| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brown: But once again this is why the public have no trust in politicians. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The House must now settle down. The Chancellor was given a reasonable hearing, and the shadow Chancellor must have the same.
Mr. Brown: I ask the Chancellor: is a proposal to reduce state support for post-16 education under consideration? The document says:
- "Consideration is currently being given to reducing state support."
The Chancellor is now asking the Chief Secretary. He cannot tell me that that proposal is not under consideration, and I have to assume that, despite all that is said about the Labour party having an open review, in private the Conservatives, in the most hypocritical way, have been discussing reducing support for over-16s. [Interruption.] The Chancellor cannot correct it, can he?
Mr. Clarke:
I have not asked the grade 7 who wrote this what it is based on. I can only answer for the Government's policy. I did not know that the document was being prepared in the Department, so I do not know who is considering what. All I can say is that it has nothing to do with the Government. It has nothing to do with the debate.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not the Government's policy to contemplate these things. My hon. Friend the Chief Secretary says that part of the document contemplates the consequences to the Treasury of higher public spending under a Labour Government. Is that the right hon. Gentleman's policy? That might be slightly more relevant to where we are.
Mr. Brown:
The document says that consideration is currently being given to that. Again, I am not satisfied, and I do not think that the country will be.
Let us move on to the third proposition. The whole gist of the document is that, because--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I have just told the House that it must settle down and give the shadow Chancellor a fair hearing.
Mr. Rod Richards (Clwyd, North-West)
rose--
Mr. Douglas French (Gloucester)
rose--
Mr. Brown:
I am not giving way at the moment. I have given way about 10 times to the Chancellor to allow him to clarify a point, which he has not been able to do after 10 interventions.
The document's third point is:
The problem is that, far from the Treasury contemplating that and asking what it can do to improve our status in the world league, the document says that the issue is how we can manage decline. It says:
The main point that the document comes to is that, as a result of the economic decline that Britain will experience, and as a result of our falling down the world league--what it calls
What proposals are being put forward? The House should be clear that, despite the Chancellor's bluster, these are real proposals. First, the document says that it will examine key elements--
Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown:
I will not. I shall explain to the House what is in the document, so that it can judge whether the Chancellor is being accurate with it about the Treasury's intentions in the matter.
Mr. David Shaw (Dover):
The right hon. Gentleman is out of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The Chair will decide what is in order.
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the House to have to listen to extensive quotations from a document that has not been made available to hon. Members?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
It must be in order, or the Chair would have ruled it out of order.
Mr. Brown:
I do not know why Conservative Members are getting so upset.
Earlier this morning, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said:
Far from Treasury civil servants dreaming up ideas from nowhere, they are examining ideas that are being floated by Back-Bench Members--and, in some cases, members of the Cabinet--including the Secretary of State for Social Security. That is the issue we should face. Let us consider what is being proposed.
Mr. Quentin Davies:
Will the right hon. Gentleman finally come out from the smokescreen behind which he has been hiding for the whole of his speech so far, and answer some of the fundamental questions put to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor? For example, what would be his target for the public sector borrowing rate?
Mr. Brown:
The hon. Gentleman has on one occasion at least voted with us recently because of his concern about what is happening, and I am glad that he has intervened. He went to the electorate saying that he wanted to pay for continuing improvements in health, education and other services, unlike the chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench finance committee, who said this morning that he was looking for big cuts in education and other social services as a result of this document, or the right hon. Member for Wokingham, who also wants major cuts.
Far from the proposals that I am outlining being isolated fringe elements--
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham):
Will the right hon. Gentleman put the record straight and make it clear that I have always said that education, health, defence and law and order should be protected? I made it clear this morning that there were ideas in the paper that could never be adopted by a Conservative Government, but were attractive to the Labour party.
Mr. Brown:
Yes, but the right hon. Member for Wokingham and the Chancellor do not see eye to eye on this. The right hon. Member for Wokingham this morning said:
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford):
Given the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, can we assume that, because the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others
Mr. Brown:
Once again, I am extremely glad that the hon. Gentleman has intervened, because he can confirm that he was the author of the pamphlet that suggested privatising pensions, unemployment insurance and sickness insurance. Far from Conservatives rushing to tell us in the debate that they support the Chancellor on all those issues, the truth is that, by self-selection to intervene, the No Turning Back group is dominating the agenda in the Conservative party all the time.
"Britain will move down the league ranking of world nations."
It says:
"There will be a major shift in economic power away from Britain."
It suggests that Britain will fall behind Mexico, Brazil and Thailand, and that, in 2015, national income per head in Thailand and other countries will be higher than ours, despite the fact that income in Thailand is a third of ours at the moment.
"Greater economic power is likely to be followed by greater demands for political power. Our role in the international organisations will change as we move down the ranking. The issue is how we retain any influence."
The Opposition will not accept the pessimism and defeatism implied in that document. We will take the measures that will reverse the decline. After 17 years of Conservative government, the Treasury says that there is no head of department in the Treasury who has any responsibility for dealing with the problems of the real economy. That is a sad indictment of 17 years of Conservative rule.
"expected change in the UK's relevant position in the world economy"--
we shall not be able to afford the welfare state.
"I am glad that the Treasury is looking through these ideas".
The chairman of the Back-Bench Conservative finance committee, the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), said that he welcomed many of the ideas. Five Conservative Members produced the No Turning Back group pamphlet, "Three Phases of Changes in the Welfare State". The third phase would
"Give people the opportunity to contract out of unemployment and invalidity insurance. Give people the opportunity to contract out of the basic state pension. Make employers insure employees against industrial injuries."
[Laughter.] How can the Chancellor and Conservative Members laugh at proposals as if they had never heard of them before, when they are being actively advocated by senior members of the Conservative party, many of whom are sitting here today?
"A lot of these ideas are being discussed. Some are being rejected. Some are being welcomed or pushed."
Later, on the "One O'clock News", he said:
"Some of it is Government policy. Some it may become Government policy."
Far from suggesting that the document should be thrown aside and regarded as the work of cranks, as the Chancellor said this morning, the right hon. Member for Wokingham supports many of the document's proposals.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |