(Original post by stanlas)
With all due respect Mr Prime Minister, but this isn't your Bill and you can't just say 'I don't agree, therefore remove it.' Like every other member of this house, you should ask in a polite way, stating your arguments.
Besides, what do you have against getting ready for emergencies? Emergencies can happen even in the UK, and we should always be ready for them.
Of course, i do apologise.
That is one of the many things which we can use the treasury reserve for.
(Original post by Rakas21)
Just cought the disaster relief fund and i do not agree with it so take it out.
Floods occur when people decide on flood plains and the drought in this country has already been solved by the desalinisation motion.
The desalinisation motion has done nothing. No law has been made. Besides, the efforts to combat environmental hazards (like new water plants) need funding. The Government already puts money towards natural disasters (Cumbrian floods, 2009 et al.), the DRF would just formalise it.
It's the least consequential part of the Bill, I hope you reconsider.
(Original post by stanlas)
I think that the difference is that this emergency fund shall also have equipment and material for dealing with emergencies (which would be more useful than just a treasury reserve.)
As a matter of interest now that we're on this topic, did you ever put the supplies Bill on the government sub-forum, or did you discard it?
The supplies bill is being mulled over, will have a decision in a few days.
I'm not keen on 5/6. 7 needs a re-numbering. 3 could be better done in line with the carbon produced by combustion of them. 1(2) could be quantified (many studies on this) and thus the revenue more accurately calculated. Oh, and we could drop VAT down to 3% and still keep a small surplus on the Bill. I also think £30 is a little on the high-end, as we discussed in our PMs before we decided not to co-sponsor this, and £25 is a more appropriate figure based on a wider base of research.
I appreciate this is a bit late, in the third reading and I offer my sincerest apologies for that - I thought the ban was a permanent one and thus the Bill would go along with it's author at the last reading - as such, I kept my musings to myself, my mistake.
I really am torn what to vote on this. I wish I could vote for it on a section by section basis.
5/6 are going to stay, though I reckon a reduction to the £30 figure should happen. Perhaps somewhere between 25 and 30, I'll have a look at what could be done. I'm not entirely sure what quantifying would involve, would it just be a matter of sourcing the tax base more thoroughly?
I'm sending this to vote because really the changes aren't necessary. £30 is at the higher end, but then again most of the studies that recommend lower amounts are from several years ago.