The Opposition can decide what they want to do and whether they want to force a vote. Amendment 2 is very clear, and its implications would be that the deficit would be cut more slowly than the Government propose. That runs counter to the Opposition's policy. That is why they seem to me to be confused and muddled in their thinking and in what they are trying to achieve with their amendments.
Given the profound impact of the global financial crisis on the deficits and the national debt in all major economies, it is right to focus on reducing the deficit and stabilising debt. That is what the Government are trying to do, and it is what we are proposing to do through clause 1. The amendments are confusing and muddled, and although I do not disagree with the overall principle of wanting to get structural borrowing down—that is, of course, a right and sensible thing to do—I do not think the amendment is helpful, and I hope the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire will withdraw it. If he does not, I strongly advise my hon. Friends to resist it.
Fiscal Responsibility Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Ian Pearson
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 20 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Fiscal Responsibility Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
504 c350 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:00:07 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_612214
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_612214
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_612214