Fairness must be the priority for PM Sunak
THIS weekend, Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt will be putting the finishing touches to the last Budget before the General Election. He is, of course, being lobbied by pressure groups, to ease the tax burden on both business and the general public.
Naturally, I would very much like to see my tax burden reduced, but believe that before he gives thought to such a consideration, he should remember that his government has some financial liabilities they are duty bound to settle.
The first of the three main obligations are in relation to compensation payments for the contaminated blood sufferers who have been waiting for resolution of their claims for nearly 50 years. It is estimated that there are some 30,000 of these, and the latest news is that they must wait until the early summer for the result of an Inquiry. Mr Sunak has conceded liability, but seems reluctant to settle on his watch!
The second obligation is the much-publicised plight of some 900 plus sub-postmasters. There has been wickedness here for which Government bears ultimate responsibility. Again Mr Sunak wrings his hands, but in the real world, compensation being offered is way below what their legal representatives, advised by financial experts, are being offered. The Chancellor must put in reserve, an amount to cover fair and just compensation. To do less would add insult to injury.
Thirdly, there is the vexed question of settlement of pay claims from doctors and other medical staff. Unusually, as far as I am aware, no Minister has refuted the claims of their loss of spending power since 2008 and this section of the working community has seen their “take-home” pay dramatically reduced. To attract quality staff, the pay offered must be right.
The Prime Minister constantly emphasises the fact that he is fair, so he should be seeking a just settlement for doctors and all medical staff.
He should equally get a grip on the outstanding problems involving postmasters and haemophilia sufferers.
Of course, everybody would like to pay less tax, but I believe that it would be morally wrong to announce tax easements in the hope of winning a few more votes in the ballot box.