| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Disabled Persons and Carers (Short-term Breaks)
Mr. Huw Edwards accordingly presented a Bill to provide for assessments of health and social needs of disabled persons to include assessments of the needs for short-term breaks for the disabled persons and any carer: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed [Bill 150].
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [17 March].
Motion made, and Question proposed,
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden):
Yesterday's Budget was the first that I have heard in which not a single measure introduced by a Chancellor of the Exchequer was costed. He gave no idea where the extra spending that he announced will come from. Overnight, we have been able to examine the small print and determine where the costs will fall. There will be a large cost, and it will fall on ordinary families and on businesses--which, ultimately, will have to pass on that cost to consumers, or reduce the number of those they employ.
The Chancellor pretended that we would have lots of goodies at no cost. He tried the oldest trick in the book: pretending that there is such a thing as a free lunch. What he really gave us was a menu without prices. I steer clear of establishments with such practices, because, although their presentation may be top class, one gets very small portions and pays very large bills. In paying the bill for the Chancellor's menu, we shall discover that he has, once again, betrayed the Prime Minister's promise to the British people not to impose any taxes other than the windfall tax.
Before the general election, the Prime Minister promised Birmingham business men:
This Budget is new Labour's second tax-raising Budget. It raises taxes by another £2 billion a year, on top of the massive tax rises introduced in last July's Budget.
If Ministers are so keen--as they were last week--to direct us to the text of their manifesto pledges, will they tell us where in their manifesto they promised to cut the married couple's tax allowance? Perhaps in the section entitled "Supporting the Family"? Where did they promise to clobber businesses with almost £20 billion in extra taxes? In the section they headed "Promoting Enterprise"? Where did they spell it out that they would cut mortgage interest tax relief? Was it in the section on home ownership? Where did they spell out the increase in employers' national insurance charges for employees earning above the average wage? Where did they spell out three petrol duty hikes in 16 months? Where in their manifesto did they say that they plan to tax child benefit for upper-income families?
Ms Joan Ryan (Enfield, North):
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that BP's announcement that it is reducing petrol prices in rural areas by a further 2p--totalling a 4p reduction in the past month--clearly shows that it approves of the Budget and is responding to the Chancellor's challenge to work with us in helping rural areas?
Mr. Lilley:
That is a bit rich. Although the Government have hiked petrol tax three times in the past 15 or 16 months, Ministers claim credit for oil companies absorbing some of those increases because of low oil prices. They claim credit for that? The Government insult rural motorists by offering £50 million over three years, to compensate for almost £1 billion in extra taxation. Come off it. Read out something else from the brief next time.
Yesterday, the Chancellor may not have spelt out the cost of any of his policies, but his Red Book makes it clear. It shows that the share of national income taken in tax is set to increase. By the end of this Parliament, he will be taking nearly 3 per cent. more of national income in tax. That is the cost of Labour's tax programme; that is the cost of its stealth taxes. Public finances are strong, but because they are strong and doing even better than we expected, it should be possible to get back to a balanced Budget with fewer tax increases, not by adding to them as the Chancellor is doing.
The reason Labour is having to put up taxes is that it is breaking another pledge: its promise to cut the cost of the welfare state. Before the election, the then leader of the Labour party used to trail around editors' offices, particularly of right-wing newspapers, saying that, just as it took a Republican President such as Richard Nixon to recognise communist China, and just as it took a white President such as Pik Botha to do a deal with the
African National Congress--[Hon. Members: "It wasP. W. Botha."] Well, whoever did it. The then Labour party leader said that it would take a Labour Prime Minister to cut the size of the social security bill.
Many editors thought that the then Labour party leader meant what he said. Indeed, Labour made cutting the social security bill a specific pledge in its manifesto. As part of its top pledge, it said that it would decrease the share of national income spent on the bills of economic and social failure. Labour said that it would cut the size of the welfare state, but since the election, every change that the Government have initiated in the welfare state--not those that they inherited from me--has involved increasing the cost of welfare; increasing spending on the welfare state, not reducing it.
The Red Book shows that yesterday's Budget will add another £10 billion to the cost of welfare this Parliament. That destroys Labour's promise and its claim that its programme could be financed without increasing taxes. Instead of reducing social security spending, Labour is increasing it. That is why people are having to pay more tax.
The Government do not even expect the welfare changes that they have introduced remotely to pay for themselves. It is clear from their figures that they expect very few extra people to be enticed back to work by the changes that they have made. I invite the Chancellor to tell us how many people he expects to be taken off the unemployment register as a result of the changes that he announced yesterday. Either he does not know or the number is so small that he will not tell. It is certainly invisible in the accounts that he published yesterday.
If unemployment is higher in two years' time than it is now, will the Chancellor admit that all his programmes have failed? We said--we have said all along--that we would support the Government if they brought forward the right welfare reforms. If they tackle the poverty trap, reduce the number of people who are dependent on benefit and bear down on the costs of the welfare state, they will certainly deserve the support of the whole House. This Budget does nothing of the kind. It increases spending, extends the number of people who are dependent on benefits and lumbers more people further up the income scale with greater disincentives to work.
The Red Book shows that the number of families facing a marginal deduction rate of more than 60 per cent. will be increased by 250,000 as a result of the changes that the Government have introduced. Therefore, more people will face greater disincentives, not fewer. As the Financial Times pointed out this morning in its analysis of the Government's child care credit:
People can get off welfare and into work only if there are jobs for them to go to. Our reforms succeeded in creating jobs hand over fist. Before the election, unemployment had been falling month in, month out for more than four years. That momentum has continued. The good news today is that unemployment is down again, as the continued consequence of our reforms.
The previous Government bequeathed a golden economic legacy of low inflation, steady growth, rising living standards and falling unemployment, which has come down to 5 per cent.--about half the level of France and Germany.
The new Government are betraying that golden economic legacy, putting this country's economic achievements at risk. After just 10 months in office, they have already hit pension funds with a £5-billion-a-year pensions tax, which means £5 billion a year less for British industry to invest. They have hit industry with a new quarterly payments regime that will cost companies £2 billion a year during this Parliament. In aggregate, industry will have to pay nearly £20 billion extra in taxes during this Parliament.
That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide--
(a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;
(b) for refunding an amount of tax;
(c) for varying any rate at which that tax is at any time chargeable; or
(d) for any relief, other than a relief which--
(i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and
(ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.--[Mr. Gordon Brown.]
4.34 pm
"We have no plans to increase tax at all."
He told the BBC:
"What I have said is the programme of the Labour party, and that does not imply any tax increases at all."
Now--as we saw in last week's debate--Ministers are trying to airbrush those pledges out of the picture. They want us to think that the only pledge that matters is their narrow promise not to raise income tax rates. So when the Prime Minister made vows to his party conference,
we should have taken no notice of him? When he gave unequivocal answers to the media, they counted for nothing? We should have read his lips, and seen "lots more taxes"? What arrogance from the Government. It tells us an awful lot about new Labour. Although new Labour thinks that words are cheap, British taxpayers will discover that believing Labour's words will cost them dear.
"the assistance tapers so that help will be given for childcare costs for one child in families with incomes up to £22,000 and for two or more children in households with incomes up to £30,000".
The Government are bringing households with such income into the benefits system. The truth is that extending help up the income scale to people with good jobs will not get people into work.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |