---

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

No. This is the delay argument. We are supposed to having a debate about whether we should start to act straight away or whether some economic virtue will allow the Government to go on without making any serious adjustments beyond the election and before recovery comes. I do not accept that. It is arguable, but it seems to me quite obvious that the reason why the Government are arguing for delay is that they have decided to fight the election on a rosy and complacent perspective, so the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been instructed not to address the long-term problem in the Budget. We have all seen the Prime Minister being persuaded only with great difficulty and very belatedly to recognise the need for any public spending cuts at all. It is a political tactic, not economic calculation, that is causing the delay. The Prime Minister is particularly fond of speaking as though the increased spending and increased borrowing from 2010 to 2011 is some sort of contrived fiscal stimulus or a plan. It is not a plan; it is the fag-end years of the Government in which there has been no proper control of public spending, leading to a mismatch, now reaching £4 of spending for £3 of revenue, which is piling up the deficit. Yet that is described as a fiscal stimulus. We have no policy in place or in operation to stimulate the economy—apart from a scrappage scheme for boilers, which is not going to lift our economy very far. All that we have is a purely political refusal to face up to answering the questions before the election takes place. On efficiency savings, there are two elements to consider. Of course we must all make efficiency savings—those on both sides of the Chamber talk about them—and the public are extremely aware of the need to cut wasteful spending. We addressed the national insurance increase and identified areas where we were confident that we could avoid that particular tax increase—[Interruption.] It is no good saying, "Come on, Ken". As for the national insurance increase, the moment it was announced I said what I have said throughout—I cannot remember whether I said it first in the House—namely that national insurance was the worst possible tax base for the Government to turn to if they wanted to raise revenue in a recession. It is a tax that should be avoided at a time when a Government are trying to nurture a weak economic recovery. It is not only an income tax on everyone in work, but—more important, in my opinion—a tax on jobs. It stops employers hiring new staff, and discourages them from retaining the staff whom they already have. It also puts pressure on their wage costs. The Federation of Small Businesses estimates that it would probably have cost 57,000 jobs had it been allowed to stand.