Finance Bill

I note the hon. Gentleman's comments, and he has made his point forcefully. That was a long intervention, and I heard what he had to say. I am sure that all other hon. Members in the Chamber, as well as people listening outside, will have heard him too. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire drew to the House's attention the often misstated position in terms of the proportion of public spending that we are accused of engaging in, compared to the Governments of the 1980s led by Mrs. Thatcher. He said that public spending by her Governments amounted to more than 40 per cent. of gross domestic product. I hope that he will accept that that caused the failures that led to unemployment. Someone wanting a case study in the politics of economic failure would do well to examine the experience of those days. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (John McFall) that we welcome his report and will respond fully to it in due course. I heard his comments today, and particularly the emphasis that he placed on the need to get the process right. I was asked a number of questions about why the 10p rate was abolished and why it was introduced in the first place. Members of the House and the public would do well to read my right hon. Friend's report in detail, because it goes into the history of why the 10p tax rate was introduced in the first place, and refers to the Taylor report of 1998. It is well worth reading. We wanted to help as many as people as possible this year, and as quickly as possible. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor decided that the easiest and most effective way to do that would be to raise the personal allowance for all basic rate taxpayers by £600. That means that 22 million people on low and middle incomes will gain an additional £120 this year as a result of our new clauses and amendment. Some 4.2 million households will receive as much as they originally lost, or more, and the remaining 1.1 million households will also see their loss at least halve. I shall turn to new clause 20, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire, and why I hope he will not press it, but I wish to deal first with a couple of other matters. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that his aim for future years is to continue to provide the same level of support for those on lower incomes, and that he will make proposals in the pre-Budget report. We are aware of the importance of doing more to help people who have lost out, and we are considering what more can be done. The changes suggested in the Government's new clauses and amendment represent the fairest and most effective way to help a large number of people who have lost out. I appreciate that new clause 20 is not intended to replace the proposals that we made as a result of the Chancellor's statement.