时间：2005年1月19日下午
地点：英国议会下院
时段：Prime Minister’s Questions
事件：托尼·布莱尔PK迈克尔·霍华德，大选临近，火药味弥漫
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised not to increase the basic or top rate of income tax. Will he give the same pledge today?
The Prime Minister: We have of course honoured that pledge. In respect of any pledges that we make at the next election, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to wait for our manifesto. Of course, there will be a Budget in the meantime. I would point out to him that we have not raised the top rate of tax and that we have actually cut the basic rate.
Mr. Howard: Everyone will have noticed that the Prime Minister is not prepared to give that pledge. Now, will he promise not to increase national insurance contributions?
The Prime Minister: As I said before, we will give the details of any tax commitments we make in our manifesto. I might point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government of whom he was a member fought an election specifically on not putting VAT on fuel, and then put VAT on fuel, so we will take no lessons on broken promises on tax from him.
Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister promised not to put up taxes at all. He said that he had no such plans. He said that no one should assume that this Government would increase national insurance contributions, and the first thing that they did after the election was to increase national insurance contributions.
Every independent expert—the International Monetary Fund, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, The Economist, the Institute for Fiscal Studies—says that the Government are spending more than they are raising and that a Labour Chancellor would have to put up taxes. Why does the Prime Minister think that they are all wrong?
The Prime Minister: I think that they are wrong for the very simple reason that the Treasury forecasts on the economy have been proved right. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was the person who told us that we would have a recession as a result of Government policy.
As we are talking about tax commitments, I have been having a look at the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s supposed tax commitments. I hope that he will now publish the detail behind the so-called James review, because it is actually based on the Government’s own savings as set out in Sir Peter Gershon’s report. It also has a set of completely incredible savings.
To give just one example, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to save almost £1 billion from the commissioning of care by primary care trusts, when the total amount of care commissioned by PCTs—the administrative costs—is £90 million.
That is one example, and I will give many, many more. It is a long list, but we will have time to explore it. In addition, he is going to cut the new deal, despite the fact that it has helped hundreds of thousands of people into work, on the very day when unemployment has yet again fallen. That is the difference between Tory cuts and Labour investment.
Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister has got his figures on James wrong, just as the Transport Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster got them wrong on Tuesday. We have published whole of that report—173 pages of it; it is on the Conservative party website. Is it not absolutely clear that the Prime Minister plans to do what he has always done—to put up taxes in the first Budget after a general election? Is it not clear that the choice facing the country is between more waste and higher taxes under Labour and value for money and lower taxes with the Conservatives?
The Prime Minister: I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is into that argument because he says that everything is published on the website, but I have been having a look at what is published.
For example, it says that, by changing the role of regional development agencies, he will save £365 million, yet the total administrative costs of all RDAs are far less than that figure.
It is regeneration programmes in local communities and not bureaucracy that will actually be cut. He says that he will cut £1 billion by scrapping the sustainable communities plan but that figure includes £400 million that is spent on social housing and on helping pensioners and others get a better standard of living. That is not waste, that is cuts in front-line services. I can do no better on his record on tax than to quote this:
"The sad truth is, when we were in office we made promises on tax we couldn't keep."
Who was the author of that statement? The shadow Chancellor.
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on social housing, too. We have spelled out in detail how we shall be able to provide more social housing than the Government. Everybody knows that the Government waste money. The Gershon report says that they waste £21 billion of taxpayers’ money, and we have been able to provide more savings. Have there ever been a Government who taxed so much, wasted so much and achieved so little?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is keen to get away from the detail of that but he is not going to in the days ahead. Let me give another example of his so-called cuts. He says that he will scrap the Small Business Service, which means approximately £400 million—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the Prime Minister that he must concentrate on the policies of his Government. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he has commented on his policies when he should be asking a question. Perhaps the Prime could oblige me.
The Prime Minister: Absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, and therefore let me make a commitment on our policy: we will keep the Small Business Service, not cut it. We will keep the new deal, not cut it. We will keep the money that goes into regeneration, not cut it, and we will keep the money that goes into health care and not cut it.
We will never promise to cut taxes and spend more—the promises that the previous Conservative Government made. What did they end up with? Boom and bust. [Interruption.]
