(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberCan the Minister explain how it was that he was able to give a very positive answer to his noble friend about, as he described it, the benefits to the Exchequer of reducing the top rate of tax, but that when my noble friend Lord Eatwell asked him a very valid question about people who had deferred taking their bonuses from the high-tax period to the lower-tax period, he said that it was impossible to speculate about it? He understands the benefits but he cannot acknowledge the simple statistic that my noble friend put to him.
The absolutely bald point that lay behind the question of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is that when you do this kind of thing at the top end of tax rates, very well-off people take evasive action. That is why it is an ineffective way of raising additional amounts of money. People do not just sit there and pay the tax: they forestall it, postpone it and avoid it. This is why it was a very ineffective way of trying to raise additional funding.
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I rise only to reflect that if this were a fully elected House, the proceedings that have just taken us about 30 seconds would probably have taken us three weeks instead.
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy noble friend is completely right, and it would be a one-club game if we were not doing all sorts of things on the supply side, such as reducing corporation tax from 28% to 22%, the national loan guarantee scheme of £20 billion, cutting red tape for the first time in living history, enterprise zones, the Regional Growth Fund, the largest number of apprenticeships ever funded by any Government and completely overhauling the planning system, to name a few supply-side reforms.
Is it in any way conceivable that some of the responsibility—just a smidgeon—for the fact that we are in a double-dip recession lies with the Government?
We are working extremely hard on the reforms that I have talked about to make sure that we have sustainable public finances and a more balanced economy.
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberPerhaps I may ask about a matter of significance to this Parliament. Will the Minister clarify whether there will be just five or six days between Committee and Report on the Bill? The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is in his place, and he will know that the Leader’s report, which he commissioned, recommended very strongly that the minimum intervals between stages of Bills should be respected. As the House will remember, they were abused at the time of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, and I would be troubled—as the House should be—if they are being abused again now.
My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that this is not an abuse. The matter was agreed because we were meeting a legitimate concern and expectation, expressed by a number of your Lordships across the House, that we should defer some sittings of the Committee until such time as the United Kingdom Government’s consultation had concluded. That was welcomed at the time; and because of that, the timescales inevitably had to be short.
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberDoes the Minister think that the Deputy Prime Minister’s proposals for the banks are better or worse than his proposals for constitutional reform?
My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister is always full of interesting, constructive and important ideas that deserve very serious consideration.
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberI shall not comment on individual discussions about market matters, but I again note some of the positive developments in Europe collectively as well as the auctions since the beginning of the year by Portugal, Spain and Greece. However, we must recognise that the currency situation remains very fragile.
As the Minister is clearly pleased that Britain is not a member of the euro, would he like to remind the House which Government made that decision and would he like to join me in congratulating them on making the right decision?