So, as I said, we are expected to believe that it is possible to be absolutely precise about the protected budgets but not about the budgets that will be sacrificed. In addition, I did not hear the Chief Secretary answer the question about the paper on 17 per cent. cuts. That is important because in terms of defence, a 17 per cent. cut is equivalent to more than the entire pay and pensions bill for all the armed forces or a staggering 150 new Chinook helicopters every year. In terms of transport, it represents the entire budget for London and the south-east: for trains, roads, bus subsidies and the tube. For the Ministry of Justice, a cut of 17 per cent. of the budget is the equivalent of 50,000 prison places—that is 60 per cent. of the UK's total gone. No wonder the Chancellor thinks that this is not a time for a spending review. The Chief Secretary may not like my examples, but if he will not spell out the consequences of his plans, it will fall to us to do so. The Government want the political gain of setting budgets in certain Departments without taking the political pain of recognising the consequences of that ring-fencing for other Departments. That is dishonest and disreputable, and it will ultimately backfire on them.
Pre-Budget Report
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hammond of Runnymede
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 7 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on Pre-Budget Report.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
503 c316 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-08 16:38:11 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605171
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605171
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605171