Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Rob Marris (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 6 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance Bill.


Finance Bill

I am a Labour Member of Parliament. I am not in a position to estimate the size of what I believe are broadly tax cuts proposed by the Conservative party today. I cannot say what the figures are. We were not told the figures, notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman implied. I can say, however, that if the proposals were implemented they would reduce Government revenues further. Unless Government spending were cut massively, a deficit that I think we all agree is huge and worrying would be even greater. There are contradictions in what the Conservatives say we should be doing about taxation and spending. There are the tax cuts to which I have adverted, and there is also the clear implication that the Conservatives would maintain public services. They cannot do that by means of efficiency savings, which is another of the terms that we like to bandy around. I was astounded when the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge belaboured my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary with the question "Why do you not bring the efficiency savings forward to this year?" That is like saying "Instead of buying a new car next year, why do you not buy one this year?" Efficiency savings are not like that, particularly in large organisations. I should have thought that the Conservatives would understand that, given that they are constantly trying to impress on the House how much they know about running organisations. They overlook the fact that some Labour Members have also had significant experience in the private sector and in large organisations. Efficiency savings almost always mean changing the ways in which in which individual human beings work, whether it involves different equipment, different work-flow patterns or anything else. Those things take time. It is not possible to say "We will do them tomorrow, because it is convenient and we will save money." Life is not like that. I have described one of the contradictions on the Conservative Front Bench: the tax cuts and rejection of certain revenue-raising measures in the Finance Bill along with the implication that services will be maintained. Another contradiction—of course, we also see it in the other parties; I learnt years ago that all of us, as human beings, have a great capacity to live with huge contradictions in our personal lives and political beliefs—is that Conservative Back Benchers are standing up and asking for measures that would cost a Government money. Dealing with child poverty and increasing spending on international development are laudable activities, but they cost money. While Tory Back Benchers are, in a sense, asking the House and their own Front Benchers for further spending commitments, the Front Benchers, in contradistinction, are at best going for stasis and at worst going for cuts. I think that that is a huge contradiction, which needs to be resolved in the Conservative party before it is fit to run the country.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
492 c221 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Children Alcoholic drinks Business Corporation tax Credit Bingo Borrowing Finance Income tax Excise duties Fuels Gaming Government assistance Economic growth Forecasts Personal savings Poverty Pensions Public expenditure Scotland Tax allowances Tax avoidance Taxation VAT Trusts Tax rates and bands Tax evasion North Sea oil Trade competitiveness Marginal tax rates
Legislation
Finance Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk