| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Battle : The Minister suggested that taxes had decreased for everyone. He referred to an average figure and gave the impression that everyone was better off under the Conservative Government. I was surprised that he did not refer to the written question that he answered on 13 May, which makes it plain that a one-wage-earner family with two children aged four years and six years is worse off in real terms than in 1987 at every level of gross earnings up to £170 a week. The position is the same for similar families with three children aged three years, eight years and 11 years. Those families are also worse off. I have referred to the Minister's answer, which came from the Government's tables, yet he tried to fob us off with the average figure. The fact is that the poor have become worse off.
Mr. Brown : My hon. Friend is right. The Economic Secretary has a tendency to try to slide away from his written answers. I remember his telling the House that the growth rate under this Government was 1.75 per cent. when averaged out over their period in office. Today, however, the Minister has tried to kid the House that economic growth has been higher under Conservative Governments than under Labour Governments. In fact, the reverse is the truth.
Mr. Maples : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the figures are crucially dependent on the dates that are selected and the periods that they embrace. The answer to the written question to which the hon. Member referred was 1.75 per cent. It was a conveniently contrived question to produce exactly that answer. The truth is that the rate of growth under this Government has been considerably higher than under Labour Governments.
Mr. Brown : That is nearer to the truth. These figures depend crucially on the dates that are included in the question. I understand the argument of the Conservative party that there is a residual with which they have to cope
Column 1217
in the moves from Labour Governments to Conservative Governments. Presumably that also applies when there are moves from Conservative Governments to Labour Governments. If we take the historical periods for both Labour and Conservative Governments, growth rates have been higher under Labour Governments than under recent Conservative Governments. That is why we have asked the relevant questions. I should be happy for the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to confirm that previous Labour Governments achieved acceptable rates of economic growth that bear comparison with anything that Conservative Governments have done. As Conservative Members like to extrapolate from the past what will happen in the future, it seems reasonable for them to admit that a future Labour Government could expect to attain reasonable rates of economic growth.Let us move on to the part of the motion which
"urges the Government to continue its taxation policies of proven success".
Clearly, that is a reference not to the poll tax, but presumably to the increase in value added tax. If it is a reference to increases in value added tax so far, the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) pointed us in the direction of future Conservative party policy. She said that, although Labour Members moan about VAT rates, this country has one of the lowest VAT regimes in Europe. What on earth is the point of drawing our attention to that important fact, if it is not to set the scene for increasing the rates of value added tax to bring us further into line with our European partners? It is clear that the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West, who has the affection of many Labour Members, is honestly and perhaps disingenuously pointing the way forward for Conservative taxation strategists. If they wish to bring direct rates down, they will put indirect rates up. That may advantage the better-off, who do not like paying high top rates of taxation, but it will not help
Mr. Bill Walker : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Brown : Let me finish my point, and I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Madam Deputy Speaker : I think that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) sought to raise a point of order.
Mr. Walker : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that many of us have been in the Chamber since the beginning of the debate, but the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) has spoken for 40 -odd minutes and it looks at though he will continue for some time. Is it in order for Front-Bench spokesmen to speak for so long and not allow those of us representing the far-flung parts of the United Kingdom--further north than Newcastle--the opportunity to put the Scottish view?
Madam Deputy Speaker : I am sure that the hon. Member is aware that the Chair has no control or authority over the time that hon. Members seek to speak. I have noted that a number of hon. Members have been in the Chamber throughout the debate, patiently waiting to speak, and I regret that I have not been able to call them.
Column 1218
Mr. Brown : It was my impression that I was winding up the debate following the speech of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, and that we were dividing the time between us. I did not notice any protest from Conservative Members during the Minister's speech. I am never churlish about such matters and if I am allowed, I will happily draw my remarks to a premature conclusion--if, regrettably, to their own disadvantage--so that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is able to put a few remarks of his own on the record, should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Among the issues that the hon. Gentleman may wish to discuss are the effects of the Conservative party's taxation policies on the very poorest section of our society who are retired. In 1979, the poorest fifth of pensioners paid 27.9 per cent. of their income in tax. In 1988, that fifth paid40 per cent. of their income in tax. The hon. Member for Kensington protested that British executives pay tax of 32 per cent., yet he said nothing about the poorest one fifth of pensioners who pay 40 per cent. from substantially less resources. It is a concomitant of Conservative tax policy that in 1979, the richest one fifth of non-pensioners paid 37.6 per cent. of their income in tax, and in 1988 the same people--individuals who are economically active--paid 33.7 per cent. of their income in tax. If Conservative Members can find the justice in that, I cannot. On 6 March 1984, the future Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples), summed up his personal taxation and economic policy with these words :
"A successful man is someone who can earn more than his wife can spend."-- [ Official Report, 6 March 1984 ; Vol. 55,c. 803-4.] Ms. Abbott : I know the wife of the Economic Secretary, because I worked for her many years ago. She is both an economical and a high-earning lady in her own right. On her behalf, I much resent the tone of the Economic Secretary's remarks.
Mr. Brown : I hope that my hon. Friend will draw the Economic Secretary's remarks to his wife's attention.
Mr. Maples : Just for the record, in case my wife reads it, I should point out that I was not married to her at the time that I made that remark. The second line to the joke is that a successful woman is one who can find such a man.
Mr. Brown : One is tempted to say that one is sorry that the Economic Secretary's wife did not, but although I can be fairly firm with Conservative Members, it is not my intention to wreck their marriages. Instead, I will remind the House of the taxation policy that the hon. Gentleman shared with right hon. and hon. Members on 1 May 1984 :
"I did some simple calculations that showed that if one adopted such a broad brush approach--"--
to direct taxation--
"which would obviously be tempered to cope with various problems--a basic rate of tax of 10 per cent. levied up to average earnings, of 20 per cent. to twice average earnings and of 25 per cent. thereafter would yield more revenue than the present income tax system." Addressing himself to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Gentleman added :
"I hope that he will consider the theory of removing deductions and lowering the rates when he reforms income tax. The result would be a fairer, simpler and more economically neutral tax system with a basic rate of 10 per cent."--[ Official Report, 1 May 1984 ; Vol. 59, c. 258- 59.]
Column 1219
There is the Conservative agenda clearly set out by an hon. Gentleman who, on the basis of that speech, was promoted to the Treasury Bench. We can see in which direction Government policy will go. How high will indirect taxation have to be? And how deep will be the cuts in public sector services to bring about such an economic miracle? The electorate can draw their own conclusions. It is not a question of a secret agenda. It is out in the open, spelt out for us in Hansard.It was my intention to take Conservative Members through some aspects of Labour policy on which their own campaign guide misinforms them, but I would rather allow the hon. Member for Tayside, North participate in the debate--particularly as I can see that that is your personal wish, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I conclude by thanking the Government for having arranged this further training debate for Ministers. It helps to ensure an orderly transfer of power, and I am glad that the Government acknowledge the inevitability of what is to happen. The real difference between the Labour party and the Government is that the Government propose further cuts in direct taxation-- they will put that policy to the electorate--but we make no such pledge. We believe that the fruits of economic growth should be spent on much-needed investment in public services. That issue forms the gulf between us. The electorate will have to make up their mind.
Since the Conservative party started its summer assault on the Labour party's economic policies, events in Monmouth and the opinion polls have moved steadily and remorselessly in our favour. I advise the Economic Secretary to quit while he is ahead.
Mr. McMaster : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members have been present during the debate. It is clear that they want to speak now rather than earlier so that we do not reach private Member's motion No. 3.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. Hon. Members are waiting to speak on motion No. 1.
2.25 pm
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : What the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) said is humbug. He spoke in the debate. If he wanted to deal with motion No. 3 he should have refrained from speaking and we would have had more time.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) spoke for 45 minutes. What did he tell us? He said that the Labour party proposed a modest realignment. He also said that it would not borrow to pay revenue expenditure and that it is committed to growth and full employment. Those were his words, not mine.
Column 1220
I remind the hon. Gentleman what growth and full employment meant under a Labour Government. For the steel industry, it meant organisations running at massive losses, with the tab picked up by the taxpayer. For the car, coal, aerospace and shipbuilding industries, it meant organisations running at massive losses, with the tab picked up by the taxpayer. That was the Labour Government's record.The Labour party talks about jobs, but it does not talk about job security or a tax regime that encourages British industries to compete effectively in the world. It has no new ideas ; just tinsel dressing.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) drew attention to the tolls on the Forth road bridge. He did not tell the House that a quarter of those takings cover the cost of employing the collectors. That could be avoided by implementing a system of throwing coins into baskets. The hon. Gentleman is a splendid parliamentarian. He is honourable and has integrity, and I have always respected him. He would not attempt to discuss a tax-raising Scottish assembly, and I understand why.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) said when he introduced this worthwhile debate, massive problems are created if a country gets into a cul-de-sac of taxation that is at a higher level than that of its neighbours. That is what the hon. Member for Linlithgow and I know will happen to the country that we care deeply about--Scotland--if the mad proposal to have a talking-shop in Edinburgh that raises taxes is ever implemented. That has to be linked to the promises that have been made by every Labour Front-Bench spokesman for the spending departments. Every one of them stands up and makes promises about what they will add to expenditure. This morning the shadow Treasury Minister was unable to tell us how that would be paid for. The answer was that it could not be paid for, because the Opposition will not borrow to pay the revenue expenditure ; they will merely have modest realignments. However, they will impose upon us in Edinburgh, an assembly with tax-raising powers, so that the Scots will suffer more than anyone else. That will be the obvious outcome of any future Labour Government.
Mr. Dalyell : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office courteously coming to the House because the Government want to make a statement on the increasingly serious Iraqi nuclear situation, as we understand it from the BBC?
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker has not been informed that any statement is to be made. It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Column 1221
Orders of the Day
HARE COURSING BILL
Order read for consideration (not amended (in the Standing Committee)).
To be considered on Friday 21 June.
MENTAL HEALTH (DETENTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Read the Third time, and passed.
NATIONAL AUDIT (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.
GAMING MACHINES (PROHIBITION ON USE BY PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 July.
TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.
FORESTRY COMMISSION BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.
TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (ANIMAL TESTING) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.
PARISH COUNCILS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.
COAL IMPORTS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.
Column 1222
HOSPITAL SCHOOLS IN LONDON BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.
STREET FURNITURE (DESIGN AND PLANNING) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Bill not printed. Not moved.
ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.
DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS ACT 1976 (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.
HEALTH CARE OF PRISONERS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.
EDUCATION PROVISION BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 June.
EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT 1973 (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.
EDUCATION (SWIMMING AND WATER SAFETY) (No. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Not moved--Bill not printed.
EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES
Motion--
That Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees) be further amended as follows :
in paragraph (8), leave out lines 64 to 66 and insert--
The chairman shall thereupon report to the House any resolution to which the committee has come, or that it has come to no resolution, without any further question being put.' ; an
in paragraph (9), line 69, leave out a resolution has been reported' and insert a report has been made.'.
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope (Leeds, North-East) : Not moved.
Column 1223
Mr. Ramesh Kumar
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]
2.33 pm
Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North) : In July 1985, 18-year-old Anita Behal was one among thousands of British-born Indian girls to visit the Indian subcontinent, in her case for the first time since she was little more than a child. During the course of her stay she met and fell in love with a handsome 24-year-old Mr. Ramesh Kumar. A whirlwind romance ensued and they quickly became engaged. Inevitable separations, compounded by ill health and other problems, delayed their eventual marriage by four or five years. Therefore, it was not until 1989 that Anita and Ramesh took their place among the 8,000 people whose applications to join their spouses had been turned down by an adjudicator, who doubted the sincerity of the so- called primary purpose of their marriage. Despite this sad placing in the growing statistics of disappointed newly-marrieds, Anita and Ramesh went ahead with their marriage, which took place about 16 months ago. Now, once again, Ramesh has applied to be with his wife and once again he has been consigned to the swelling ranks of the dismissed cases, subject to appeal.
To Ministers and officials, Anita and Ramesh are, and will remain, mere numbers in the unending battle against the unyielding pressure of immigration statistics. To Ministers, this couple are faceless, inanimate statistics on a sheet of cold white paper and evidence of a satisfactory effort to stem the flowing tide of a perpetual immigration problem. But to people who know the likes of Anita and Ramesh in the flesh it is a different matter altogether.
To those who know them better, the Anitas and Rameshes are bewildered young people with hopes, aspirations and plans for a family life. They have faces that light up with smiles, features that darken with disappointment, minds that are bemused by the misconstruction of their motives. They are real people. Policies are about, and must always be about, real people, not about ministerial statistics.
The purpose behind the debate is to try to bridge a gap that has been allowed to come into existence between policies and people, between a concern for the feelings of ordinary people on the one hand and the convenience of Ministers and the machinery of government on the other. It is common ground between parties on both sides of the House that unrestricted immigration cannot be permitted and that there must be curbs on it, but the means, the procedures by which curbs are implemented, are by no means generally accepted. Accountability has been shuffled away from Ministers. We are now at a point at which a two-tier system is in operation. Bureaucrats have been delegated the power to decide and determine, without political supervision, and quasi-judicial arbitrators either rubber-stamp or rescind these decisions. In 1989, for example, a mere 14 per cent. of appeals were allowed.
If this were a process analagous to the way in which we distance the police and the judiciary from the dangers of political interference, it might be unexceptionable, but it is not in any way like that. The fact is that there is no political accountability for anomalies and irregularities. There is no political inclination to examine or to exercise influence where exceptional or compassionate circumstances arise.
Column 1224
Let me illustrate by reference to the case of Anita and Ramesh--an almost copybook example of passing the buck. Indeed, it is an enduring and archetypal monument to how a bureaucratic no- man's-land can emerge when politicians turn their backs on responsibility for officialdom.Having learnt that right of residence had been refused to Ramesh, I sought an early meeting with the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). It was to no avail. By the middle of January,Ramesh had lodged an appeal, but meanwhile I learnt that Anita's supposedly loveless, impermanent marriage had resulted in her becoming pregnant. That factor was deemed to be inadequate and was also ignored. Early in March, Anita was admitted to hospital in Delhi with a threatened miscarriage linked to the health problems that had dogged her visits to India in earlier days. From all sides she was urged to return to London. Again, I sought permission for Ramesh to be with her. Alas, this is when I first entered the twilight fantasy-like world so vividly portrayed by Franz Kafka. This is when the incredible no-man's-land of the Executive opened up before me.
The Home Office could not help : it was a Foreign Office matter. The Foreign Office could not help, even on compassionate grounds, because the "papers" for an appeal had by this time left Delhi. It was out of their hands ; it was a matter for the Lord Chancellor, as his Department was responsible for the independent appellate authority. From further inquiries, I established that that paper travel could take weeks rather than days. In the event, the papers took 50 days--seven weeks--to arrive.
I sought a meeting with the Lord Chancellor, whose private office resisted my request--if the papers were still on their way to the independent appellate authority, the matter was not within the Lord Chancellor's responsibility. But I persisted, and an appointment was granted for two weeks later.
In the meantime, the urgent compassionate question foundered in an administrative vacuum--a sort of limbo existence in which decision or action could not be taken by anyone, anywhere, at any level, for an indeterminate period ahead that might be days but could be weeks. I am happy to say that the crisis sorted itself out, but the bleak, heartless, unsatisfactory anomaly remains.
Throughout this case, there could be no clearer indication, no more eloquent illustration, of ministerial indifference that the absence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary from this debate. As befits one of the most amiable and friendly products of Eton and Oxford, he has never been less than impeccably courteous when I have raised the case with him. Sadly, I must record that his courtesy has been more than surpassed by his readiness to distance himself from the possibilities for constructive intervention.
I must tell the House of one other disturbingly unsatisfactory aspect of the case. From the word go, Anita, with Ramesh, has followed my guidance about immigration procedures punctiliously, painstakingly and to the letter. In the distressing circumstances that I have outlined, the least that I could do was offer to represent Ramesh at his forthcoming appeal. First, however, I felt that I should meet him and satisfy myself of his complete bona fides.
On 16 April, in ample time for the deadline by which he needed to nominate me, I wrote to him in terms that I
| Next Section
| Home Page |