Tax Cuts and Public Services — 1 Mar 2000

I beg to move,

That this House notes the continued underfunding of the National Health Service compared to the European average, as recently highlighted by the Prime Minister, the continued underfunding of schools, with average class sizes rising for most age groups since the election of the Labour Government, that government investment in public transport is significantly below that provided by the previous Government, that police numbers are falling, and that the 75p increase in the weekly pension is grossly inadequate; and concludes that instead of tax cuts the Chancellor should give greater priority to further improvement in the National Health Service, schools funding, public transport, the police and a greater increase in state pensions.

Nobody wants to pay more taxes but cutting is another matter. What bothers me is whether the money that goes in tax cuts . . . would be better spent on areas of direct social need.

the government . . . is on the side of the risk taker;

the budget will introduce tax breaks for share schemes and new corporate ventures.

While the Tories want a millionaire's tax cut for themselves . . . a

Chancellor will not waste money on boardroom excesses.

The basic state pension will remain indexed to prices?

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

'welcomes the fact that the Government is making work pay and cutting taxes for hard-working families; welcomes the fact that, as a result, the tax rate on a typical family will be cut to its lowest level since 1972, and that, on average, families with children will be £740 a year better off; notes that the Liberal Democrats oppose the measures that made this possible, including the Working Families Tax Credit; further welcomes the fact that the Government is making record extra investment in public services, including an extra £40 billion in health and education; notes that this is far in excess of anything promised by the Liberal Democrats at the time of the last General Election; and notes the reckless and uncosted spending commitments made by the Liberal Democrats, which they have no idea how to pay for and which would take Britain back to Tory boom and bust.'.

While we understand and support what the Government are trying to achieve in . . . tackling long-term unemployment and exclusion, we disagree profoundly with their means of funding it--the windfall tax."--[ Official Report , 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 326.]

Liberals are the flying saucers of politics. No one can make head nor tail of them and they are never seen in the same place twice.

All you have to do is tell us what you want to spend the money on.

We are only cutting the future investment, not the past.

Mr. Portillo's economic team is working on proposals to make the guarantee more believable.

new sense of self esteem.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:--

The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 280.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |