| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Taxation
8. Mr. Martlew: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax a typical family will pay in the next financial year; and what was the figure in 1992. [4863]
Mr. Jack: A family on male average earnings should be about £370 better off next year after earnings growth, tax and inflation. This total takes the rise since 1991-92 to £1,130.
Mr. Martlew: Does the Minister realise that the rhetoric does not meet what was stated in the Budget? Is not the reality that a penny off tax has been more than cancelled out by the increase in indirect taxation? Because of the local government settlement yesterday, families in my constituency will be paying 6 per cent. more in council tax and will suffer a 6 per cent. cut in services. They will be paying more for less.
Mr. Jack: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. The penny cut in the basic rate of tax was not the only tax reduction in the Budget. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor increased the starting point for tax by enlarging allowances by £280 and he also widened the 20p band. Those are important further tax changes that the hon. Gentleman did not mention.
The figure that I gave a moment ago takes into account all those factors and the growth in earnings in real terms occasioned by the economy's excellent performance--[Interruption.] It is not rhetoric; it is fact. People will be £370 a year better off under the Budget.
On the point about council tax, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen to what Sir Jeremy Beecham--a Labour supporter--had to say. He suggested a level of 66p a week for a band C house. The hon. Gentleman should keep things in perspective.
Mr. Brazier:
Does my hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members are very glad that so much of the Budget tax cuts are focused on the low-paid, principally through the increased allowances? Does he agree that one of the keys to reducing unemployment--and, indeed, tackling a number of other social ills--lies, rightly, in assisting those working hard on modest wages to put some clear blue water between them and their families and those who, for whatever reason, find themselves fully dependent on the state?
Mr. Jack:
My hon. Friend, who shows his usual perceptiveness, has put his finger on an extremely important part of the Budget, which is to improve the work incentive. By raising the starting point for tax, we are helping people who want to get back into the labour market, but who may initially have to accept lower-paid jobs. The widening of the 20p band will also help them. That help is realistic and is targeted towards those people--unlike the barmy idea of a 10p starting rate suggested by the Opposition. Where will the money for that come from? All it would do would be to help all the people who are not at the heart of my hon. Friend's question.
Mr. Darling:
Does the Financial Secretary agree with the conclusion reached by his right hon. Friend the Chief
28 Nov 1996 : Column 455
Mr. Jack:
I do not recall my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary making any such admission. I remember an exchange about the tax burden, when he put the record straight and said that, as a result of this Budget, the tax burden would be the same as it was when we went into the last general election. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), in putting his question, does not take into account the 25 Tory tax decreases since 1992--[Interruption.]
At least Labour Members' mirth shows that they are awake and have received the message that 25 is a bigger number than 22. They do not like the fact that, taking it all into account, the family on average earnings will be £370 better off as a result of the Budget. Those are the facts, and they do not like them.
Mr. Cash:
Does my hon. Friend accept, without being a Cassandra in any way, that the reason why that lot opposite are incapable of doing anything to help families in relation to tax is that they were up to their eyes in endorsing the exchange rate mechanism, which led to the public sector borrowing requirement going up so high, which in turn led to our having to impose taxes, including value added tax on gas and fuel? They are caught by the fact that they are up to their eyes in it the whole time.
Mr. Jack:
My hon. Friend underscores the fact that, whenever they have made any attempt to run Britain, Labour Members have been up to their armpits and beyond in debt. Labour is a high debt, high spending and high tax party.
9. Mr. MacShane:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of the rise of sterling since January on British exports. [4864]
Mrs. Angela Knight:
The trade figures in goods released yesterday for the third quarter show that the volume of UK exports of goods, excluding oil and erratics, were up by 3 per cent. on the previous quarter, and 7½ per cent. on a year earlier. Exports have been performing well this year, despite the rise in the pound and weakness of activity in Europe.
Mr. MacShane:
Does the Minister share the concern of many of our leading exporters about the continuing rise in sterling? Yes or no?
Mrs. Knight:
The best thing for our exporters is to continue to be competitive and to show the sort of performance that they have shown in the past. They have been doing an excellent job, and will continue to do so. We expect exports to increase next year, not least because activity in Europe looks likely to start to improve.
Mr. Pickles:
Exporters in my constituency say that what they need more than anything is a period of stability.
28 Nov 1996 : Column 456
Mrs. Knight:
My hon. Friend is entirely correct because, in the past, a low exchange rate has been accompanied by high inflation, which has rapidly eaten away any trading advantage that the United Kingdom might have had. That is why concentrating on a low inflation target means that UK exporters have the stability that they need. It enables them to ride out any short-term currency fluctuations. The continuing stability in the UK has been recognised by many companies--large and small, exporters and non-exporters. We are determined to keep that stability. During the last Labour Government, this country's biggest exports were probably companies leaving Britain.
10. Mr. Barnes:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for (a) mid-term population estimates and (b) electoral registration figures to be produced by parliamentary constituencies as well as district council area. [4865]
Mrs. Angela Knight:
Mid-year population estimates are prepared for local and health authority areas. The latest estimates were published by the Office of National Statistics in August 1996. Electoral registration figures are produced both for local government areas and for parliamentary constituencies and are placed in the House of Commons Library.
Mr. Barnes:
I knew that--that is not the answer to the question I asked. I asked whether the electoral registration figures for the eligible population in parliamentary constituencies would be produced alongside the figures on parliamentary registers. If they were, we and our constituents would see that, in each constituency, on average, 5 per cent. of people are missing from electoral registers. In a year when we are moving towards a general election, it is important that we should try to put the electoral register right.
Mrs. Knight:
I think that everyone is concerned that people should register to vote and that our electoral registers should be correct. The hon. Gentleman--who has a long-standing concern on this issue--is incorrect about the number of people whom he thinks are not registered to vote. I remind him that the resident population probably includes about 1 million non-Commonwealth and non-Irish citizens who are not eligible to vote. I understand that he is concerned about the fact that there are about 57 fewer people on the electoral roll in his constituency this year compared with last year; I suggest that that may have something to do with him.
11. Mr. Harry Greenway:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the number of people currently in work. [4866]
Mr. Oppenheim:
Total employment has risen by more than 200,000 people during the past year,
28 Nov 1996 : Column 457
Mr. Greenway:
Is it not a matter for congratulation that unemployment is continuing to fall so dramatically? Is that not due, at least in part, to falling taxation levels? When we speak of falling taxation levels, should not we reflect on the reduction of the top tax rate, in 1979, of 83 or even 98 per cent. and the standard rate of 33 per cent.? Those were the taxation levels under the Labour party, and they would be again if Labour ever had the chance. It is a high taxation party--and always will be.
Mr. Oppenheim:
My hon. Friend is right. It is worth reminding Labour Members that, when they were in power, borrowing was twice the level it has been under this Government, and that, since we came to power, we have moved from the bottom to the top of the league in manufacturing productivity growth. That is why we have moved from almost the bottom of the European employment league to almost the top. That is good for Britain, good for exports and good for the prosperity of British people.
Mr. Foulkes:
Is the Minister aware that--like the rest of us--the local Labour party in New Cumnock did not believe the unemployment figures? Therefore, some of its members knocked on every door in the town of New Cumnock, and got the real figures. More than twice as many people are unemployed as appear on the register. On the register are only those who receive benefits, and they are far fewer than the real number. The figures are bogus, and the Minister knows it.
Mr. Oppenheim:
I suspected that an Opposition Member would fall into that trap, so I was very careful not to quote the claimant count but labour force survey figures. The Trades Union Congress has called those figures "wholly reliable", and the Labour party stated that it would like to base unemployment on them. They are International Labour Organisation figures, and they are totally comparable with figures quoted overseas. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the claimant count.
Mr. Budgen:
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the most important factors that decide the employment level at any one time are completely outside the control of any Government? Will he also confirm that the recent rise in sterling, which had an effect on manufacturing industry, was outside the control of the Government, and unexpected by them? Is not that a very good indication of how the pound can never be constrained, either within an exchange rate mechanism or a single currency?
Mr. Oppenheim:
I do not agree completely with my hon. Friend. Jobs and the levels of manufacturing, productivity and exports can be affected by Government supply-side policies, by fiscal policies and by other policies. That is why Conservative Members should take some credit for the success of the British economy in the past 17 years. We have closed no less than three quarters of the competitiveness gap with Germany which had opened up in previous decades.
Mr. Beggs:
May I congratulate the Minister on his statement and on the policies that the Government have
28 Nov 1996 : Column 458
Mr. Oppenheim:
I agree with virtually everything that the hon. Gentleman said. One advantage of the jobseeker's allowance is that it helps to identify people who have difficulty getting employment because of illiteracy and other factors. I endorse what he said about the IDB, but however much help the IDB gave to attract inward investment--it has been very successful--it would be wasted were it not for the fact that the productivity of the British work force has increased dramatically, and faster than that of our major competitors in recent years. That is a major reason why so many companies that could go anywhere in the world are attracted to Northern Ireland and Britain.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |