| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a peculiarly complex hypothetical question. We do not
believe that it is necessary for taxes to rise. We are meeting the firm fiscal rules—the golden rule and the sustainable development rule.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the Minister may remember that a few weeks ago the Treasury was planning to save taxpayers' money by selling £100,000 worth of its silver and to give the proceeds to the NHS. How does the Minister consider that people will now react when they discover that since then the Treasury has spent 500 times that amount (£50 million) on one item—lawyers' and accountants' fees for the liquidation of Railtrack?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Treasury was not planning to save £100,000 by selling what is called the "Treasury silver" for the benefit of the NHS. The Treasury has a rule, as do all departments, that non-performing assets should be disposed of unless there are good reasons to the contrary. None of the proceeds from those asset sales, and certainly not from Treasury asset sales, are hypothecated to any particular purpose. There is a history of payments of lawyers' and accountants' fees. Some of the most extreme examples took place during the privatisation programme of the previous government. Some noble Lords feel that the size of them is regrettable.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister's Answer to my noble friend Lord Northbrook was factually correct. Unfortunately, it was totally meaningless to most noble Lords and certainly to myself. Can he tell the House what is in table 2.4, for example?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. It is a complex table with five columns and seven rows. It is not possible to answer that kind of question in reply to a Starred Question.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the greater challenge facing the Government this year is not so much under-receipt in terms of tax revenue, but underspend in terms of government expenditure programmes, bearing in mind the £0.7 billion underspend next year? Can he tell the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the underspend this year will be less?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, I agree in large part with the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Underspend is a serious problem, particularly when it follows many years of underfunding. For a long time the need has been well recognised, but this particular tanker takes time to turn. All the spending departments in the Government have been given firm targets and encouragement to overcome that problem as soon as possible.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, as a result of the economic slow-down or otherwise, recently the Government have suggested that tax levels will have to rise. Can the Minister confirm that national insurance
contributions are regarded by the Government as part of their overall pledge on tax levels? I refer particularly to their pledge not to increase taxation for higher level taxpayers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have not said, explicitly or implicitly, that taxes will rise. Quite clearly we have said that in the period of the current spending review there is no need for taxes to rise. We are meeting both of the fiscal rules to which I referred earlier and the money that is available from existing taxes—in the next financial year a surplus of £10 billion is forecast—is sufficient to provide resources for the needed investment in health, education and transport. Therefore, the second part of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, does not apply.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, does the Minister agree that by lowering the rate of corporation tax, the total revenue will increase, so creating a virtuous circle?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, some economists say that. At times that may be true. I do not particularly want to commit the Government to saying that it is true now.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, is ill conceived because the rate of corporation tax in Britain is lower than in any other country in Europe?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. However, under certain circumstances it still could be true—it is true of all taxes—that if the rate is lowered, receipts are encouraged. That was why I was not quite as dismissive to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, as the noble Baroness indicates that I perhaps should have been.
House of Lords Reform
2.45 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government:
- In the context of their proposals for House of Lords reform, whether they consider that list systems will deliver appropriate levels of independence among the membership of the House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): Yes, my Lords, any system of elections has to balance the independence of the representatives with the need for accountability to the people. Both of those attributes are desirable in a democracy and must be balanced against each other. List systems can deliver both.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for that reply. Does he agree that
independence can come in a variety of forms and from any quarter of your Lordships' House, as was admirably demonstrated by noble Lords on the Government Benches last week? In the government White Paper on House of Lords reform, such independence is an element to which people attach the highest importance. Can the Minister tell the House what form of list system is likely to be employed? Am I right in believing that the closed party list is currently the Government's preferred option? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that any election system that is likely to lead to similar Whipping techniques as those that exist in another place should be studiously avoided?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that independence is a prized attribute of most, if not all, Members of this House. I personally am a strong supporter of that. The Government have no closed view about closed lists. The White Paper suggests that there should be a list system and we have specifically said that we welcome observations on the type of list to be used.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, while hoping that my noble and learned friend may yet not decide to push ahead with a hybrid House, does he accept that with any system in which lists are selected by the parties, particularly one in which the order of the names on the lists are selected by the parties, one may just as well have appointments? The principle would be identical. Can he assure the House that, if the Government intend to go ahead with a list system, the legislation will include a clause preventing political parties proceeding in that way?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend speaks of a hybrid House. At the moment it is a hybrid House. It consists of Law Lords, Bishops, hereditary Peers and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. At the moment we do not have a blanket uniformity and nor shall we want that in the future. It is well known that elections in modern times are normally funded by political parties and political parties have a part to play. However, I agree with my noble friend's underlying theme; I believe it was the underlying theme of the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool. We want a House that is able to scrutinise the Government, whichever government are in power, at any particular time. I repeat my earlier proposition: the way that we work is as important as the composition of the House
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that the admiration that some noble Lords hold for political parties is very limited indeed? Is there any prospect that the noble and learned Lord will agree with me—I have said this before—that political parties are the only thoroughly nasty thing of which I know of which one needs more than one?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I always defer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, because he has had a
very long life, serving—I use that word neutrally—a political party. I am bound to say that, being an innocent in these matters, I have always thought that politics was a dirty business. Thank God I have nothing to do with it.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that attention has perhaps been deflected away from the working practices of this House and much attention has been given to its composition? Perhaps that will not help matters as regards the long-term prospects of the reform of this House.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. We need to attend not simply to the attraction of the moment, which is composition. Although that is deeply important, what will fundamentally matter much more to this House—I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate—is how we deliver, and that means how we work; how we scrutinise; and how we bring the executive to account.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page