Mr Ian Stewart: Will the Minister give way?
Mr Ian Stewart: Will the Minister give way?
Mr Ian Stewart: Mr. Stewart rose—
Mr Ian Stewart: After that extraordinary speech by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), a compound of fantasy and economic nonsense, it is time to bring the debate back to reality. 1 was appointed to the General Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee only a few months ago, so this is the first White Paper on expenditure that I have been able to examine at close quarters from that position. In the past,...
Mr Ian Stewart: Any hon. Member worth his salt wants to get for his constituency as much of the available resources as possible. That is the basis on which they make those applications. Despite the time which has been spent in considering and questioning the Treasury and the Chief Secretary about the White Paper, it does not present a sufficient and reasonable basis for an informed discussion about the...
Mr Ian Stewart: Is it true that the Government have made representations to the United States and other countries that settlements for oil should in future be made in a group of currencies? What would be the implications for the management of the sterling exchange rate if that were the case?
Mr Ian Stewart: The House has rarely been treated to such—
Mr Ian Stewart: Do the Government these days have a policy on exchange rates? If so, is the decline in the value of the pound since the Budget inconsistent with it?
Mr Ian Stewart: Since I have an amendment on the Order Paper which proposes to reduce the 25 per cent. band, it may sound paradoxical if I support all that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said. We would all like to see a much larger band with much lower rates of income tax. I should like to see the basic rate of income tax at 25 per cent., and I am sure that many other hon. Members would agree....
Mr Ian Stewart: If the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) is typical of the people from the area that he represents, it is not surprising that they have frightened off every employer in sight. I have rarely heard such a ridiculous load of balderdash intended as a contribution to a debate in Committee or on the Floor of the House. I think that it would help the Committee if we were to try to discuss...
Mr Ian Stewart: Therefore, he was forced, against his better nature, which I know well, to make a belligerent and irrelevant speech, which is what he does only when he does not believe in the argument that he is putting forward. Why are these amendments being resisted by the Government?
Mr Ian Stewart: I should have thought that it was clear after the rubbish to which we have had to listen about every subject except the amendments. Why have the Government—
Mr Ian Stewart: —gone against their better judgment that moves in this direction should now be made? Of course it is a matter of the class war, but it is an absolutely bogus class war whipped up by the bovver boys of the Red Brigade below the Gangway. We have heard a great deal this evening, as we often do in such debates, about fairness and justice, rich and poor. But we are talking not about wealth but...
Mr Ian Stewart: Labour Members, who think that they know all about these things—
Mr Ian Stewart: —are determined to misunderstand the point of what we are discussing tonight. It is largely because of this ridiculous and unthinking attitude that the Committee is treated on these occasions to displays of disreputable behaviour. We hear a lot about handouts and favours to the rich and so on, but is it a favour to somebody to take away less than 83 per cent. of £1 which he earns? Is it...
Mr Ian Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Murton. The average reduction in real earnings at the bottom end of the scale has been calculated over the last five years, after tax and with adjustments for national insurance, social security and child benefit, to be about 3 per cent. At three times average earnings it is about 14 per cent. At the levels affected by the amendments, in some cases it is 25 per cent. or 30 per...
Mr Ian Stewart: I did not originally expect to take part in the discussions of this new clause, but as I listened to the debate—a debate of exceptional quality—I thought that I should rise to explain one point. I am affected by the new clause and since, if the matter reaches a Division, I shall vote for the proposals, I should explain my position to the Committee. The fact that I am potentially affected...
Mr Ian Stewart: I have a feeling that there is an element of shadowboxing about this debate. We had yesterday a serious and in many ways odd debate about some of the fundamental issues of employment and the level of economic activity. This afternoon's debate is set against that background. The vehicle that the Government have chosen to recover some of their lost revenue as a result of defeats on the Budget...
Mr Ian Stewart: In the summer of 1976 the Chancellor put to the Cabinet some proposals for public expenditure cuts, and, if I recall aright, they were to reduce the borrowing requirement by only £1 billion or so. It was felt that an extra billion was necessary, so the 2 per cent. national insurance surcharge was wheeled on stage at a very late point in the discussions. We did not enact it until about...
Mr Ian Stewart: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, nor do the Government say what they are going to do about tax changes which they have already said are necessary and overdue. It seems to me that a Government have far greater responsibility than an Opposition to spell out their specific plans. After all, if one looks carefully at the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey,...
