---

Finance Bill

I was not here for the earlier part of the debate, but I imagine that the hon. Gentleman asked his own Front-Bench team whether they would do what was necessary in order to balance the books. I do not know what answer he got. The issue at the moment, however, is that if we do not reduce public expenditure, the burden on hard-working families will be even greater. That is a point that I made earlier in the year, when I introduced a private Member's Bill on employment opportunities. As I said then, the minimum wage is currently £5.73 per hour. That equates to an annual income of £11,918 for a 40-hour week, but results in a tax and national insurance bill for £1,887 a year, leaving take-home pay at only £4.82 an hour. In other words, £1 an hour has been taken away from what the Government have said is the minimum needed to live on. The issue here is affordability. I shall not refer to all the tables in the Red Book, but one of them deals with allowances, which are, I believe, the subject of clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. According to that table, in 1996-97—the last year of the Major Government—the personal allowance for an individual was £3,765. This year it will be £6,475. The Government are saying that they have been able to increase the proportion of their earnings people can keep for themselves by some 75 per cent., but the problem is that meanwhile they are bragging about having increased public expenditure by 100 per cent.—doubling it—in the same period, thereby denying people the opportunity to have more money in their pockets to spend as they wish. The position is bad enough for people on relatively low incomes, given that the personal allowance now applies at some £5,400 less than what would be the minimum wage for someone working a 40-hour week. However, that problem is small compared with the problem further up the income scale, where people move from the basic to the higher tax rate. Back in 1996-97 the basic rate limit was £25,500. In the current year it will be £37,400. That is not an increase of 75 per cent., as with the personal allowance, but an increase of only about 40 per cent. People who might be described as being on middle incomes are being savaged by increases in what are, in many cases, stealth taxes. The Government do not go up front and say, "The reason why you are paying so much more in tax is that we have refused to index your allowances in line with inflation"—let alone earnings. The burden on what might be described as the most productive part of the economy is becoming unbearable, unsustainable and unaffordable. We have reached a point at which people are saying, "Why bother to work?" because so much of their extra income will be taken in tax. Of course, it will always be possible for those who are most mobile to move their businesses and activities overseas. It might be asked what we are to do about our captains of industry and key professionals and entrepreneurs, but I shall not concentrate on that question. A much larger number of people will be adversely affected, as is strongly reflected in my constituency. I am thinking of those who might be described as ordinary hard-working families, who say that they cannot afford this Labour Government and want a general election now. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to table amendments to clause 2, which deals with the income tax basic rate limit for 2009-10, and, obviously, to clause 3, which is related. As for clause 4, it appears to me that the Government think it would be reasonable in 2010-11 for someone earning £100,002 to pay back £1 of the last £2 in reduced personal allowance. In addition, they would have to pay 40p in the pound for each of those £2, so that would be another 80p gone. There would be nothing left for them. Some Labour Members may welcome that, but that is the politics of envy. This takes us back to the very high marginal tax rates that the Conservative Government of 1979 had to deal with so quickly when they first came into office. I hope that an incoming Conservative Government in the future will do exactly the same, but I respect the fact that a judgment must be made; until we know when the election will be and we then see the books, we cannot make a decision on that. It is great to be able to participate in an open-ended debate, as our speeches in this House are often restricted because of the Government's inability to face up to the fact that democracy involves debate and the exchange of views across the Chamber. Discussion of the Finance Bill is the only occasion when Back Benchers are able to have such a debate, and I am pleased to be able to participate in it. I hope that my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, will not feel inhibited about the length of time that he can take to respond to the debate, and I also hope that the Minister will respond to all the points that have been made. I expected my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) to refer to clause 56, which deals with MEPs' pay, allowances and pensions under the European Parliament statute. The clause takes us back to other Government broken promises, such as the fact that they promised a referendum but did not give one, and that they promised not to increase the higher rate of tax but are doing just that. It also takes us back to the fact that the people who promote the Lisbon treaty want to move towards having a country called Europe. Fortunately, there is not a country called Europe at present, and as a result, although the salaries of MEPs will be paid by something called the European Community, the explanatory notes on clause 56 state that we do not have a double tax treaty with the European Community because it is not a country, so we have to legislate specifically for this. It is not a territory, and that is why clause 56 is in the Bill. I hope that in due course my hon. Friend the Member for Stone will have a chance to look into the constitutional implications of that. Clause 91 sums up the Finance Bill and the attitude of the Government. It""requires HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to prepare and maintain a Charter. The Charter will set out the standards of behaviour and values to which HMRC will aspire in dealing with taxpayers and others."" In other words, there is no legal foundation, because there will be no remedy in law for any breaches of the charter. This is just an aspiration. It is a fraud upon the people to suggest that this is a charter. We know that when the Government consulted on the matter""they suggested that there was no need for a Charter to be supported by legislation. But most respondents argued that a legal foundation would be the best way of ensuring that the Charter would be an effective and enduring document."" So what have this Government done? Typically, they have introduced legislation that is absolutely meaningless because "aspire" is a term that cannot be challenged in court. I hope my Front-Bench colleagues will ensure that we have the opportunity to toughen up that clause during the progress of the Bill. The Government have been full of aspirations on behalf of the people of this country, but they have failed those people big time. That is why I think that this is an appalling Bill, and I look forward to having the opportunity to vote against it this evening.