Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from George Osborne (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 20 October 2010. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Comprehensive Spending Review.


Comprehensive Spending Review

First, let me thank my hon. Friend for the welcome that he gave—to repeat what I said —to what I implied about PFI, the contribution that the BBC will make and the very difficult choice that we all have to make in this Parliament about what is a fair settlement on Equitable Life. In particular, helping the trapped annuitants is an absolute priority and it is a good thing and, as I said, we found three times as much money as John Chadwick recommended. My hon. Friend raised two particular points. First, he mentioned ring fences, and although we call them ring fences, in the end they are about priorities. We have made a choice. As a coalition Government, we have chosen certain things that we are going to cut—obviously we have made some difficult decisions on welfare—but we have also chosen to spend more money on health care and the resources going into schools. Those are choices, and in the end that is what politics in a democratic country is about. We have made those choices, so I would not regard them particularly as ring fences, more as democratic choices. Finally, on the distributional impact, we have published distributional analyses in the book that I have published today—my hon. Friend will know that we are the first Government to attempt to do this—and I will very much welcome the Treasury Committee's inquiry on the spending review, which I know he will conduct. We have used the methodology that is used in many other countries to try to allocate the benefit in kind of public expenditure, as well as the direct income effect of some of the benefit changes. We believe that that shows this is broadly progressive, in that the top quintile pays the most and it is broadly flat across the other quintiles. The same is true of some of the annually managed expenditure decisions as well, on which we have also published tables. I very much welcome the Treasury Select Committee's inquiry and its work on this matter. As I have said, this is the first time the British Treasury has attempted to do this, and we very much welcome the Committee's input.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
516 c971-2 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Child tax credit Compensation Crime prevention Disadvantaged Benefits rules Cost effectiveness Defence BBC Age Contributions Devolution Capital investment Civil servants Development aid Civil list Fares Housing benefit Government departments Interest charges Economic situation Equitable Life Assurance Society NHS Police Local government finance Workplace pensions Public sector Public bodies Public expenditure Pupils Railways Redundancy Non-departmental public bodies Midland Metro Public finance M25 Public sector debt Social security benefits Welfare tax credits State retirement pensions Working tax credit Terrorism Schools Reform Social rented housing Reviews Retirement Science Tyne and Wear Metro Security of tenure S4C Sure Start programme BBC World Service A3 Cuts Employment and support allowance M4 M62 M5 Olympic Games 2012 Presbyterian Mutual Society Departmental expenditure limits Bank levy Green Investment Bank A11 Birmingham New Street Station
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk