| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1322
a person with the maximum sum allowable in the bank with additional income of £52 on top of the pension will not receive benefit. Mr. Janman rose --Mr. McKay : I have only two minutes in which to speak. The hon. Gentleman had his chance.
Mr. Janman : The hon. Gentleman should give way because he attacked me.
Mr. McKay : No. I am anxious to raise a few matters which need urgent attention from the Government.
Sir William Clark (Croydon, South) : The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right.
Mr. McKay : If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I have not got my facts right, he can check them for himself, as I have checked them. Mr. Janman rose --
I want the Government to take note of what is happening with Yorkshire Water. Water charges in the area have increased on average by 11 per cent., the standing charge has increased by 100 per cent., the connection charge for a new single dwelling has increased by 900 per cent. and there are proposals to add that amount of increase to each dwelling in a multiple- dwelling development, thus creating an impossible situation.
Then there is the situation with regard to the sale of council houses. People come to me who are homeless and ask for help because they can no longer afford the council houses that they bought in good faith and which at the time seemed a good buy. We want local authorities to be able to buy those houses back, so that people will not be turned out but will be able to remain in their homes as tenants.
9.20 pm
Dr. John Marek (Wrexham) : My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) should not worry too much about the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who is clearly quite in error if he thinks that one has to go to Russia to see privation and people who do not have enough money for a decent standard of living. One has only to go to the arches under Charing Cross station or anywhere along the Embankment to see young people begging. That was never seen under a Labour Government, but it is seen under this Conservative Government.
The Budget and the Chancellor's Budget statement on Tuesday are set against the bleakest economic prospects that I can remember. Despite the once-for- all benefit of North sea oil revenues of £83 billion over the last 11 years, we are on the brink of a recession. Last year saw the biggest ever balance of payments deficit, £20.4 billion, and in the final quarter of 1989, for the first time ever, our invisible earnings were in the red to the tune of £713 million. The Government have brought this situation about.
That is not something which Government Members can spirit away ; they cannot say that it is nothing to do with them, that it is the fickle British public borrowing more than they should and bringing in imports, and that the situation will eventually right itself. That cannot be the
Column 1323
excuse. Inflation and a run on the pound will be the consequences of such a hands-off policy and in the long run no Government could hope to win any battle without addressing themselves to the crucial question of the balance of payments or of economic and monetary union.Since the possibility of economic and monetary union is not on the agenda, I looked for something in the Budget that would help our exports, or at least generate import substitution. But I looked in vain.
I must thank all my hon. Friends for their contributions, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). I am concerned about the health of the whisky industry. It is important to this country, and I hope that the increases will not place unacceptable limits on its operation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) made good points about football and the pools betting duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) made the valid point that the number of nurseries-- [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) would not keep interrupting. It does not do either him or this debate and good. For the benefit of his Back Benchers, the winding up started 20 minutes late, so if he would allow me to get through what I have to say I should be very grateful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South made a number of points about nurseries and said that the Government's concession would not benefit as many people as had been hoped. He has apologised to the House because he has had to leave on an urgent matter, but I have to say to him--I am sure that he will read the record of the debate--that I hope that, as a result of the Government's concession on workplace nurseries, many more employers will set up nurseries. My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) and Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made very good points about low pay, as indeed did my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) made pertinent points about training and, finally, my hon. Friend for Barnsley, West and Penistone made the real point that there is poverty and privation in this country and that the Government have done nothing about it.
I looked in vain in the Budget for measures that would change the depressing economic situation we face. Since then, there have been changes. The Government have been forced to rewrite bits of the Budget and they are still rewriting them. I expect that there are many civil servants working out how they can do something about Scotland over the weekend before the Secretary of State has to make an announcement to the House next Monday or Tuesday.
There are measures in the Budget that are not only acceptable to us, but to which we give a general welcome. An example is the proposed removal of workplace nurseries from the tax net. We opposed the introduction of such taxation while the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. We said then that, although we recognised and agreed with the Government's aim of removing unwarranted and unjustified tax breaks for privileged groups, workplace nurseries were not in that category. We said that they were essential to working women with children and not a luxury. I well remember well our debates in Committee on this subject--which were of no avail until now--so I welcome the Government's change of mind. The Government have
Column 1324
gone about it in the right way by taking workplace nurseries out of the tax net. The reintroduction of a tax allowance would have created tax breaks which, for many, would have been unjustified and unnecessary. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made some points that deserve further consideration and which may have some validity.We also welcome the announcement of a scheme whereby VAT-registered traders will not have to pay VAT on bad debts. It has always been highly iniquitous that traders have had to pay VAT on outputs even though inputs could not eventually be recovered and a bad debt had virtually to be written off. However, I must give a word of caution. I hope that the scheme, when it is detailed in the Finance Bill, will be administratively good and that it will not lead to an increase in VAT evasion. I hope that the Economic Secretary will say a few words on that in his reply.
We also welcome the help for charities. Reliefs for water ambulances and certain medical equipment are rightly being provided, but there are other possibilities on items such as advertising and building that could be explored. There was near-consensus on these matters last year in Committee, and I hope that the same will happen again this year. The Opposition will be tabling amendments on charities when the Finance Bill is in Committee.
We are worried about the effects of the petrol price rise on the disabled who participate in the mobility scheme and who opt to give up the whole of the Department of Social Security disability allowance for the three-year lease or hire period. We wonder whether any compensatory effect could be introduced for that scheme. If the Economic Secretary cannot answer that point immediately, I hope that he will at least consider it. Again, it is a matter to which we can return when the Finance Bill is published.
The help for football is especially welcome. I am worried that the first and second divisions of the Football League will gain most of the money and that the third and fourth divisions, as a result of their lower attendances and lesser needs for safety, may have nothing. The Economic Secretary is shaking his head. I am pleased at that, because every football club in the league needs at least a reasonable proportion of this money to make its ground safer. The question about money for other sports has not been addressed, and it needs to be addressed at some point.
We are not so pleased about the way of increasing the company car scales. For many people, a company car is an extremely good perk and the present taxation is not sufficient. In the London area, far too many business executives drive their company cars with one passenger per car. That makes life a misery for commuters and the rest of the travelling public and the wife is often left stranded at home for the working day.
There is also the problem of evasion. Some executives who should know better regularly allow their accountants to file tax returns that they know to be false. That cannot be good, and greater action--
Dr. Marek : It is true. Greater action needs to be taken by the Inland Revenue. The other side of the coin is that, for many occupations, a car is a tool of the trade and a
Column 1325
necessity. We therefore believe that the taxation system should do more to differentiate between that category of user and others. Yesterday, I went to a Budget briefing by Price Waterhouse. After what I am about to say, I do not know whether it will invite me to another. Many learned experts appeared on the television screen. They said that three things would appear on the next boardroom agenda. They were summarised as cars, creches and training. In some ways, it is a sad commentary on companies in this country that the first item to appear on boardroom agendas will be cars. That is a pity. I also hope that the unions will ensure that employers do not escape their responsibilities about creches as a result of any concessions. In that briefing, Price Waterhouse believed that company cars remain an excellent perk. I should like to know what Price Waterhouse told the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Was he told that company cars were an excellent perk, or was he told something different on behalf of Price Waterhouse clients? Price Waterhouse also said that directors will consider themselves lucky to have got away with £5 or so a week for running the biggest executive cars such as large Volvos, BMWs and Rolls-Royces. Price Waterhouse said that the 20 per cent. increase was 10 per cent. less than expected, and that people with company cars have done very well.The Government clearly have some way to go. We ask them to bear in mind the tool-of-the-trade car user for whom the use of a car is essential. However, company cars are an excellent perk and they must be taxed. We expect the Government to do something about that. The Budget, as I have said, will not solve the economy's major problems. The Government must play a vital part in providing conditions for proper training. However, they are set on reducing spending on employment training by £350 million over the next three years. The Budget's proposal that contributions to training and enterprise councils should be made tax-deductible will not compensate for those cuts in training. There can be no substitute for a proper training scheme to harness the latent skills of our people. An efficient and effective transport system is also vital. Industry needs to transport is goods, and people need to get to work. The roads are overcrowded and inadequate. British Rail, in its already underfunded state, will have its direct grants cut by one third to £345 million over the next three years. People who work in London will continue to have to put up with unacceptable conditions when they travel to and from work and they will be made to pay more for the privilege. Rail fare increases of between 9 and 15 per cent. have been announced. That is surely a good example of a Government inflationary own goal.
A proper transport structure is essential ; spending money on one need not be inflationary, and may even be counter-inflationary. As the Government are bearing down on inflation, why have they insisted that BR should raise its prices by between 9 and 15 per cent.? Was that an unintentional inflationary own goal? Not on your life. There have been other Government inflationary own goals. Energy prices are set to continue to increase well above inflation. The London electricity board has just announced plans to increase domestic tariffs by 9.5 per cent. and that will mean an extra £52 on the average bill of
Column 1326
a domestic customer. Of course, the industry is being fattened up for privatisation, but those tariff increases will increase inflation.Council house rents are also rising. Tenants in Canterbury will pay an extra £12.29 a week. Redbridge tenants will pay an extra £15 a week--
Mr. Gale : One third of the area of Canterbury city council area is in my constituency. Council tenants in Canterbury were offered the opportunity of housing association guaranteed rent rises of inflation plus 2 per cent. over five years. It was bad advice from the local Labour party that led them to the pass in which they now find themselves.
Dr. Marek : They are in their present predicament because of the Government's policies, not for any other reason. They wanted to remain council tenants and that was their right. They did not want the ownership of their council houses transferred to an arbitrary body. They have kept that right, but at the expense of crippling increases in their council rents.
Mr. Gale : The hon. Gentleman is trying to talk his way out of it.
Dr. Marek : I have no need to do that.
Water charges are increasing by well over the rate of inflation and will continue to do so if the Government remain in office. The average increase will be 13.5 per cent. All those increases are inflationary own goals by the Government, when inflation in other countries is much lower than it is here. The Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Conservative Back Benchers continue to tell us that they are firm in their intent to bear down on inflation. They had better start by tidying up their own back yard. All the measures that the Government have introduced relating to public utilities contribute to inflation, yet we are told that the Government are bearing down on inflation. They are bearing down in inflation by insisting on crippling interest rates which crucify anyone who has a mortgage.
As the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is in his place, may I quote from a speech that he made on 19 March 1982 when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury? He said :
"They argued that if the Government were to spend more money, we would get more business activity, more jobs, and with no adverse side effects."
Presumably he was talking about Labour Members. He added : "We always argued that the adverse side effects of doing so would be higher interest rates ; that the less the Government spent, the less it had to borrow, the lower interest rates would be." That was in 1982. Many years have gone by since then. Where are interest rates now? We have interest rates of 15 per cent.
Mr. Ridley : Is not it truer than ever now that, if we were spending at the levels that the Labour party wants--the hon. Gentleman has put in his plea for extra spending in the past 10 minutes--we would have to have even higher interest rates than now?
Dr. Marek : I have not put in any quantified plea for extra spending, but the speech of the Secretary of State stands on the record. After eight years, instead of lower
Column 1327
interest rates, we have the highest interest rates, which crucify everyone in the United Kingdom who has a mortgage.In another speech, this time on 11 July 1980--going back a little further-- the Secretary of State said :
"Viewed from abroad, where I spend much time,"--
the only pity is that he does not spend more time there "the admiration of our friends for the Government's policies is unbounded. Why is there such interest and such admiration overseas? I think the answer is that many people think that Britain has an economic sickness. What is the sickness, and what is the cure? The sickness is inflation."
What inflation rate do we have now? It is 7.7 per cent. and predicted to rise to over 9 per cent. It could touch 10 per cent. by the end of the year.
In his opening speech, the Secretary of State said that what had been the sick man of Europe was now doing well. I do not follow the logic of that. If we were sick in 1980, we are sick now. After 10 years of Tory rule, we have not improved. The most that the Conservative Government have done is bandage up the victim and leave him unattended in the hospital. Until we get rid of this Government, we shall not be able to employ any curative policies.
Mr. Ridley : What is sick about an increase of one third in the net standard of living in real terms for the man on the average wage? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us of another country that has done so well in 10 years? When did the Labour party ever achieve anything like that? What is sick about that?
Dr. Marek : The standard of living has been increasing in the developed world. There is no doubt about that. It has increased in other countries a great deal more than it has in Britain. My criticism is that, although some people in employment in Britain have done well, people who have not been in employment, such as old-age pensioners and the unemployed, have not done well by comparison with those in employment.
Mr. Ridley : Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are more people in employment than ever before--almost 27 million? Does he realise that the figures I quoted were for the average wage? Does he realise that we have gained ground against the Germans, the French and all other countries in Europe, and even the United States in terms of net standard of living? Where does the hon. Gentleman get all his gloom from? One would have thought that he had never left Czechoslovakia.
Dr. Marek : The Secretary of State should listen to what the Prime Minister has said. We still have to catch up with the French. The right hon. Gentleman will have to make his excuses to his hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, because I shall take one minute of his time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind, but tonight's performance has been the greatest bout of activity from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that I have witnessed for a long time.
The country has been split. It is true that some people have done well, but not if they have been unemployed, not if they are old-age pensioners and certainly not if they have a mortgage. The monthly mortgage increase for existing home buyers is £134.29--
[Interruption.] No, that is a clear figure. No amount of tax cuts could make up for that increase.
Column 1328
We can fight our way out of this terrible situation only if the Government recognise our position as a trading nation and as a creator of wealth. Manufacturing industry's growth rate has fallen from 8 per cent. to 1 per cent. Although manufacturing output rose by 4.75 per cent. in 1989, it is expected to stand still in 1990, and the Chancellor now predicts a fall in fixed investment of 1.25 per cent.We need measures to dampen the explosion in credit without using the one- club policy of interest rates. Negotiations about entering the ERM are necessary, as are incentives for manufacturing industry, but we looked in vain for them in the Budget. Any fiscal tightening that is necessary could have been achieved by reversing some of the huge tax cuts that were given to the super-rich in the infamous Budget of 1988. Opposition Members looked in vain for any measures that would benefit the country and all its people. We saw nothing in the Budget except some tinkering with which I have no argument. There was nothing in the Budget about the necessity for a sound economy. As the electors of Mid-Staffordshire are now demonstrating, the public agree with us and yearn for the day of the general election so that we can turf out this Government.
9.41 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder) : May I begin by saying how sorry I was to hear earlier today about the death of the hon. Member for Bootle, Mr. Alan Roberts? He played an active role in the House and was an expert on many aspects of environmental policy. The condolences of the entire House go out to his family and friends.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), who have spoken, have expressed their apologies for not being present for the wind-up speeches.
It is easy to forget--it has certainly been easy to forget this today while listening to some Opposition Members--that, over the past 10 years, the British people have achieved far, far more than the gloom merchants, such as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), thought possible in 1980. Output, manufacturing productivity, investment, jobs and prosperity increased at rates unwitnessed for decades. We only have to look around us in our constituencies to see new offices, new factories, new shopping centres, new homes and millions of new shareholders--all signs of Britain's new prosperity. We want to build on those successes in the 1990s--and we can do so as long as we control inflation. It penalises thrift and destroys savings. At present, inflation is too high. Interest rates may appear to some people to make it worse in the short term. To start with, of course, they do, but they also cure it. Once inflation is on a sustained downward path, interest and mortgage rates will follow. That will relieve the pressure on mortgage payers, especially young married couples, who find life difficult at present.
This Budget is a tough Budget. It raises taxes for the first time since 1981, by nearly £500 million this year and £1 billion next year. It also means that we shall enjoy a fourth successive year of substantial debt repayment. No
Column 1329
other major industrial country, except Japan, has a budget surplus. Ours is £7 billion. So it clearly flies in the face of the facts to argue that fiscal policy is not tight.This Budget is also a tough Budget because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it quite clear that interest rates will remain high for some time to come. There can be no relaxation in monetary policy--the battle against inflation is too important for that, as my hon. Friends the Members for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and for Beverley (Mr. Cran) have argued so forcibly and effectively.
As my hon. Friends know, the Budget reinforces our strong stand against inflation and our determination to reduce it. Indeed, inflation is forecast to fall to less than 5 per cent. during next year. The Government's policies are tackling the root of the problem, as I am sure the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) knows in his heart of hearts. Retail sales are now only 2 per cent. up on the year, which is significantly below the rate of growth in 1988 and early 1989. The housing market has slowed markedly and new car sales are also down.
During the past few days there have been suggestions that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should have done more with fiscal policy, as if fiscal policy could somehow take precedence over monetary policy in the fight against inflation. Fiscal policy has a clear role to play in supporting monetary policy ; they act together. Using fiscal policy to try to manage demand in the short term would be impractical and inflexible. What is more, it would run counter to all that we have achieved over the past 10 years in getting down tax rates and creating a stable, consistent environment for businesses, earners and savers. At the same time, those lower tax rates have actually produced more revenue than did the high rates that we inherited from Labour in 1979.
The Government are not in the habit of raising direct taxation, unlike Opposition Members--who, although they do not care to admit it, would like to return to the bad old days of penal tax rates and low incentives. They do not appear to have noticed the moves throughout the world to follow our lead in cutting taxes and broadening the tax base. Even the Socialist Governments of France, Sweden, Spain, Australia and New Zealand have all reduced their direct tax rates--yet the Opposition still want to raise taxes. They are far removed from reality.
I wish to deal briefly with excise duties, which were raised not only by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) in the latter stages of the debate, but by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), who must have left to catch the sleeper. However, I want to answer his points.
When setting excise duties, we need to take account of a number of factors, including inflation, health and revenue considerations. All those matters are borne in mind in reaching a judgment on the right level. We must also remember that the Budget will keep the real costs of some products on which Excise duties are paid at the same level as they were last year. For example, although the duties on petrol and DERV have gone up by more than the statutory indexation figure, the difference covers an unchanged vehicle excise duty--or road tax--for cars, buses, coaches, taxis and many lorries. The real cost of motoring will be the same as last year.
Column 1330
The same is true of wine and beer. On cigarettes and spirits--the hon. Member for Gordon was especially interested in spirits--we are increasing duties above the rate of inflation, but only slightly so. It is just a little over 2p a packet more for cigarettes than would have been the case if we had simply indexed the duty, and 12p to 13p more for a bottle of spirits. The real level of duty on both those items has fallen during the past few years. Indeed, excise duties on spirits have not increased since 1985. Those points were made effectively by my hon. Friends the Members for Delyn and for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine).Mr. Malcolm Bruce : Does not the Minister accept that whisky is in a special category? Its three-year maturation period means that it costs more than other spirits with which it has to compete.
Mr. Ryder : No one underestimates the immense success and efficiency of the Scotch whisky industry. Spirit duties on whisky have not been raised since 1985. During that time, there has been about a 25 per cent. increase in the retail prices index. On that basis, no one can say that the Government have been unfair to the Scotch whisky industry.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon is a member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, and it was the Trades Union Congress that made Budget representations to the Government recommending that excise duties should be double-indexed. I advise the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon that, next year, he should have a word with his friends on the AUEW and the TUC to see whether they can review the Budget representations that they make to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
As the House knows, and as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) acknowledged, there are some important changes to business taxation in the Budget, some of which have been referred to in the debate and all of which have been widely welcomed. The extension of bad debt relief, referred to by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), should be of particular benefit to growing businesses. The simplification of VAT registration requirements removes a long-standing irritant from smaller firms. Instead of having to undergo four different turnover tests, they will be subject to just one simple test, based on turnover in the preceding 12 months.
The increase in the small companies' corporation tax thresholds will mean that those limits have been doubled in two years, and will benefit 20,000 small and medium-sized companies. Our tax regime for small and medium-sized businesses is the best and most generous among major industrial countries. What a contrast that is to the structure that we inherited from Labour. Then, the small companies rate of corporation tax was 42 per cent., and now it is just 25 per cent. The main rate has fallen from 52 to 35 per cent. The small companies' threshold is now two thirds higher than it was under Labour in real terms. The upper limit, after which the main rate of CT is payable, has increased nearly fivefold.
Arguments on investment were raised during today's and yesterday's debates. The rapid growth of investment is a clear sign that British firms have confidence in the future, and are prepared to make the commitment necessary to take advantage of the opportunities opening up in western
Column 1331
and eastern Europe, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer highlighted at the start if his Budget speech. Business investment grew by almost 9 per cent. last year, bringing the increase over the past three years to more than 40 per cent. and total investment in 1987-88 showed the largest two-year increase since the war. The increase in investment is not just a short-term phenomenon. Even going all the way back to 1979, total investment has grown faster than total consumption. Total investment in the United Kingdom during the 1980s grew faster than in any other western European country and among the major non-EC countries has been exceeded by only Japan.We have heard some speeches from the Opposition about research and development expenditure. From what they have been saying, one could almost get the impression that the United Kingdom undertook no significant research and development. That is not correct. Britain is the fourth largest spender on research and development in the western world. British firms are not complacent. Expenditure on research and development by industry, as a percentage of its contribution to GDP, is about the same in the United Kingdom as that in both Japan and the United States, and is ahead of that in France and Italy. Of the major nations, only Germany does more, but not that much more.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and for Gordon, emphasised the importance of environmental factors. As the hon. Member for Gordon knows, the Government are fully conscious of the importance of the environment and have already taken action on a number of fronts to benefit the environment and prevent pollution. Indeed, that is why the United Kingdom was a party to the EC agreement in Brussels a year ago that catalytic converters should be compulsory for most new cars by the end of 1992. That agreement makes it unnecessary for there to be any additional fiscal incentive at the moment. It is very encouraging that many manufacturers are already responding by including converters in new models, as we all know from the new advertising campaigns on television.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, referred to my right hon. Friend's measures concerning football. I am glad that my right hon. Friend's proposal has attracted a good response, not least from the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend is an avid supporter of football ; he and I both support Ipswich Town.
It was not just the hon. Members for Bradford constituencies, two of whom are in the Chamber at the moment, or my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), who were appalled by the incidents at the Sheffield and Bradford stadiums. Football is our national sport, and we must improve the quality and safety of football grounds. We want to see stands filled with people who formerly supported football and with families, and we hope and expect that our prompt and positive response to Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations will help to achieve that aim.
Column 1332
I can assure the hon. Member for Vauxhall that we are acting straight away--Mr. Hoyle : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ryder : I cannot give way.
We are acting straight away. Officials will be meeting the pools promoters and the Football Trust next Tuesday. Let us all hope that agreement will be reached quickly, so that football clubs can start to reap the benefits of the change that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made.
Some people have suggested that what we have done for football is not enough, but we are offering £100 million over five years, which, together with the £75 million that the Football Trust has already promised, is a considerable amount of money. Our discussions with the Football Trust will aim to ensure that the money saved from the cut in pool betting duty is distributed among clubs according to need. At the same time, I think that the House will agree that at least some of the money needed should be provided by the clubs themselves. The first reaction from the clubs has been positive, and I hope that they will respond favourably in the next few weeks.
As hon. Members know, this measure is designed to help football. It is a sign of our strong concern that the football safety recommendations in the Taylor report should be carried out as quickly as possible. The money saved from pool betting duty arises almost wholly from betting on football, and it is right that those proceeds should go to the game to improve the lot of the fans. I think that that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Vauxhall. It would be inappropriate not to end the debate today with a brief reference to the lack of alternatives from the Labour party. The Opposition have failed consistently to answer the key questions on the economy. What would the standard rate of income tax be under Labour? Which taxes would Labour raise? How much would people lose as a result of Labour's national insurance plans? Would Labour reintroduce exchange controls or import controls? Would Labour introduce mortgage controls?
Those are the questions that the Labour party has repeatedly failed to answer during the debate. They are key questions, and we shall return to them time and again, until we get real answers from the Labour Front Bench. By its evasions this week, the Labour party has discarded any openness. The party, including the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, shrank from principle and dodged its duty to the electorate to explain its alternatives. Labour's daily veneration of verbosity at the expense of substance will be seen as exactly what it is--dishonest and discreditable.
Contrary to the futile claims of the Labour party, Britain enjoyed a decade of unmatched prosperity in the 1980s. I am confident that my right hon. Friend's Budget will set a launch pad for another decade of success for Britain. This savers' Budget took no risks with inflation, helped the less well-off, gave women a fairer deal, assisted small businesses and provided a large boost to charities and sport.
Debate adjourned-- [Mr. Patnick.]
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Column 1333
India
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Patnick.]
10 pm
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : I am pleased to introduce a short debate on relations between Her Majesty's Government and India, the first such debate in the House for some considerable time. I have recently returned from a brief visit to India, and I thank the authorities, especially the governor of the Punjab, for their assistance and co- operation, and a range of human rights organisations and their brave and dedicated members for their help and support during my visit.
My main purpose was to investigate human rights in the Punjab. With the intractable problem of Northern Ireland much in my mind, I realise that no Britisher in India can feel superior when discussing human rights in the Punjab, where the forces of law and order are pitched against terrorists. I talked to police officers in the Punjab who, like security officers in Northern Ireland, told me that many of the terrorists were gangsters who preyed on Sikhs and Hindus for money and power. Few, they argued, were motivated by dreams of an independent Khalistan.
I talked to human rights groups in the Punjab who, like their counterparts in Northern Ireland, told me that state violence and repression had alienated many in the Punjab, Sikh and Hindu, and had provoked widespread violence and terror. Both sides claimed, rightly I am sure, that all ordinary people in the Punjab, Sikh and non-Sikh, are sickened by violence and want an end to it. I talked to scores of those ordinary people, and their stories were deeply disturbing. I shall never forget the Sikh father whose 14-year-old daughter was raped and drowned by a police officer. The father was brutally beaten by police three times over two days. He was seeking the return of his daughter's body for cremation. He was warned that, if he did not stop complaining, what had happened to his 14-year-old daughter would happen to his seven-year-old daughter. The father is refusing to wear shoes until he gets justice.
I shall not forget the young Sikh who was shot as a terrorist after he stood with his arms above his head in a field for five minutes. The police later admitted that they had made a mistake. Senior police officers saluted at the young man's cremation. His family is still waiting for the compensation that it was promised.
I shall not forget the relatives of the young man who was shot while marching in a Sikh religious festival. Again, the police admitted a mistake. His brother has been warned off pressing for police officers to be punished.
I shall not forget the 500 prisoners in the Amritsar security prison who lined up in the sun to meet me and my team. Each one was holding his record papers. There were more than 300 held on petty offences without bail. The youngest was a boy of 14ho had been held in that prison for eight months without trial.
There were mothers and daughters who talked about their husbands and brothers who had been abducted by the police months and even years ago. There were men and women who showed us bruises, scars, broken arms and broken legs that were the result of police interrogation. I shall never forget the men and women who complained of
| Next Section
| Home Page |