---

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Perhaps I should—[Hon. Members: ““More, more!””] It appears that both Chief Whips and shadow Chief Whips sometimes do not know when to keep quiet—[Interruption.] Perhaps the shadow Chief Whip could moderate his tones. The Budget debate will be remembered by many as the one in which the contributions from Back Benchers, even when limited to 10 or 12 minutes were longer than the total contribution by the Leader of the Opposition. So there was to be no more Punch and Judy politics. As we have learned over the last few days, old Tory traits have not gone away. Disappointingly, we have had more of that today from the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). But perhaps I should not have been disappointed by the lack of substance from him. Over the weekend I took the opportunity to read his diary in The Observer. I learned that in the week of the Budget he did several things. He spent considerable time with his children, for which I commend him. He was also reminded that he spent his teenage years watching sumptuous E.M. Forster adaptations, among other things. However, I scanned his contribution in The Observer carefully for the day of the Budget and found nothing, apart from the fact that he sat beside the Leader of the Opposition, who was assailed by a wall of sound. This has been a revealing debate and I especially welcome the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) to her place. I feared last week that she had done a Letwin—I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I mean I feared that she had done a right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—by exposing Tory cuts and then disappearing into the ether. Despite her absence, she certainly made a contribution to the debate, not least on the matter of our investment in education. As she has been reminded more than once, when asked on ““Sky News”” last Wednesday whether her reaction to the Government’s spending meant that the Tories would be spending less, she replied, ““It would, certainly.”” Later that day, when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Ed Balls) to match our Budget commitment on education spending, the shadow Chief Secretary refused and replied, ““That’s not the answer.”” The Opposition were on a roll, because the shadow Chancellor, in interviews, then refused to support her announcements on capital spending and on state school spending. Later that evening, on ““Newsnight””, he could not mention any measure in the Budget that he supported. The next day, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), the shadow Minister for child care, said:"““Of course we support the goal””.—[Official Report, 23 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 508.]" Better yet, the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills said yesterday"““we accept the increase in school spending and the capital spending pledge.””—[Official Report, 27 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 649.]" It is flip-flops all round. First, they want cuts, then they are confused, then they do not want cuts and finally they support our spending plans. What does the shadow Chancellor say now, when offered the opportunity to support our plans? He is unable to answer the question—[Interruption.] Let us look at climate change. For the past six years the Opposition have refused to support the climate change levy, which has cut carbon emissions by 28 million tonnes—[Interruption.] Today, they announce—