House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Nov 1997 (pt 1)

1. Dr. Stoate: If he will make a statement on the impact of the Green Budget on the Government's policy on inward investment into the United Kingdom. [16585]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Our policies for stability, for sustainable public finances, for long-term investment, including our cuts in corporation tax, and for skills and employment will enhance the attractiveness of the United Kingdom as a location for inward investment.

Dr. Stoate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that partnerships between the public and private sectors, such as the Kent Thames-side group, which is working for the regeneration of north-west Kent including my

27 Nov 1997 : Column 1070

constituency of Dartford, are the blueprint for inward investment and stable growth that this country needs and that this Government can deliver?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I understand that this morning he launched an exhibition on the Kent Thames-side region, and I wish him well in his efforts both to form an effective public-private partnership there and to attract inward investment. What is absolutely clear is that for inward investment we need a stable monetary framework--that is why we gave the Bank of England independence--a commitment to Europe, sustainable public finances and measures such as our cuts in corporation tax for long-term investment, which are all measures that we support. We have still to hear what the Opposition think of them.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While the Chancellor will know of my deep commitment to manufacturing industry and while I commend him on some of the actions that he has taken, is he not worried that in the short term the changes that he has made to corporation tax will cause many companies to have liquidity problems, so that in the short term there will be a problem with investment? Will he perhaps give that matter serious consideration?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. He has always championed the cause of manufacturing industry. I must tell him that businesses have welcomed our proposals: they accept that it is necessary to move to the abolition of advance corporation tax and have welcomed our cut in corporation tax. It is a measure of how much the Conservative party is now out of touch with business that Conservative Members cannot welcome our proposals.

Mr. Gunnell: Is it not true that the one policy mentioned by the Chancellor on which we are certain where the Conservative party stands is the policy on Europe? Is it not also true that our commitment to Europe and our insistence that we will be at the heart of Europe are particularly attractive to inward investors after the uncertainties that they suffered with the previous Government's position?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom I remember working for many years and who has always been a champion of inward investment for Yorkshire. I think that most people in business agree that a stable policy on Europe--one that will make people sure that this country is committed to Europe--will benefit Britain. It is therefore unfortunate that we do not have all-party support for that policy.

Mr. Lilley: I congratulate the Chancellor on his well-deserved award at the Spectator "parliamentarian of the year award" lunch yesterday. Can he confirm that the combined effect of his July and November changes in corporation tax, after taking account of the changes in the rate of tax, will mean that, over the lifetime of this Parliament, British business will have to pay £20 billion more tax?

Mr. Brown: I do not accept those figures at all. The corporation tax cut will give business an extra

27 Nov 1997 : Column 1071

£1.5 billion a year. The transitional costs having been met, business will be £1.8 billion a year better off. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes on The Spectator award, but if he is going to pursue this course of action, he had better explain why Adair Turner, secretary general of the Confederation of British Industry--[Laughter.] It is interesting that Conservative Members now scoff at the CBI. That is what has happened to the Conservative party.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Red Adair.

Mr. Brown: The Conservatives now call the secretary general of the CBI "Red Adair". That is how far the Conservatives have sunk and how far they have moved away from business. One of their friends at the Institute of Directors, Mr. Richard Baron, its taxation executive, said that abolition of ACT was wonderful for companies. The Institute of Directors, the CBI, the chief executive of BP, and many others, including the Financial Times, have welcomed the proposals.

I fear for the Conservative party. It has moved so far from business that in Scotland, business people who were pro-Conservative are trying to form their own pro-business party to fight the Conservatives. I think that the Conservatives should go back to Eastbourne, hold another bonding session and think again.

Mr. Lilley: Is the Chancellor then denying the figures that he himself published, which show that, over the lifetime of this Parliament, British industry will have £20 billion less to invest and to create jobs with? Does he deny that the effect of his changes will be to make investment abroad more attractive and investment at home less attractive? Those are the figures on page 19 of the document "A Modern System for Corporation Tax Payments", which the right hon. Gentleman published. The document also shows a figure of £2 billion a year extra taxation during this Parliament as a result of the changes announced in November.

Can he confirm that, in the borrowing forecasts that he issued for this Parliament on Tuesday, he did not take into account the extra revenues that he is to raise from the changes in corporation tax, and will he explain why he did not do so? Is it because he did not want Labour Members to realise that he was raising several times more than it would cost to meet recent demands to defer certain changes in benefits?

Mr. Brown: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to read out that document, perhaps he will remind the House--[Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] I am about to--[Interruption.] They must listen, Madam Speaker. I am about to quote from the very document that the shadow Chancellor mentioned. Will he not thank us for the cut in corporation tax in July, and the further cut announced on Tuesday, and will he read to the House the passage that states:

"After the transition, the annual impact is an Exchequer cost of about £2 billion a year"?

We are doing something to help long-term investment. That is the reason why it is being supported as a principle by business.

27 Nov 1997 : Column 1072

Public Expenditure

2. Dr. Tony Wright: If he has plans to set a target for public spending as a share of gross domestic product. [16586]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): We have no plans to set a target for public spending as a share of GDP.

Dr. Wright: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the previous Government wanted permanently to reduce public spending as a share of GDP? Does he further recall that the dogma of that ambition was exceeded only by the incompetence of their attempt to achieve it? Can he tell the country that the days of dogma are gone, that spending on high-quality public services will be a first claim on a growing economy, and that, even under an iron Chancellor, fiscal prudence will never be confused with fiscal parsimony?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right in that the previous Government ended up spending almost exactly the same share of the national income at the end of their 18 years as they did at the start. He is also right in saying that, although the amount that they spent did not change, what the money was spent on did change. They had to spend more and more on mopping up the failures that their misguided policies created.

The objective of our comprehensive spending review is to examine each and every penny that the Government spend. The test for this Government is not just how much is spent but where it is spent and to what effect. I agree with my hon. Friend that public spending is extremely important for building economic prosperity--important in economic terms and important in social terms; but it is fundamental that we achieve the long-term stability and sustainable public finances that will allow the economy to grow as well ensuring that we have the wealth to provide the services that we all want.

Mr. Jenkin: Should we conclude that the threats to benefits for disabled people and the lengthening hospital waiting queues, alongside massive increases in taxes, rising interest rates and slowing economic growth, are somehow a price worth paying for achieving the criteria for economic and monetary union?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, obsessed with Europe. He sees Europe behind just about everything. The country will remember that the Conservative party systematically denigrated those on benefits and systematically undermined the benefits system without regard to the consequences. We are determined to build a stable economic platform so that we achieve growth and so that the finances of the country are put on a sustainable long-term footing so that we can provide the very services that hon. Members--certainly Labour Members--want to see in the future.

27 Nov 1997 : Column 1073

Next Section

Index

Home Page