Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Greg Clark (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 21 April 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance Bill.


Finance Bill

The hon. Gentleman's constituents in Luton will be delighted that he has chosen a debate on a practical matter, about which I am sure they have written to him, to rehearse tired arguments that are 20 and 30 years old rather than deal with the problem in hand. I suggest that we deal with the problem in hand. Ministers on the Treasury Bench should give some indication of how they intend to get out of the mess that they have got into. They should not pretend that there are no means available to do that. The calamitous Budget that resulted in this situation had implications for charities too; I should say that I am a Front-Bench spokesman on charities. Charities were caught up in the issue of whether the circumstances were unforeseen or, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said in his masterful speech, the result of a rather more cunning enterprise—to raise revenue without disclosing its source. Charities found that they would be paying £70 million a year, given the reduction in gift aid coming from the reduction in the basic rate. The then Chancellor kept quiet about that in his Budget speech, but in this year's Budget the Chancellor came forward with a package of £285 million to relieve charities for a limited, three-year period. The Treasury was exercised and busy in trying to find a way to get charities out of the mess that it had created for them, but what was wrong with the low paid? Why could the Treasury not give them the thought and attention that it gave charities? Why have the Chancellor and Prime Minister said that they will start thinking about that now? Why did they not do that before the most recent Budget? Why do we have to wait for the pre-Budget report and the Budget after that? I am conscious that time is short. It is lamentable that the Government have chosen to hit our pensioners, and the very people whom we want to encourage into work and give the best start, with this doubling of tax. If that was a mistake, the Government should admit it; if it was deliberate, they should recant it. I hope that on Monday practical steps will be taken immediately to address the serious problem that faces my constituents and others around the country.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
474 c1146 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Children Child tax credit Child benefit Alcoholic drinks Charities Capital gains tax Aviation Corporation tax Banks Climate change Capital investment Credit Bingo Air passenger duty Civil partners Families Environment protection Income tax Fuels Inheritance tax Government assistance Double taxation Domicil Economic situation EU emissions trading scheme Forecasts Pensioners Low incomes Poverty Minimum wage Public houses Personal taxation Married people Low pay Public finance New businesses Public sector debt Migrant workers Working tax credit Small businesses Tax allowances Tax avoidance Taxation VAT Supermarkets Dividend tax credits Winter fuel payment Secured loans Revenue and Customs Carbon emissions Research and development tax credit Institute for Fiscal Studies Earnings limits Budget March 2007 Enterprise investment scheme
Legislation
Finance Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk