Clause 1
Finance Bill
10:45 am
Jeremy Browne (Shadow Chief Secretary To the Treasury, Treasury; Taunton, Liberal Democrat)
It is always difficult to predict behavioural changes, but the proposals have been examined by many people in positions of authority and by respected observers, and they share our confidence that the figures are robust. One could argue that we are excessively pessimistic. Many people in that position may want to spend money that they would otherwise have saved, with that short-term spending boosting the economy and economic growth; they may spend it in local shops, on local goods and services, and there may be a knock-on effect that means that we are being too pessimistic in our assumptions. As a party, we have a reputation for being cautious and wise in that regard, which is why the other parties are so quick to pinch our ideas, so I do not have any worries on that score.
On environmental tax, I remember our predecessor party—the Liberal party—being lampooned by both of the other parties for being environmental and having concerns about the future of the planet, which was considered to be whacko and off the scale. Serious parties talked about serious economic policies and trade union performance and so on; only peripheral parties such as the Liberals or the Liberal Democrats were concerned about such inconsequential matters as environmentalism. More recently, my party was the first to propose differential vehicle excise duty rates which, again, were considered pretty obscure and the sort of thing that only the third party would suggest. The big two parties congratulated each other on not going near those sorts of policies, of which no reputable and serious person would approve. Now, the Government have not only introduced that policy, but they champion it with vigour and are seeking further to extend the rates and differentials. We are often ahead of the thinking of the other two parties, and I make no apologies for that.