| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Abbott: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Byers: I want to make progress. [Hon. Members: "Give way."] I always give way to my hon. Friend, and I shall do so in due course, but I want to make some progress, specifically on the working families tax credit.
If the Conservative Opposition decide that they wish to retain family credit but not working families tax credit, they will go into the next general election with a commitment to a tax increase of £17 a week for the1½ million people who will benefit from the working families tax credit. I look forward to campaigning against the shadow Chancellor on those issues.
I have concluded what I want to say about the working families tax credit. It may be an opportune moment to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).
Ms Abbott:
The entire House agrees with my right hon. Friend that the best way out of poverty is work, but does he accept that some groups--especially the elderly, and mothers with very young babies--cannot take that route out of poverty? Does he agree with the recommendation of Sir Donald Acheson's report on inequalities in health that the way to bring the elderly and mothers with very young babies out of poverty is to increase the level of benefits?
Mr. Byers:
Unfortunately, the Acheson report was published before the announcement of some of the
We also need to ensure that work pays. At the moment, for many people in my constituency and throughout the country, work simply does not pay. The working families tax credit will go a long way to ensure that people are not effectively punished financially for going out to work.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Byers:
I must give way to the hon. Gentleman because he used to be Member of Parliament in my mother's constituency, and when I told him that she had managed to recruit several 80-year-olds to the Labour party, he went off to another constituency.
Mr. Jenkin:
I fear that the right hon. Gentleman may be a little misinformed; but how comfortable is he, having campaigned before the general election for a reduction in means-testing in the benefits and tax system, now to be presiding over substantial increases in means-testing?
Mr. Byers:
I was only slightly misinformed. My mother has not moved; there may have been a boundary change. Anyway, she was very disappointed no longer to be able to lock horns with the hon. Gentleman as her constituency Member of Parliament.
There is no inconsistency whatever between the commitments that we made on welfare reform before the general election, and the proposals and policies that we are implementing, and shall continue to implement.
The Queen's Speech says that we are committed to investing £40 billion in education and health over the next three years. We are able to do so because the Government have been prudent with public finances. We have taken tough decisions and cut borrowing by £20 billion in our first year in office. In the first half of this year, borrowing is £10 billion lower than last year. We have set out our spending plans for the next three years, and among the central features of our new spending regime are built-in margins to cover uncertainties, including the risk of slower growth and its effect on revenues.
I was intrigued by the comments that the shadow Chancellor made this afternoon about the Conservatives' approach to the extra spending of £40 billion for schools and hospitals. He is on the record as saying that our spending plans, which include schools and hospitals, were reckless and foolish. Interestingly, he now seems to be conducting a U-turn on his previous statements. The record will show that, during various interviews that the right hon. Gentleman has given on "Today" and on television, he has said that our spending plans are reckless and foolish. The record is there.
Mr. Maude:
I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to produce the transcript of an interview or anything that I have said where I have stated that we oppose the £40 billion extra on health and education. The right hon. Gentleman can send his Parliamentary Private Secretary across to his officials to get them to hunt through the files. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not have made this allegation without having chapter and verse to hand. Let him get them now to prove what he says.
Mr. Byers:
I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman with the exact reference. I stand by what I have said. I shall write in my own time.
Mr. Maude:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Byers:
I am not giving way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. There can be only one Member on his feet at the same time.
Mr. Maude:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Chief Secretary has made an assertion which I feel sure he would not have made without having chapter and verse to back it up. It must surely be possible for him to procure that chapter and verse so that we can ascertain whether he is justified in what he says. Alternatively, he can withdraw his assertion. He has the alternative of withdrawing his latest gaffe, if he is man enough to do it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The Minister's speech so far has been in proper order, so there is nothing that he needs to withdraw. There is an opportunity for Opposition Members to rebut any case that the right hon. Gentleman has advanced.
Mr. Byers
rose--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Let us start as we mean to finish this evening. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) should not be making any comments from a sedentary position.
Mr. Byers:
We have clearly touched a raw nerve in the right hon. Gentleman. We need to know exactly what Conservative policies are. On spending on hospitals, time will tell whether the Conservatives will support our extra spending on education and health. It is a responsibility that we certainly intend to deliver. It is what the public want and what they will get.
Mr. Phil Woolas (Oldham, East and Saddleworth):
I think that I can answer the point that has been made. The Observer printed an interview with the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on 22 November. The right hon. Gentleman was asked specifically about cutting spending. The interviewer asked:
Mr. Byers:
There are a number of references that might be prayed in aid. The extra money that we intend to spend on schools and hospitals is not following the old approach of proposing the spending of money for a particular problem and hoping that the problem will go away. In the next fortnight, we shall be publishing public service agreements that will show clearly the improvements that the public will get from the extra money that we shall be spending.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford):
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Byers:
I wanted to move on to Europe, which I know the House has been waiting for. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will be very popular if he delays me in moving on to Europe.
Mr. St. Aubyn:
The Opposition are concerned about schools and hospitals. Will the Minister answer this question: if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's projections of Government revenue prove wildly optimistic, as many fear, will the Government cut their promises of extra spending on schools and hospitals, or will they increase taxes or raise borrowing? Which will they do?
Mr. Byers:
The hon. Gentleman came in slightly late and may have missed my comment that we have built in a margin on the current Budget to cover those eventualities. The £40 billion for schools and hospitals will be spent. I can guarantee that that is a commitment from the Government. [Interruption.] The heckling from those on the Opposition Front Bench suggests that they do not support the extra £40 billion for schools and hospitals, but I shall not delay the House further.
With reference to Europe--an issue that interests many hon. Members--I shall deal with three aspects: the abatement, the single currency and tax harmonisation, which is specifically mentioned in the amendment.
The Queen's Speech states clearly that we will retain the United Kingdom's abatement. That budget rebate from the European Union remains fully justified. Enlargement of the EU does not alter the justification for the abatement, as it will not change the UK's position relative to existing member states. Any proposed changes to the own resource decision requires all member states to agree, and the Queen's Speech makes it clear that we will not accept any adverse changes to the UK's abatement.
On the single currency, we have said clearly that our policy is to prepare and decide, with the final decision being taken by the British people in a referendum. What does the Conservative party think? More specifically,
what does the shadow Chancellor think of the single European currency? Does he believe that a principled position needs to be adopted? His leader said:
"But would not cutting spending make the slowdown worse?"
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
"Fiscal policy cannot be set to a demand regulator."
1 Dec 1998 : Column 695
In a classic exposition of current Conservative policy, the right hon. Gentleman said:
He continued to talk about the so-called black hole. The Observer asked him:
"Perhaps I am being very naive about this."
"You think, therefore, that you could have lower interest rates if you cut spending?"
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
"Yes, that is precisely what I mean."
The right hon. Gentleman's policy is clear.
"I am against a single currency in principle."
Or is he pragmatic about it, as is the Conservatives' deputy leader, who said:
"Our instinct is to say, 'Show me it works.' That is the sensible approach, a pragmatic policy based on a hard-headed assessment of the facts"?
How can the deputy leader's approach be reconciled with that of the shadow Chancellor? In the interview in The Observer that was mentioned earlier, when the shadow Chancellor was asked:
"What you are saying is that even if the single currency were a success, you could not use that to decide whether or not to join?",
he replied, "Absolutely." It is impossible to reconcile that approach with the view expressed by the Conservatives' deputy leader.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |