| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Boateng: What the right hon. Gentleman has offered is a cash freeze. This is what he said:
- "I have agreed with my Shadow Cabinet colleagues that the baseline for spending across all of these departmental budgets will be 0 per cent. growth for the first two years.
I fully accept that holding programme spending within departmental expenditure limits other than the NHS and schools to a zero increase for the first two years and to what amounts to a zero real terms increase thereafter is a tough constraint."
Mr. Letwin: I am most grateful to the Chief Secretary for giving way again. It is a tough constraint. The Chancellor said that he had tough choices to make; so have we. We can have his tax rises, or our constraint. Will the Chief Secretary answer the
question? If you have 2½ per cent. efficiency and 2½ per cent. inflation, do you or do you not have to make real-terms cuts in front-line services? Yes or no?
Mr. Boateng: Let the right hon. Member tell that to the shadow Secretaries of State for Defence, International Development and Transport. Or let us return to the quotation—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the Minister. It is no fault of his; there is a lot of shouting.
Mr. Boateng: What the Conservatives would do is freeze expenditure—
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): In each of their Departments.
Mr. Boateng: In each of their Departments. If that is not what the Conservatives are going to do, let the right hon. Gentleman say so. Answer comes there none. This Labour Government—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary is addressing the Chair.
Mr. Boateng: In contrast, this Labour Government are in a position to invest more, not less, and they will do so in areas that will enable the United Kingdom to grow and prosper in the global economy of the future. In this Budget the Government reject the approach of our political opponents, who, faced with tough choices, have consistently shirked them. Let me take them through those choices. The right hon. Gentleman can rise and protest if I misrepresent his position.
We recognise that international terrorism puts additional pressures on law and order, so to keep the country safe and secure the Government are making real-terms increases in spending on our police and other forms of security at home. Will the right hon. Gentleman do likewise? That is the answer that the British people will be waiting for, and the answer that they will note. In contrast, our party has seen the provision of an additional 11,000 police officers. If the Conservatives had their way they would impose cuts amounting to £669 million, the equivalent of 13,000 police officers—and theirs is the party under which crime doubled. There is no commitment from the Opposition to increase expenditure on the police or on all the priorities that are those of the British people.
Let us consider defence. That will give the Opposition another opportunity to clarify their position. We recognise the pressures that are caused by commitments in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq and in the wider fight against terrorism. We will not leave our troops ill equipped or unsupported and we have therefore allocated real-terms increases in defence spending. Will the Opposition do likewise? [Hon. Members: "Answer."] We are entitled to know the Conservative defence policy. Opposition Members would freeze spending on defence and that would amount to cuts of £1.5 billion by 2008—the equivalent of 40,000 personnel. If that is not true, let them now say so. [Hon. Members: "Answer."]
Furthermore, the Government intend to sustain real-terms increases in spending on international development while the Opposition advocate a spending freeze. [Interruption.] One Conservative Front-Bench Member says, "Absolutely" and another says, "No." Such a freeze would mean a real-terms cut of £229 million in the first two years—the equivalent of eliminating the United Kingdom's programmes for Sudan, Sierra Leone and Ethiopia. If that is not true, let Conservative Members now say so. [Hon. Members: "Answer."]
At the heart of this year's Budget, as enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, was the announcement of resources for education, skills, science and technology. They are vital for business, as the CBI recognised, and will drive our future prosperity. It is imperative that we invest in them now. That is why my right hon. Friend announced an extra £8.5 billion for UK education in 2007–08 compared with 2005–06—an average annual increase of 4.4 per cent. across the 2004 spending review period. Are the Opposition prepared to match that?
The reality is that, in contrast to the spending freeze that the Opposition propose, we intend to ensure that we maintain progress in education and children's services. We intend to spend approximately £900 million on children's services. If the Opposition had their way, there would be £900 million of cuts. That would mean 36,000 fewer social workers working with the most vulnerable children. That would be the result of their spending plans.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): My right hon. Friend is cruelly taunting the Opposition, which is highly enjoyable. Perhaps one figure could succour them. How many years does my right hon. Friend believe that it will take for the electorate to forget the Conservative party's record of sheer economic incompetence?
Mr. Boateng: They will never forget it and we will never allow them to forget it.
I want to give the Opposition the opportunity to explain the patient's passport. We have heard many different stories about what it is. What is their commitment? Is it, as we believe, to subsidise private medicine? Does not the patient's passport, as the Opposition describe it, mean taking money out of the NHS and giving it to BUPA? They would prefer one extra patient to be treated by BUPA than tens of thousands of patients to be treated by the NHS.
What exactly is the pupil's passport? On 22 February, the shadow Chancellor said that the pupil's passport could be topped up and used for cheap private schools—St. Trinian's and St. Cuthbert's rather than Eton and Roedean. On 6 March, the Conservative website confirmed that but on 7 March, it claimed that the statement on 6 March was an error and that parents could not top up the pupil's passport. Is the pupils passport on or off? What is the Conservatives' policy on education? The truth is that they simply have not yet worked it out. On health, employment and welfare—
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As the Chief Secretary seems to be getting a bit lost in this political diatribe, may I remind him that he is about to embark on what will be the most difficult public spending round that the Government have faced since they came to office, because they are seeking to slow the growth of public spending. When one of his colleagues tells him that a particular service needs 2.5 per cent. growth, will he tell him that that can be achieved by 2.5 per cent. efficiency savings with no increase in the cash settlement?
Mr. Boateng: Of course I would because we have made it clear where our priorities are. They are on education.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that, even at this stage of the debate, you are allowed to call a different Member on the Government Front Bench to speak? The Chancellor is constantly prompting the Chief Secretary, who is obviously completely lost. Can you call the Chancellor instead, so that we can get a proper version of the Government's policies instead of a second-hand one?
Mr. Speaker: Chancellors are entitled to prod—[Interruption.] Order. I would not dream of stopping the Chancellor from doing that.
Mr. Boateng: It is called teamwork. When we listen to the dissonant voices of right hon. and hon. Members in the Opposition, we realise that, until they start to act like a team, they will never be fit for Government.
The reality is, as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions outlined, that the Budget delivers proposals to tackle unemployment and inactivity. It builds on the success of the new deal, which has already enabled 1 million people to get back into work since 1997. What is the proposal of Conservative Members in relation to the new deal? It is to scrap it. It is to fly in the face of the reality of their constituents and our constituents who have been helped back into gainful employment as a result of the new deal. When the Conservatives last had stewardship of the economy, unemployment topped 3 million. We have created 1.7 million new jobs and we continue to create new jobs. That is good news. That is the difference between them—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Bercow, I have told you before about getting too excited. I will not allow it.
Mr. Boateng: That is the difference between the Conservatives and us. We care about jobs. We care about people. We are delivering to people. We are delivering jobs. Business recognises that it is Labour that works and it will be a disaster were the Tories ever again to get stewardship of the economy. To support our spending plans, the public sector will be seeking—we are entitled to expect it and we will deliver it—value for money to maximise efficiency and to minimise waste.
The choice is clear. In the Budget statement, the Chancellor explained how our hard-won economic stability and sustained growth allow the Government to
commit more investment in the areas that matter to the country, not less, as the Conservative party would have it. The dividing lines between the Conservatives and us are clear. The choice of two futures for Britain is plain: sustained economic stability, or a return to boom and bust, stop and go and deep recession; investment and reform in health, education, transport and tackling crime, or cuts, charges and privatisation; expansion of the new deal, or its abolition; investment in science, or a failure to invest in science. We condemn the cuts and commend the Budget.
- (1) That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance.
(2) This Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |