Previous SectionIndexHome Page


11. Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester): What representations he has received from interested organisations on the level of the tax burden. [145803]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Chancellor receives a wide range of representations on taxation matters.

Mr. Tyrie: Most of those representations will explain how the rise in the tax burden is impairing economic performance. Could the Minister, on behalf of the Government, tell us to what level the tax burden will have to rise before the Government believe that a higher tax burden impairs economic performance?

Mr. Smith: Actually, the tax burden is falling. When making those claims, Opposition Members should recall what they themselves said, on the record and in

25 Jan 2001 : Column 1074

government, about what was likely to happen to the tax burden in this country. In the November 1996 "Financial Statement and Budget Report", the Conservative Government said:

So, the Conservatives said that the ratio would go up. In fact, under this Government, last year, this year and next year, there is a lower ratio than the Conservatives were planning.

Caroline Flint (Don Valley): Is my right hon. Friend aware that last Friday's Financial Times described the Conservatives' attempts to reduce the tax burden as a mess of which Harry Potter would have been proud? How can the Opposition square what they preach with what they do, when they voted on Tuesday against cuts in national insurance contributions for the self-employed, employers and small firms?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right: there is a sharp contrast between what the Conservatives say and do now and what they did in office. We remember the 22 tax rises and the VAT increases that they promised not to introduce. This Government have kept every promise that we have made on tax. [Laughter.] We have cut the basic rate of tax and have not raised the upper rate. We have introduced the 10p rate and cut VAT on fuel. Opposition Members will not be laughing when they go to the electorate on the subject of real living standards, because year on year under this Government, take-home pay after direct and indirect tax has been rising--I am allowing for everything--by £400 or more a year, whereas under the Conservative Government it increased by less than £300 a year.

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): Is the Chief Secretary aware that many couples whose married couples allowance has been slashed by the Chancellor will not receive the children's tax credit? Will he tell the House how many such married couples will face a higher tax burden as a result of this disgraceful new Labour stealth tax?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a somewhat uncharacteristic attack on his own Front Bench. It was the now shadow Chancellor who said in office that the allowance was an anomaly. Indeed, it was the Conservative Government who started to cut it. The Government are introducing help through the children's tax credit. As my right hon. the Chancellor has said, we hope to benefit families with children to the tune of £10 a week.

Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East): Does my right hon. Friend accept that we must consider not only the overall tax burden, although that is important, but timing and distribution? In particular, is he aware of the deep concern in manufacturing industry about the fact that the Government are to pursue the climate change levy? Although the levy is tax neutral--fiscally neutral--it will

25 Jan 2001 : Column 1075

impose a burden on that sector. Perhaps we should be rethinking the timing of the measure, given the condition of manufacturing in this country.

Mr. Smith: We strongly support manufacturing industry. Nissan's announcement that it is to bring production of the new Micra to Sunderland has occurred partly because of our energetic efforts. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming that decision, about which we are very pleased. It is evidence of our commitment to success in manufacturing industry. He also mentioned the climate change levy, which has been carried forward in close consultation with industry. We have negotiated agreements on the levy with particularly energy-dependent industries. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, the levy is fiscally neutral, not only as a whole but within each sector. Moreover, we will generate jobs and help manufacturing by reducing national insurance contributions.

New Deal (Long-term Unemployed)

12. Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone): How many have joined the new deal for the long-term unemployed since July 1998. [145804]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): Some 325,700 people have joined the new deal for the long-term unemployed, of whom 61,050 have so far found employment. From April, we will be improving and intensifying the programme, applying the lessons learned from the success of the new deal for young people.

Mr. Clapham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I think it is fair to say that those figures show that

25 Jan 2001 : Column 1076

the new deal for the long-term unemployed is working, which is good news for people in Barnsley. Given that fact, may I draw the Opposition's attention to the three planks on which the new deal is based: first, its comprehensive scope links it to local labour markets; secondly, it increases the jobseeker's employability; and thirdly, it is based on training--something that the Opposition should remember, because the fact that it is based on training means that we are preparing people and bringing them to the labour market with the proper skills? Will my hon. Friend make sure that the training element is monitored to ensure that it is appropriate to local labour markets such as that in Barnsley?

Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is right. Detailed evaluation by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has shown the success of the new deal for young people. As my hon. Friend says, its success has been achieved by increasing the intensity with which young people look for work and by increasing their employability. The evaluation shows that long-term unemployment among young people is half what it would have been without the new deal. We are including the lessons that we have learned from that in the new deal for the long-term unemployed, for the benefit of my hon. Friend's constituency in Barnsley and others throughout the country.

We will include in the deal access to work-focused training and key work skills programmes. As my hon. Friend said, all those elements make a large contribution to increasing the productive capacity of the economy. It would be a social and economic tragedy if the Conservative party's plans to abolish the new deal were ever effected. The new deal has been a key element in the successful management of the economy in the past four years. It should remain.

25 Jan 2001 : Column 1077

Business of the House

12.31 pm

Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton): Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business of the House for next week is as follows:

Monday 29 January--Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill.

Tuesday 30 January--Remaining stages of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill.

Wednesday 31 January--Motion on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales).

Motions on Local Government (Finance) Reports.

Thursday 1 February--Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day]. Until about 4 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The Government's Failure to Run an Efficient and Humane Asylum System". That will be followed by a debate entitled "The Government's Neglect of the Crisis in Agriculture". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

Friday 2 February--Private Members' Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:

Monday 5 February--Opposition Day [4th Allotted Day].

There will be a debate on a motion in the name of Plaid Cymru and a debate in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subjects to be announced.

Tuesday 6 February--Second Reading of the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill.

Wednesday 7 February--Remaining stages of the Homes Bill.

Thursday 8 February--Debate on Standards and Privileges on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday 9 February--Private Members' Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business for Westminster Hall next Thursday will be:

Thursday 1 February--Debate on the Tenth Report from the Trade and Industry Committee on Space Policy.

The House will wish to be reminded that on Monday 29 January there will be a debate relating to Members of the European Parliament and the Audit of Expenditure by EP Political Groups in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Monday 29 January 2001:

European Standing Committee B--Relevant European Union documents: (a) 9712/00, Statute for Members of the European Parliament; (b) 9560/00, Audit of expenditure by EP political groups. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 23-xxvii and HC 23-xxix (1999-2000) and HC 28-ii (2000-01).]

Next Section

IndexHome Page