---

Finance Bill

If I may, I shall make a little more progress before I give way to my hon. Friend, who I know will have trenchant remarks to make, not least because of the challenges faced by his constituents in Peterborough. Imagine my pride when I found myself in Washington DC last week, discussing climate change with various senators and congressmen on the hill. I knew that my Prime Minister was coming, and Pennsylvania avenue was closed, the bunting was out and people were lining the streets. Unfortunately, after a while I realised that it was not for the visit of the Prime Minister but for that of the pontiff. I realised that the Prime Minister's great relaunch from his troubled Government at home had been completely mis-timed. Of course, the Prime Minister's lack of timing is particularly relevant to the Bill, because it comes just when my constituents are finding it hardest to make ends meet, facing high council tax rises—it has doubled under this Labour Government—and seeing their fuel costs going through the roof. Many of them are shift workers in Hull, having to travel from rural Holderness into work each day, and they are finding the costs enormously hard to bear. Just at this time, when so many people—the very backbone of this country—are struggling most to make ends meet, the Prime Minister decides to hit them with an increase in taxes. Lack of timing is in many ways the Prime Minister's weak point, as equally is his inability to take responsibility. It was almost comical when he was asked—in the United States, I think—about selling gold at the lowest point in the market for decades, why he had done this and whether he was responsible. He said no, he was not—it was the fault of the previous Conservative Administration. This is a man for whom denial is some kind of speciality. The Prime Minister, as Chancellor, came before the Treasury Select Committee and was asked about the change to the 10p rate. One of my hon. Friends asked him to explain to the Committee why, if the economy is doing so well, low earners should lose out. He said:"““I do not accept your conclusion about low paid workers””," suggesting that they would not lose out in the end. When asked again about those who would lose out under the change, the then Chancellor said:"““At the end of the day I do not think we will see the effects that you are saying””." There was the report of the meeting of the parliamentary Labour party on 1 April—I would be grateful if Labour Members intervened on me about this—at which the Prime Minister was rightly challenged by Labour Members about the impact of the abolition of the 10p rate. He responded by pointing out that no one would be less well off as a result of the 10p tax rate abolition stated in his last Budget. If the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton wants to intervene, perhaps he can share with the House whether that incident took place. Clearly, no one wants to get to their feet. I think that we can conclude from that that the Prime Minister did in fact say that no one was going to lose out—in complete contravention of the truth. I now give way, as I promised, to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson).