§ 9. Mr. Newtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he expects to complete consultations on future pay policy before making his next Budget Statement.
§ Mr. HealeyAs I made clear to the House on 15th December 1976, I hope that this will be possible.
§ Mr. NewtonIn the light of the growing problem of the poverty trap and disincentives at every level arising from the interaction of the pay policy and taxation, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that his next Budget Statement, unlike the last, should allow the House to judge these matters together? Will this not be even more important if, as has been reported, it is his intention to abandon the inflation-proofing of short-term social security benefits and to make them part of a package deal on pay and tax?
§ Mr. HealeyThe hon. Gentleman must not believe everything he reads in the newspapers. I have made clear on many occasions that I hope to be able to reduce the burden of income tax in my next Budget. It is always open to the House to consider tax questions in relation to benefits and in most previous Budget debates these comparisons have been made.
§ Mr. MolloyDoes not my right hon. Friend agree that in the interests of all sections of the community a sensible and fair pay policy is vital for the economy? Would he make a particular point of ignoring the ridiculous reaction of the Chairman of the CBI and some right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench to the Bullock Report? They have hardly had time to study it, yet, because it tries, rightly or wrongly, to give working men an interest in their industries, the Opposition condemn it out of hand. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that such an attitude will not help him in his consultations for a future pay policy?
§ Mr. HealeyMy hon. Friend's views on the need for a pay policy has overwhelming support among the British people and I wish that they had the same sort of support in the Conservative Party. I have indicated that the reactions of some CBI spokesmen to the proposals in the Bullock Report were far too speedy and ill-considered in some respects. I hope that the opportunity will be taken to consider the matter at leisure and in a calmer mood. I commend to all concerned the tone of today's leading article in The Guardian, which says that this is 1688 a matter of immense importance in which pondering is more important than shouting.
§ Mr. WigleyWill the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind in his review of the impact of income tax that the most needed change in the tax structure is a substantial raising of the income tax threshold and that for it to be really effective and to remove the liability to tax of families on subsistence incomes he will have to think in terms of £2,000 million?
§ Mr. HealeyI agree that raising the income tax threshold should be a major element in any reduction of the burden of income tax, but the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on the figure mentioned in his question.
§ Sir G. HoweWill the right hon. Gentleman not bear in mind that, in considering reactions to the Bullock Report, it is beside the point to talk about experience in Germany and other countries because they have had 30 years' experience of similar approaches although, even now, they do not go anything like as far as the suggestions in the Bullock Committee's majority report would take us in one leap in the trade union domination of industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that there is widespread concern about the proposals and that he should give that concern proper thought instead of brushing it aside?
§ Mr. HealeyI am deeply grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for suggesting that I should not bear in mind any of his remarks. I shall not bear them in mind because they bear no relation to reality.