Income Tax (Charge)

Neil Coyle Excerpts
Monday 4th November 2024

(1 day, 20 hours ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride Portrait Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Labour party pledged at the last election to usher in a new form of politics based on transparency and integrity. When pressed, Labour Members ruled out a large number of tax rises. One of these taxes, as the Labour manifesto explicitly stated, was national insurance:

“we will not increase National Insurance”.

Yet, only a few short weeks later, what has happened in this Budget? Employers’ national insurance contributions have been raised, which is a direct breach of the Labour manifesto. Do not take my word for it—Paul Johnson, the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has said exactly the same.

Of course, despite being at the scene of the crime, the Government have since hidden behind their alibi that, somehow, putting up employers’ national insurance contributions will have no impact on working people, but that is simply untrue.

Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh Portrait Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---
Mel Stride Portrait Mel Stride
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As the right hon. Lady knows full well, it is accepted that the key measure is absolute poverty after housing costs. She cannot flit between one measure and another when it suits her. The reality is that it is projected that 100,00 more children and 300,000 more adults will be in poverty as a consequence of the Budget.

Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle
- Hansard - -

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mel Stride Portrait Mel Stride
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

How can I finally resist the hon. Gentleman, who is just itching to make some point about integrity? The Floor is his.

Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle
- Hansard - -

The shadow Chancellor raises the issue of integrity and he talks about poverty. Many disabled people live in poverty. When he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, he told the House that there would be no investigation into the Department for Work and Pensions for unlawful treatment of disabled people. Does he owe this House, or does he owe disabled people, an apology?

Mel Stride Portrait Mel Stride
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I stand by our record when I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, particularly on the support that the Department gave to the disabled, not least the results that we achieved in encouraging and helping them into work, which is the best possible outcome.

When there has been such a perpetration of deceit, there must be the alibi—the smokescreen—which is, of course, the fictitious, confected black hole of £22 billion. Labour Members rubbed their hands in glee when the OBR said it would be looking into the matter. It reported back, on the day of the Budget, and what did it find? It found that it was not able to legitimise that black hole of £22 billion, and came up with a figure for in-year fiscal pressure that was below half that. It observed that if it had been focused on that figure at the time of the spring Budget, conversations would have been held, and it is conceivable that the number would have been smaller still.

From our experience in government, we know that it is quite normal practice to manage in-year fiscal pressures, and to net off the underspends against the overspends. In reality, this black hole is “a dead parrot”. It has ceased to be. If it was not nailed to its perch, it would be “pushing up the daisies”. Far from being just “shagged out” after a prolonged squark, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is dead: the black hole is “an ex-parrot”.