Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Blunkett (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 30 March 2010. It occurred during Budget debate on Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation.


Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Of course we introduced that system precisely because there was no financial regulation. We also made the Bank of England independent, so that it could make judgments and intervene independently—and of course the Opposition opposed that, too. The contradictions abound. We know that it is necessary to take care and time to determine what needs to be done. We know it, because one year ago we anticipated that in 2014-15 debt would be £100 million more than we now expect it to be. Even three months ago we thought that growth was just 0.1 per cent., and it turns out that growth is 0.3 percentage points higher than that, based on the recently announced readjustment. Indeed, we know that the growth that can be achieved, the changes that can be ascertained and the way in which we need to proceed are a moveable feast. Above all, we need to be clear about who carries the consequences for the decisions that we make. Of course, on the macro scale, we have to take into account the consequences of what is happening globally, but we, as political representatives and the only voice of most people in this country who do not have wealth and privilege, have to speak out about the consequences of too rapid a cutback, too rapid a disinvestment and too many cuts to front-line services. I heard the shadow Business Secretary say that his 1997 Budget was wonderful and that we stuck to it. Actually, we did not. I was the shadow Education and Employment Secretary from 1994, and in market towns throughout Britain in 1995 and 1996 I spoke to parents, teachers and children whose schools were falling apart—whose roofs were leaking. Primary schools were reliant on outside toilets, the teaching profession had totally collapsed and there were four-day weeks. There was under-recruitment, so teachers with no training had to be placed in the classroom; there were no teaching assistants; books were being recycled; and parents were being asked to pay for them. That was the reality, and in 1997 the July emergency Budget put £700 million more into the education service, and £1 billion of new deal money from the windfall levy, from which we also benefited in terms of the employment drive that got people back to work. We do not want to go back to the era that I have described: it would not be the shadow Chancellor; it would be more like John Osborne—look back in anger and see just what happened when the Conservatives put their friends before the electorate of the country's most disadvantaged constituencies, such as mine.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
508 c686 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Childcare Cost effectiveness Capital investment Education Economic situation Pre-school education Public expenditure Schools VAT Economic recession Academies Children's centres Cuts Budget March 2010
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk