| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.43 pm
Mr. John Baron (Billericay) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) on a thoughtful contribution in relation to pensions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on his thoughts on tax avoidance.
No Budget is all good or all bad. There are aspects of this Budget that I warmly welcome, including the increased spending on our armed forces and the tax incentives for investment in very small start-up businesses. However, it was said earlier that Budgets are essentially about people, and I want to concentrate on two key failings in the Budget that will directly affect my constituents. The first will impact on the small business community in my constituency. The Government will not be surprised to learn that a recent business survey clearly showed that small businesses in my constituency
were fed up to the back teeth with the amount of regulation and extra red tape that the Government have introduced in recent years.Independent analysis has shown that, on average, just under 4,000 new regulations have been introduced each year since 1997. No one is arguing that regulations are new under this Government and that they did not occur before, but there has been an increase of more than 50 per cent. compared with the level under the previous Conservative Administration. Frankly, businesses are getting tired of this. It is no wonder that The Economist stated:
- "Labour is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of British business."
We could talk in some detail about the increase in national insurance contributions. Understandably, many businesses consider it a tax on employment. It has led directly to redundancies, a slow-down in recruitment and a reduction in profits. To an extent, it has affected staff morale and made it more difficult to run businesses in general.
Various independent statistics seem to confirm these findings. I shall not give a long list of figures, but I shall mention those provided by two independent bodies. The Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Institute of Directors both claim that the cost to UK businesses of implementing new legislation is running at an extra £6 billion a year. Those might be abstract figures but they illustrate a growing problem: we are suffering from decreasing competitiveness. This Government tend to forget that the burden of red tape always falls disproportionately on small firms, which is particularly worrying as they are often the lifeblood of our local economies. Small companies simply do not have the personnel to deal with an ever-increasing number of regulations. Figures from the Institute of Chartered Accountants confirm that the cost to small businesses of new legislation has more than doubled in recent years.
It is often the entrepreneur who ends up dealing with this increase in paperwork, when he or she would be better employed running their business and creating wealth. For me, this is the central point. Budgets should be about trying to maximise the country's economic potential; that way, we are in a far better position to help those who need it. But that can be better brought about if we foster personal freedoms within the rule of law, encourage enterprise and allow businesses—particularly small businesses—to breathe and thrive. Such an approach, all things being equal, would lead to a more prosperous economy, from which the Government could take their rightful share in order to help the truly disadvantaged in society, and fund essential public services. That will not happen if they continue to pile regulation and red tape on to businesses. In the longer term, that will hinder enterprise and, in
turn, our ability to help those most in need. Yet since 1997, this Government have continued to make life difficult for entrepreneurs. This Budget does little to put that right.It is not just small businesses in my constituency that will be disappointed with this Budget; so will the many taxpayers who have seen tax increases under this Government, but very little in return. We all know that when in opposition in 1995, the current Prime Minister said:
- "We've no plans to increase tax at all".
My constituents are asking these simple questions. Given that they have paid all these taxes, why is violent crime rising so fast, why are detection rates so low and why are there so few police on our streets? Patients in the constituency are asking why accident and emergency waiting times are so bad, why we are so short of GPs and why average waiting times have either not improved or are getting worse. Parents are rightly asking why teacher vacancies have increased so significantly under the Government and why it is so difficult to get their children into local schools. Commuters are asking why there has been so little investment in our roads, and residents are asking why the Government have done so little to combat the illegal development of our green belt and why so little progress has been made on waste recycling in comparison with our European neighbours.
In short, my constituents are rightly concerned about why such a large increase in taxation has produced so few results. The conclusion can only be that a large element of Government spending has been wasted. What is doubly concerning about this Budget is that, with projected borrowing forecast to rise to about £140 billion over the next five years, further tax increases are inevitable, should Labour win a third term of office.
In conclusion, Budgets should be about maximising the economic potential of the country to raise living standards for all, but this Budget does not achieve that goal. We have seen an increasing tendency for the Government to tax and spend—to tax the wealth creators in our society and then spend the proceeds in a way that, to this point at least, has had little effect. If anything, the Budget reinforces the view that "government knows best".
There is no doubt that the vast majority of hon. Members, regardless of party, are here because they want to improve society. We differ on the method of achieving that goal. Conservative Members have greater faith in the individual than the state, believing that politicians can sometimes be the problem, not the solution. That is so whether we are talking about freeing entrepreneurs from stifling regulation or costs, allowing local communities to take their own decisions about
green belt development, giving local police forces more say in how they police their local communities, or allowing our local doctors and nurses and our governors and teachers more say in the running of their hospitals and schools. We must guard against an over-powerful Government who encroach on the personal rights and freedoms of individuals, and instead encourage individual initiative and enterprise, which will benefit society as a whole. We must also guard against Budgets that reinforce the centralist tendency. That is why I cannot support the Budget today.Debate adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
- That, at the sitting on Wednesday 24th March,—
(1) notwithstanding paragraph (2)(c)(i) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), proceedings on opposition business shall lapse at Four o'clock or three hours after their commencement, whichever is the later, and
(2) the Motion for the adjournment of the House relating to Equitable Life may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Seven o'clock or for three hours, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse.—[Joan Ryan.]
PETITIONS
Sub-Regional Strategy (South Bedfordshire)
6.53 pm
Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): I present a petition signed by 17,000 of my constituents in south Bedfordshire about the scale, nature and location of the Government's development plans for that region. It is a matter of enormous concern to my constituents.
- To the House of Commons
The petition of the residents of South Bedfordshire concerning the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy whereby the residents of South Bedfordshire ask the House of Commons to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to amend fundamentally the Milton Keynes and South Midlands sub-regional strategy so that the Government ensures local housing is built for local people (including affordable housing) and does not use South Bedfordshire to house large numbers of people from outside the district; ensures that the concerns of local people and their local representatives are fully recognised; ensures that future housing development does not make worse the congestion on our roads or the overcrowding of our trains and notes in particular that the agreed extension of the A505 to the M1 is to alleviate present congestion and that housebuilding on the proposed scale will make matters worse; ensures that any houses built are built close to and in proportion to any new jobs that are created; ensures that building on the South Bedfordshire green belt is kept to an absolute minimum; ensures that health, education, transport, police, shopping and other community facilities are built at the same time as any new homes.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |