| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Beckett: I always take note of what is said in newspapers such as The Sun. Indeed, I noted the great welcome The Sun gave to the Budget, which it said would advantage every group in Britain. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said to both the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). First, it is important to compare like with like and to consider the haulage industry's overall costs, not just fuel costs. Secondly, the previous Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a supporter, first introduced the fuel duty escalator. Thirdly, this is not the largest rise that has ever been imposed--that was imposed by his Government in 1995.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): Will the right hon. Lady find time for a debate on the substance of early-day motion 436?
[That this House notes with concern the Prime Minister's Answer of 10th March, Official Report, column 358, that there is a 'net tax cut of £4.5 billion' for the coming year, because the total tax increase in the coming year is £7.1 billion; further notes that the Prime Minister's claim not to have raised taxes but to have cut them has been described by the eminent economist Anatole Kaletsky as 'simply false'; recalls the Prime Minister's previous assertion that any Minister giving false information to the House would speedily correct the mistake; and calls on the Prime Minister immediately to correct his false assertion and apologise to the House.]
That motion has been signed by 59 right hon. and hon. Members and relates to the Prime Minister's suggestion that there has been a net tax cut of £4.5 billion for the year ahead, whereas there will be a total tax increase of £7.1 billion in the coming year. Does the right hon. Lady agree that such a debate would give the Prime Minister or his spokesman ample opportunity to explain why, if their figures are right and ours are wrong, the eminent economist Anatole Kaletsky has described the Prime Minister's figures as simply false?
Mrs. Beckett:
First, the hon. Gentleman asked me for a special debate, and I say to him, as I have said to others, that those matters can be aired in the debates on the Finance Bill. Anatole Kaletsky is certainly distinguished, but he is not necessarily therefore always right. I prefer to rest on the judgment of organisations such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies. In response to his assertion about the correctness of his figures over those given by the Prime Minister, I simply say to him that it was never possible in the past to trust figures given by his party, and it is not possible now.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate next Monday or Tuesday on the EU Commission's resignation and the special summit in Berlin? The Prime Minister has been aware for more than two months of the date of publication of the inquiry into fraud and nepotism in the Commission, and the date of the special summit was known for a similarly long time. There is, therefore, no excuse for the Government not having provided time for a debate. Will the right hon. Lady remind the House on how many occasions in the past we have had an opportunity to debate the issues relating to a summit of the European Council of Ministers in advance of the meeting, rather than afterwards?
Mrs. Beckett:
Of course, there are arrangements for discussing issues relating to the European summit which broadly circle the pre-arranged regular meetings of the European Council. No such special arrangements have ever been made for informal or special Councils. Those matters can and will be aired in debate. The hon. Gentleman asserted that the Government should have found time for a debate on those matters early next week, but he wants to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry that was set up following the initiative of my colleagues in the European Parliament. The Government are not prepared to do so and we await the outcome of that inquiry.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby):
Tomorrow, the business of the House will be a debate on implementing some of the recommendations of the Neill committee, particularly those relating to referendums. That has cross-party support and is firmly supported by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), of whom we heard a eulogy earlier. Will the Leader of the House pledge that her Government will enact all the recommendations of the fifth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life? Will she further pledge that her Government,--particularly the
Mrs. Beckett:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware, as a result of a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when the Neill report was published, that the Government are studying that report very carefully. I cannot give him the undertaking that he demands that there will be complete acceptance of all the recommendations. We are carefully examining those fundamental proposals.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Further to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and in the light of the pitifully inadequate response by Ministers to the Budget debate, can we have an early debate, in Government time, on the Government's stealth taxes? Given that the Labour manifesto, of which I think I need to remind the right hon. Lady, says:
Mrs. Beckett:
That was a lengthy if not a very pertinent question. I am sure that all such matters can be raised in Finance Bill debates.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire):
On11 November, I secured an Adjournment debate on the crisis in the road haulage industry. The video of that debate is being shown all around the country at hauliers' meetings. The lamentable ignorance of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and her failure to reply to the points made are much commented on. Three colleagues have brought up the subject this morning. Sadly, the Leader of the House has not taken on board the seriousness of the damage that will be inflicted not just on the strategic industry, which is in danger of losing 26,000 jobs, but on the whole economy. An uncompetitive haulage industry would damage every business in the land. We would be looking at another 26,000 job losses--more than would be lost in the west midlands were Longbridge to close. This is an urgent issue of national importance which affects every constituency. Could we please find time for a debate?
Mrs. Beckett:
I say again to the hon. Gentleman, who accuses me of not taking on board the seriousness of the issue, that it is not for me to answer on this subject. I am here to discuss which debates we will have in the House. He asked for time for a debate and there will be all the time in the world during proceedings on the Finance Bill--he will be able to stay up until the small hours of the morning--to discuss the road haulage industry. He will then be able to circulate the video of those debates, which I am sure will gain even greater applause.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
I appreciate that, when the right hon. Lady was planning
Mrs. Beckett:
I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says, but cannot undertake to rearrange next week's business. Indeed, I suspect that there will not be much to do in such a debate, other than bemoan the events that have brought us to this pass. He can do that without a debate next week.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the understandable anger in the road haulage industry about the costs that the Government are imposing on it, and their complacent attitude to it, which has led to the prospect of a large demonstration in London on Monday. Have you received notice of any difficulty that the police may have in ensuring Members' access to the House on Monday under the terms of the sessional orders? Will any special arrangements have to be made?
"How and what governments tax sends clear signals about the economic activities they believe should be encouraged or discouraged, and the values they wish to entrench in society",
does she accept that it is incumbent on Ministers to explain, as they failed to do during the Budget debate, why people who have mortgages, who are married, who put petrol in their cars, who have pensions, who acquire savings, who buy property and who run businesses should all face a draconian increase in taxation under this Government?
1.13 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |