not a requirement that the House should have access to it?
Unfortunately, the blog is not a document, so that is not the case.
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect, whether the best symbol of a Government’s faith in civil liberties is their support for a phone hacker in No. 10 and a Minister who spies on his own colleagues and friends—
Order. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) should carry on with the debate on the new clause.