| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.42 pm
Ms Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East): I am delighted to speak in a debate on a Budget that is recognised by the people, if not by the Opposition, as radical, forward-looking and good for those in need, in work and with families.
I have listened carefully to what Opposition Members have said today and throughout the week, both here and in the media, and I am somewhat perplexed by some of their responses. They ask why we do not use the money for teachers and nurses. It strikes me, if it has not struck them, that teachers and nurses are taxpayers, too, and will benefit from the tax decreases announced in the Budget.
Teachers and nurses are members of families. Their children will benefit from the huge increase in child benefit, the children's tax credit and the extra money for books in schools. They will also have parents who are pensioners and will benefit from the huge increase in the winter fuel payment as well as from other aspects of the Budget directed specifically at them.
As someone who is not a parent, I, too, welcome the fact that money has been targeted in that way. I happen to be a smoker. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will now frown at me. I am happy that the taxes that I pay as a smoker will help to provide books for schools, the minimum pension guarantee and all the other help for those who are most in need. The Budget is radical: it targets those in need and it makes work pay.
Several Opposition Members, and one or two of our national newspapers, have mentioned the married couple's allowance. They seem to think that its abolition is, as I believe the Daily Mail said, the breaking of the last fiscal prop to marriage. I have yet to meet someone who married because of the prospect of a £1,900 tax-free allowance. I honestly know of no one who has waltzed down the aisle saying, "This is the happiest day of my life, because tomorrow the Chancellor is going to give us £1,900 tax free."
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West)
rose--
Mr. Caplin:
Is this a proposal?
Mr. Brady:
I wonder whether the hon. Lady has ever heard of a married couple whose marriage has broken down because of financial pressures.
Ms Prentice:
Many marriages break down because of financial pressures. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge)
rose--
Ms Prentice:
I am sorry, but I have only 10 minutes in all, so I will have to move on.
It is a bizarre concept to suppose that people marry for such a reason, and that is hardly the rock on which a marriage should be founded. It is not for the Government to pay people to marry. Marriage is a moral and spiritual decision. Of course the Government are right to advocate it as a way of life and to support married people and parents, and many aspects of the Budget are about much more productive ways of doing just that. We should welcome the working families tax credit, the provision of child care, the improvement in standards in schools and the new deal for young people.
I am extremely pleased about the help and support for the British film industry, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hove mentioned. We have a wonderful, dynamic and internationally successful industry of which we should be proud. It is heartening that at last we have a Government who recognise that and take it seriously. I hope that our support for the industry will mean that talented young people will be able to use and develop their talents here rather than going abroad where the incentives have been more attractive.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be able to tell us that the changes will help our entrepreneurs and creative talents to make more films here in Britain. I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting is here, because I want to congratulate her on the way in which she has advocated the change to help our film industry. I hope that others will also be encouraged to come from abroad and make films here. It is tragic that films that could and should have been made here were made elsewhere because of a lack of incentives to invest in Britain.
I welcome the use of the capital modernisation fund for the network of learning centres, and I look forward to the opening of the first cyber cafe in Lewisham; but my particular delight is in the provision of £170 million for the fight against crime. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has rightly emphasised the need to curb youth crime and to target ways of preventing young people from getting involved in crime and of tackling criminal behaviour as early as possible. That is the best way of preventing young people from ending up with a string of offences and a belief that not much will be done about it.
I do not know exactly how that £170 million is to be spent, but I have a couple of suggestions. Will local communities, councils, police and other agencies working together make bids for the money, and on what basis will an area qualify? Will money be made available when the police or local community identify an aspect of criminal activity that needs a rapid response?
I am glad that Departments will work together on that--what we call joined-up Government. The initiative will have been effective if we can make communities safe. That involves improving street lighting, better environmental care and so on. If street lighting
is improved, more people go out, especially women and the elderly, and if more people are around, less crime is likely to be committed, so it has a double effect. The same applies to the environment generally. Graffiti, litter and general dereliction give the impression of a community that is not interested in being safer. Environmental improvements make for safer communities. By giving people pride in their community, we give them a stake in keeping it safe, and that applies to the young as much as it does to the old.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow):
I doubt whether any hon. Member disputes the fact that good communications are essential to a strong and vibrant economy. I wish to examine the effects of the Budget on the transport industry and, as a former naval person, I shall start with the shipping industry.
Last February, I received a letter from the British Chamber of Shipping, which stated:
Mr. Gardiner:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gill:
I shall not give way, because the hon. Gentleman knows that we are limited to 10-minute speeches, and I have a lot to say.
What has happened in the British shipping industry will now almost inevitably happen in the road haulage industry. We read in our newspapers about the serious plight of the British road haulage industry. As a result of the Budget, it will be possible in Belgium to fill a 1,000 litre tank on a diesel-engined lorry for £300 less than in
this country. That is before one takes into account the huge discrepancy between vehicle excise duty on the continent and in this country.
I cannot stress too strongly the importance of a good transport infrastructure. I am concerned that the Budget does not contain an increase in expenditure on road, railway or shipping projects. The Government say that they will allocate £1.7 billion extra, but that is less than the extra tax that they will take from those industries in future years. Since taking office, the Government have cancelled several road projects. Hon. Members from the west of England who drive to London will know that, after the M40 becomes the A40 Western avenue, at the intersection with Old Oak Common lane, it ceases to be a dual carriageway. The improvement to that section was cancelled by the Government, because they thought that removing that bottleneck would encourage people to use the road. That is the stagecoach mentality. When will the Government realise that people need, want and will continue to use vehicles, either private or commercial? Failing to carry out a road improvement to try to stop people using vehicles is a luddite approach.
The chairman of the Automobile Association, Sir Brian Shaw, has noted the lack of investment in Britain's transport infrastructure. Earlier this month, he was reported as saying:
The Government crow about the volume of freight that they have transferred to the railways, but I want to put the record straight. That has happened only since the railways were privatised. Before privatisation, which occurred under the Conservative Government, there was no increase in the volume of freight on railways, but this Government want to take credit for the increase in rail freight. The Labour party criticised the Conservative Government for selling the railways too cheap. Labour Members opposed privatisation at every turn and did their level best to destroy market confidence in the flotation. They threatened to renationalise the railways, and it is hardly surprising that, at the time of the flotation, it was impossible to sell the railways at the price that we would have liked to achieve. Labour Members should stop being so hypocritical on that subject: they know that the railways were sold for less than their full potential because of their opposition and threats.
"Within weeks of taking office at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, John Prescott established a Shipping Working Group to find ways in which the Government can work in partnership with the shipping industry and the maritime unions to boost training, employment and investment. The Group will soon be reporting to the Deputy Prime Minister."
I was encouraged that another former naval person was taking an interest in the future of the British shipping industry. The upshot was the publication of "British Shipping: Charting a New Course". It looked as though we were on course to making some progress in the direction in which both management and the unions of British shipping wanted us to go. Indeed, the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers wrote to me recently about the tonnage tax, which it called
"one of the most important recommendations made in the Charting a New Course report."
However, all that the Chancellor had to say in the Budget on that point was:
"the shipping industry has put to me the case for enhanced training incentives and for a lower rate ring-fenced tonnage tax. While I am attracted to these options, I have to be satisfied that lower tax rates will not become a vehicle for tax avoidance".--[Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 177.]
In two years, we have made no progress. However, over many years, we have seen the increasing tendency of British shipowners to flag their ships out to other nations.
"The only European country with worse traffic congestion than Britain is Poland . . . yet British drivers pay more in motoring taxes than any other European road users . . . Other countries spend 40-50 per cent. of road taxes on transport, but in Britain £100 billion has 'effectively been stolen from its proper purpose'".
What is the Government's answer to that point? The article continues:
"Roads minister Lord Whitty . . . restated the Government's commitment to road charging and its determination to introduce taxes on business parking."
We hear much about the Government's integrated transport system. I heard on the "Today" programme this morning that somebody had come up with the bright idea that, in future, people should be encouraged to take taxis to bus stops. The Government are anti-road, anti-motorists--which affects me as the representative of a large and sparsely populated rural area--and anti-progress.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |