Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 5 January 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Fiscal Responsibility Bill.


Fiscal Responsibility Bill

We are getting to the interesting nub of the argument. We are saying that there is not a good reason to ring-fence Departments. That does not necessarily mean that the Department of Health would be cut, but the implication of the Conservatives' policy—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should hear me out; I am doing the hon. Gentleman the credit of taking him seriously. The implication of his party's policy is that the cuts in schools, police and our soldiers in Afghanistan would be greater, deeper and more fundamental than they would be if all the Departments took the burden of the deficit reduction. That has got to be the case. If the Conservatives would make the cuts across a smaller number of Departments, the cuts would have to be deeper to make up for the fact that some had been ring-fenced. That is a serious question that the Conservative party will have to explain to teachers, police officers and many other public servants and people who use our public services.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
503 c88-9 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Accountability Borrowing Fiscal policy Economic situation Forecasts National income Public sector Public expenditure Public finance Public sector debt Public sector net cash requirement Standards Tax collection Treasury
Legislation
Fiscal Responsibility Bill 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk