Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Christopher Chope (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 16 April 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance (No. 4) Bill.


Finance (No. 4) Bill

My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to hide behind the manifesto commitments made by the Conservative party and the Prime Minister. I was going to refer later to some of the background, but, prompted by that intervention, I will perhaps say the following. When the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he said:"““I want the next Government to be the most family friendly Government we've ever had in this country””." On 5 March 2010, he told a public meeting in Bolton that he would not change child benefit. On 6 October 2009, six months or so earlier, the then shadow Chancellor, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, told the Conservative party conference:"““We will preserve child benefit””." I certainly went into the general election thinking that we would preserve child benefit as part of the universal benefit system in the same way as we would preserve the universal benefits that are applicable to so many of my constituents, as my hon. Friend points out. My belief was reinforced on 22 June 2010, when the Chancellor said in his Budget speech in this House that"““we have decided to freeze child benefit for the next three years. This is a tough decision, but I believe that it strikes the right balance between keeping intact this popular universal benefit, while ensuring that everyone across the income scale makes a contribution to helping our country reduce its debts.””—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 173.]" At that stage, everybody thought that that was the end of it. We would retain child benefit, but freeze it for three years, The yield to the Exchequer of freezing child benefit in 2013-14 is no less than £1 billion. Looking back, I think that that was also the point at which the Chancellor should have said that he was going to freeze the age-related allowances. If had that been presented in the same context, with those in receipt of child benefit having their benefit frozen at the same time as those in receipt of age-related allowances had theirs frozen, I do not think that there would have been a row about it as there has been this time. That is the background, so how were we able to end up with the Government effectively launching an attack on hard-working families with children? The Government have got themselves into a mess because they have not complied with their own policy of properly discussing the issues in advance of introducing measures. An interesting document, ““Tax policy making: a new approach””, was produced immediately after the election. It was issued by the Treasury in June 2010 and in the preface, my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary said:"““I want a new approach to tax policy making; a more considered approach. Consultation on””" tax"““design and scrutiny of draft legislative proposals should be the cornerstones of this approach.””"


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
543 c63-4 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Child benefit Alcoholic drinks Charities Business Corporation tax Banks Caravans Air passenger duty Housing Donors Income tax Excise duties Fuels Fiscal policy Economic situation Foreign companies Pension credit Personal income Pensioners Low incomes Pensions Prices Welfare tax credits Small businesses Tax allowances Tax avoidance Taxation VAT Stamp duties Tax rates and bands Stamp duty land tax Age allowances
Legislation
Finance Bill 2010-12 to 2012-13
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk