Autumn Statement Resolutions

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Let me welcome you back from your important visit, Mr Speaker, and begin by welcoming the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards). She will find this to be quite a robust, feisty place, where perhaps courtesy is not what it should be, but we should commend an exemplary maiden speech and wish her all the best in her parliamentary career.

I am grateful to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, for this important opportunity to comment on the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the Government’s update on the health of the nation’s finances. Members in all parts of the House have recognised that the backdrop to any discussion about our economy would not be complete without recognising the unprecedented, seismic events that have impacted the nation’s finances over the past few years: covid and the Ukraine conflict. Those once-in-a-generation events would have tested any Government, whoever was in power, as indeed they have tested Governments across Europe and beyond. Looking at how we compare with other nations puts the challenges we have experienced in perspective. In 2022, all but one of the G7 nations experienced higher debt-to-GDP ratios than the UK, so we have stabilised the nation’s finances.

It is time to move forward and grow our economy. It is time to take advantage of the welcome fiscal headroom to increase UK productivity; to continue to tackle the cost of living crisis by helping more people back into work; and to map out a clear economic vision for the future. I am sure that reducing national insurance, increasing benefit payments, along with the national minimum wage, and advancing the state pension are changes that will be welcomed, not just by the public but by Labour.

I say to the Minister that I was hoping for more support for the tourism and hospitality industry. The value of tourism to Britain is too often overlooked. It is worth £140 billion to our economy, it accounts for 6% of our GDP and 11% of our workforce are employed in this important sector. I welcome the continued extension of the 75% rate relief for hospitality, but I would like us to go further, with a permanent reduction in VAT for tourism. We saw that briefly during the covid crisis. I know that the discussion is taking place and perhaps—please—we will see that measure come out of the hat in next year’s spring statement. Tourism is vital to our economy and to Bournemouth, so reducing VAT in the tourism and hospitality sector is something I hope Ministers will consider.

[John Redwood]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem is that the OBR’s forecasting never gives any credit for cutting a tax rate in order to get more revenue? This could be a good example of where that would work.

[Mr Ellwood]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Centre for Economics and Business Research suggests that there is £10 billion to be made in lost GDP at the moment, as we are not attracting overseas visitors because our taxes are higher than those of our continental counterparts.

Looking at the bigger picture, finances certainly remain tight. The national debt, although falling as a percentage of GDP, as I said, remains too high. Our growth, although larger than Germany’s, is not where it should be. Given that we are the sixth largest economy in the world, we need to look at improving productivity, which remains sluggish, as it has been since 2008. A lot of these economic debates focus, understandably, on the micro level—the line-by-line budget allocations to Whitehall Departments, and the changes to general taxation, benefits and pensions—but how all those fiscal jigsaw pieces fit together is often overlooked. Our world is changing fast. Not only is it becoming more internationally competitive, but there is a question mark as to what our role actually is. I am reminded of what John Foster Dulles, the former US Secretary of State, said:

“Britain has lost an empire and not yet found a role.”

What we saw in the autumn statement was interesting indeed. The world is going digital, as IT changes every aspect of our lives: how we communicate, travel, do business and even strengthen our own security. That is all good news for the UK, as we have the third largest tech sector in the world, after the US and China. We are world leaders in pharmaceuticals, life sciences, creative industries, aerospace, fintech and artificial intelligence. With some of the best universities in the world, along with our globally recognised finance sector, we are well placed to become a high-tech superpower—another silicon valley. That is also good news for Bournemouth, because that is exactly where our area focuses; we are focused not just on tourism and financial services, but on the creative industries.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for what he says about the pharmaceutical and engineering sectors, as we have businesses in those areas in my constituency that can do well. One thing that is needed to improve it is reviewing and increasing the child benefit thresholds—perhaps the Government should consider that. It would enable families that work hard to get more benefit, which they cannot do at this moment in time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

In the spirit of brevity, let me just say that I 100% agree with the hon. Gentleman on that.

I began by mentioning the global shocks of covid and Ukraine, and placing them in context. There is clearly a direct correlation between our economy and our security. About half of our GDP is affected by international headwinds. For those of us who follow international events, it is clear that there will be more covids and more Ukraine-sized conflicts. Our world is becoming more dangerous, not less. These threats are growing and becoming more complex and dynamic. There is an increasing blurring, with the scale of direct military threats being matched by those in the economy and, specifically, in the digital space. With authoritarianism on the rise, we have entered an ever-uncertain era of insecurity, akin to the 1930s, with rising populism, new and dangerous alliances forming, increased threats to our international rules-based order and our international institutions unable to hold errant nations to account. This is all causing a number of alarm bells to ring on the global order dashboard. Arguably, the situation is even more grave than the one in the 1930s, because we also face climate change, cyber threats and the pervasive role of the non-state actor in that equation.

So I end by simply calling for greater investment, including in security and defence. Such calls may fall on deaf ears, because of all the domestic challenges we face, but I simply say: look at how our fragile stability is fragmenting; we must be better prepared for the global shocks that our economy will face in the longer term. We are rekindling our statecraft skills, but please may we see an increase in defence spending in the spring Budget?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Jobs and Work

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the measures proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) in his opening speech. I say that not just to dissipate the impression of disloyalty that I might have created by an article in the Daily Mail this morning, but because those measures will restore what we desperately need in this country—more stability in the labour market. We have had a long period in which wages have increased by less than inflation in 46 of the past 47 months of statistics since the coalition came to office. That has to be ended, because it is creating a very undesirable kind of society. It is the kind of society described by Professor Piketty—or I should say, because he is French, Professor Piketté—in his book, “Capital”.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I hope that it is, Mr Ellwood.

[Mr Ellwood]

I know that time stands still when the hon. Gentleman speaks, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the clock does not seem to be moving, and I wonder whether it is possible to make sure that the time limit is placed on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s fourth Queen’s Speech and the strategy that has been used to navigate Britain out of the choppy economic waters that we inherited, courtesy of the last Labour Government. As we have heard, the UK economy is the fastest growing economy in Europe and, indeed, in the G7. Figures published today show that employment is at record levels, though of course there is still more to be done.

I am afraid that the clock is working now and the time restrictions will prevent me from going into further detail on certain issues. I will therefore move on to my substantive point, which is about Britain’s place in the world. The Prime Minister rightly began his response to the Gracious Speech with a tribute to our armed forces and the sacrifices that have been made in Afghanistan. That subject will come up at the forthcoming NATO summit. NATO can be proud of the role that it played in removing al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and building a credible Afghan security force.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

Britain has always been an outward-looking nation when it comes to trade and foreign affairs. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should continue with that and build on it?

[Mr Ellwood]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again; it is the second time that I have done so. However, this is a named debate with a subject and an amendment. The subject is jobs and work, so he needs to make sure that he focuses on that.

[Mr Ellwood]

I seek your clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding was that Members of Parliament could contribute to any day of the Queen’s Speech debate and give a consideration of all aspects of the Queen’s Speech. If I had been aware that that rule was in place, I certainly would not have chosen today to speak.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Mr Ellwood, what has happened is that today we are considering an amendment. In the Queen’s Speech debates every day before today, Members could raise anything. Today’s debate is more focused, and to be in order speeches need to be about jobs and work. I hope that all other Members will focus on that, but, given the misunderstanding, on this occasion I will allow you to make your points, Mr Ellwood. I should make it absolutely clear that that is out of order, but given that you have been so helpful to me about the clock, it is only fair to let you make your points—perhaps briefly.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for your latitude, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said, I understood that I could take a broad-brush approach to matters in the Queen’s Speech.

I return to our role in Afghanistan, which was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. NATO did well, but I am afraid that the other international agencies did not do so well. We were not good at creating the governance and economic development that were needed in that country. That responsibility was given to other international agencies and they were found wanting. Indeed, our experience in Afghanistan and Iraq now haunts this Chamber, as was shown in the Syria vote last year. It is also making us review Britain’s place and role in the world.

The nation’s attention has rightly focused on the UK economy, business and jobs as well as on strengthening the fundamental pillars of our society, including health, education and the benefits system. However, as we emerge from the biggest recession ever experienced, events such as 9/11, the Arab spring and, most recently, what has happened in Ukraine and the Sahel show that we have entered a prolonged period of instability with which I am not sure that Britain—and, indeed, NATO—has come to terms.

Conflict itself has also changed. There is no longer unconditional surrender, but agencies such as the EU, the Department for International Development, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are involved in stabilisation and nation-building activities that they were never designed to perform. We are essentially winning the wars, but losing the peace.

In an increasingly interdependent world, as the Government’s national maritime strategy states:

“Almost every aspect of British national life… depends on our connections with the wider world.”

We are now more reliant on a stable market for raw materials, energy and manufactured goods from overseas, but recent trends such as globalisation, resource competition, population growth and climate change will challenge that stability, and developments and crises in distant regions will have an immediate and direct impact on our prosperity and security in this country.

As a nation, we have always led from the front in helping shape and influence the wider world. As I have implied, the pace of change has not only increased but become more complicated. In a week when we have been debating the importance of British values, we must also agree the extent to which those values should be defended here and abroad when challenged. There are ever fewer countries in the world that are willing and able to promote, support and, when required, defend our shared values.

However, there is an increasing number of regimes, organisations, groups and movements that wish us harm. It is therefore not the time to turn our back on the world and ignore events around us. This week alone, ISIS has taken control of Iraq’s second city, Mosul, while Boko Haram continues its reign of terror in Nigeria and the Taliban have retaken Karachi airport. Of course, there is also the continuing drama that is unfolding for the fourth year in Syria, not to mention Russia’s hiding its long-term economic weakness in aggression and deniable intervention. Those events do not happen in isolation.

The solutions to those challenges are diplomatic, economic and political as well as military. As we mark the 70th anniversary of D-day, many of the Bretton Woods organisations that were created to secure peace after the second world war, such as the United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank, are out of date and in severe need of reform. I believe that Britain is well placed in the international community to lead the call for the modernisation of those agencies so that they are fit for purpose in meeting 21st century challenges. However, we should also be prepared for instability to increase. I greatly welcome the manner in which the Government are moving Britain back to prosperity, but it is also time to think of the wider world and the role that Britain should play as we face a challenging chapter of instability.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Food Banks

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Roger Williams]

I have not quite achieved 16 years, but that is my intention if I am successful at the next election.

My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that every hon. Member will agree that it is not just lately that people have come to our surgeries because they have had problems with their benefits and find themselves in desperate and dire circumstances. Before the food bank was established in my constituency, I had no organised place to refer people to; I had to find churches or philanthropists to help them to get out of trouble and to get them through it. At least now I can direct them to somewhere they will get help.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

On benefits, does my hon. Friend agree that the best way out of poverty is through work? Is it not also the case that the perverse incentives of the dog’s dinner of a benefits system that we inherited mean that someone who gains part-time work could end up worse off than if they stayed on benefits?

[Roger Williams]

I agree that getting into work is the best way out of poverty, but work is not always available for people. I am sure that hon. Members know of such experiences.

Housing Benefit

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

When a Labour Government introduced the welfare state it was a safety net for some of the most vulnerable people. The 400,000 disabled people who are going to be hit by the bedroom tax are exactly the people who Beveridge’s and Clement Attlee’s welfare state were designed to protect—and shame on you for taking that safety net away.

Many of the people affected by the bedroom tax have nowhere else to go and no choice but to take the financial hit, making impossible choices between feeding their children, paying the gas and electricity bills, and paying the rent.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

The hon. Lady talks about affected families. What does she say to the almost 400,000 families who are living in overcrowded situations when they look over their shoulders at the almost 1 million spare bedrooms in Britain?

[Rachel Reeves]

I say that instead of presiding over the lowest rate of house building since the 1920s, this Government should get on and build some houses.

No wonder the Trussell Trust—[Interruption.] Government Members do not want to hear about food banks, and nor does the Prime Minister, but they will hear about food banks. The Trussell Trust cites the bedroom tax as the key driver behind a threefold increase in the use of food banks since April this year. No wonder more people are turning to payday lenders and to food banks. No wonder the Samaritans are training up staff to help people left desperate and distraught by the Secretary of State’s bedroom tax. Those who do not move may end up in less suitable housing—homes without adaptations for people with disabilities, or where children have to change school or live further away from family or support networks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to overcrowding, because strangely that was an omission from the Labour motion. It is almost as if the voice of the overcrowded has not been heard. To give him a sense of scale, based on the English house condition survey we estimate that more than a quarter of a million households in social accommodation are overcrowded. Census data, which offer a different definition, suggest there are getting on for 400,000 overcrowded households. The research the Government are undertaking as the policy is rolled out will monitor the extent to which people are trading down and moving from overcrowded accommodation, and the extent to which they take jobs, take in lodgers or use discretionary housing payments. People can respond to the policy in a whole raft of ways, but the idea that we can have hundreds of thousands of people in overcrowded accommodation while there are free spare bedrooms does not seem fair.

[Mr Ellwood]

There is a sense of déjà vu in this debate because we discussed this issue in 2008 with reference to the private sector. Going back to 2008, one major problem is the lack of housing stock and new builds. Just 30% of new houses are single dwellings, although the demand for that is 60%. Does the Minister agree that that imbalance needs to be addressed?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right. Labour Members say there is a mismatch between housing stock and housing need, but who was doing the house building for 13 years? Why do we have that mismatch? On the volume of social housing construction, I was shocked when I saw that in many years of the previous Labour Government, fewer than 25,000 new units of social housing were built per year. Even in these difficult economic circumstances, the coalition Government are already building more social housing every year than in most years of the Labour Government, and that will only increase.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I was getting flashbacks to 1970s socialism during that contribution—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) is very proud of that; that is good to hear.

It is said that a lie can be halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on, and such is the case with Labour’s bedroom tax. I am pleased that the name of the debate has changed, and I welcome the chance to clarify the details of the policy. I am sorry that the debate has been somewhat binary. Some good points have been made by Members on both sides and some pertinent questions have been asked. The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) posed a very important one: how does somebody who is told to go out and work in order to pay for that second room manage to do that? I hope the Minister will elaborate on this, but the universal tax credit system will come in to address that.

The debate has illustrated the cultural divide that exists between this Government and Labour. On one side there is an attitude of responsibility and holding welfare reform to account, and on the other there is a continuing concept of offering welfare as a lifestyle choice. That is no longer possible. After 13 years of Labour the cost of housing benefit doubled to £21 billion. That is unacceptable. The cost to taxpayers was £900 per household. The system was getting out of control. There was no house building programme, leading to overcrowded accommodation, and there was no management of the housing stock, which left some families receiving housing benefit of more than £100,000.

[Katy Clark]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the reason that housing benefit has gone up is the rising cost of rent in the private sector? Does he not accept that this Government’s policy of trying to force house prices up is putting rents up, which will make the housing benefit problem even worse?

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. I cannot accept that a doubling of housing benefit to £21 billion is accounted for by the private sector alone. There are other aspects, such as the type of housing we are building. We were building the wrong type of houses—60% of new houses built needed to be for single occupancy, but only 30% were. That is Labour’s legacy. It raises the fundamental question of today’s debate: in these financially tough times, should those on housing benefit be allowed to stay in accommodation with more bedrooms than they really need? This Government say no and Labour says yes, even though it said no in 2008 when we had exactly the same debate on private sector housing, proving that a little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.

[Mrs McGuire]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

Very briefly; we are eating into other Members’ time.

[Mrs McGuire]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber for the earlier clarification, given by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), that the local housing allowance was not retrospective. This tax is retrospective and it penalises people for not changing their circumstances.

[Mr Ellwood]

I welcome the hon. Lady to the debate. It is clear that Labour still has not learned from its mistakes. In the last eight years of government, Labour lived beyond its means. In 2002-03, it spent £26 billion beyond its means. Four years later that rose to £33 billion. In its final year of office, the deficit rose to £156 billion. That always accumulates, which means that by 2010 when Labour departed office we had a debt of more than three quarters of a trillion pounds. Where are these benefits that Opposition Members endorse? Where will that money come from? To date, Labour has refused to support a single reform to the benefit system put forward by the Government. Aside from failing to recognise, first, the need for reform of our complex system, and secondly, the consequences to society in promoting a something-for-nothing culture, Labour has voted against £83 billion-worth of welfare savings introduced by the Government, proving that it has yet to learn the lessons of the past.

Labour owes the taxpayer an explanation as to how it would afford to keep its complex, costly and broken benefit system in place. The challenge is simple. Thanks to the housing shortage, created under Labour, some 400,000 people are in overcrowded housing. Yet there are almost 1 million spare rooms throughout the UK paid for by the taxpayer at a cost of around £0.5 billion a year. This policy better matches our housing stock, but also protects the most vulnerable, such as pensioners, those in foster care, disabled children and those requiring overnight care. They are all exempt, as indeed are those who have served in the armed forces.

Those affected by the policy, as others have made clear, who are living in larger than necessary housing have four choices. First, they can participate in a house swap scheme, which has not really been embraced by all councils. Secondly, they can pay the reduction in housing benefit, which equates to about £14 a week for a room. Thirdly, they can sub-let that room. Finally, they could apply for the hardship scheme, and a couple examples have been given of that. I am pleased to hear the announcement today that if councils run out of that hardship funding, they can apply for more. That is a message that needs to be sent from both sides of the House, to ensure that councils do not run out of this important support.

The policy already exists in the private sector, introduced, as I say, by Labour in 2008. I welcome this policy and the debate, which I hope will help Labour Members to recognise how inaccurate and misleading some of their comments have been. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) is in her place. I have a lot of respect for her, but she spoke eloquently about a council home being a home for life. I cannot agree with that analysis. A council home should be there as a method of support for those trying to get on in life and for those in a difficult period of their life. It should not just be given to somebody as a gift, early on in their lives, never to move away from. That is the distinct difference between the two sides of the House, on which we will have to agree to disagree.

I welcome the policy and the debate, and I look forward to the Minister clarifying some of the many points that have been made by Members on both sides of the Chamber.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about millionaires, I gather they are hankering after the halcyon days when they used to pay only 40% income tax and 18% capital gains tax. On his point about service personnel, let me make it absolutely clear that in the case of a couple with a young adult who is going off to serve with the forces, when that young person leaves the home to serve on the front-line we cease to assume that they are making a rent contribution. When that person goes off to serve, the housing benefit will, in general, go up.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to support people who want to start their own business.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

19. What steps his Department is taking to support people who want to start their own business.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)]

We believe that for many people self-employment is the best route out of unemployment. That is why we have introduced the new enterprise allowance and enterprise clubs, which have proved effective in helping people back into work.

[Mr Ellwood]

Tourism is obviously a key industry in Bournemouth, but the digital economy is now the fastest-growing sector thanks to the work of Bournemouth university—so much so that Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole are now getting the nickname of the silicon beach of England. What more can be done to harness that interest and expertise through incubator units and start-ups?

Oral Answers to Questions

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

3. What steps he has taken to reduce the level of health and safety regulation affecting business.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

7. What steps he has taken to reduce the level of health and safety regulation affecting business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

Absolutely. That is very much our hope. We have already implemented one of the key recommendations of the Löfstedt review. On 1 January, we established the first challenge panel, which will allow businesses that believe that they are on the wrong end of a wrong decision as a result of a health and safety inspection to have a quick, easy and simple way of challenging and, if necessary, overturning it.

[Mr Ellwood]

Is it not the case that a culture of hesitancy, leading to paranoia, developed under the previous Government? That culture saw the term “health and safety” justify bizarre decision making, such as cutting down trees in school playgrounds in case children climbed them, or council office light bulbs being replaced only by those who had completed the “how to use a six-foot ladder” course. I hope that we will see some change from this Government on those issues.

[Chris Grayling]

We hope that a simpler regulatory structure will contribute to that. If we take the example of schools, we have already shortened the forms that need to be filled in for a school trip from more than 120 pages to eight. I encourage every Member of the House, including you, Mr Speaker, to challenge daft health and safety decisions when you come up against them in your constituency. There is almost certainly no basis for them in health and safety law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Today in the other place they will be debating an amendment on the benefit cap. I believe that that system will help to restore fairness by setting a cap for those on benefits of £26,000 a year after tax or £35,000 a year before tax. I cannot understand why those who have said they would support this and were in favour of it have voted against it as often as possible.

[Mr Ellwood]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on the work they are doing to modernise the benefit system following the mess that was left by the previous Government. On the benefit cap, does he agree that those who oppose it need to explain to those who are in work but who earn less than £35,000 a year why people on benefits should be better off than they are?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The reality is that almost everybody out there beyond the politicians and the game playing believe it is reasonable to say to people who are on benefits that if they are not working, they should not earn more than those who are working and paying their taxes. I am astonished at the Opposition, who do not seem able to get it. I understand from a recent poll that even their supporters are overwhelmingly in favour of the proposal.

Amendment of the Law

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

Of course, and the hon. Gentleman will also recognise that, despite the fact that we are some way out of the recession, today’s figures also confirmed that in the last quarter for which records are available, the economy shrank. I am not sure that that is a record of which he can be proud.

In the circumstances, I would have thought that the House could expect to hear rather more from the Secretary of State about what the Budget would do to get people back into work. The Office for Budget Responsibility is well aware of the Secretary of State’s Work programme and the Chancellor’s tax breaks on offer for business, yet its conclusion was the cold fact that unemployment will continue to rise. Every time the Chancellor stands up at the Despatch Box to deliver a Budget, he revises down his forecast for growth and revises up his estimate for the number of unemployed people in our country. He is costing this country a fortune.

What, then, did this Budget offer for jobs? Incredibly, it said that by the first quarter of 2013, unemployment would be 200,000 higher than was forecast just last October. What a triumph! Under the circumstances, we could have expected a rather bigger push from the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to get people back to work. After all, his Minister for the unemployed, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, told the Select Committee on Work and Pensions on 14 March:

“If there was a very substantial change in the labour market, one way or the other, frankly, that is the kind of circumstance in which we might need to revisit some of the assumptions.”

Well, 200,000 more people on the dole sounds like rather a substantial change to me.

What is the Government’s response? Some £20 million for work experience. This morning I had a look at the Secretary of State’s accounts for January. It would appear that his new work placement scheme, which was so proudly trumpeted this morning, will cost less than his Department spends on stationery every year. At the very least, we would have expected more resources for the Work programme. The Prime Minister is fond of telling us that the Work programme is

“the biggest back-to-work scheme this country has seen since the 1930s.”—[Official Report, 16 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 951.]

In fact, as the BBC has shown, there are 250,000 fewer places on it than Labour had last year, when unemployment was lower. The association of bidders for the Work programme now has so much confidence in the Secretary of State’s plans that it says:

“the design of the Work Programme is fraught with risks which may impact significantly on the number of unemployed people who can benefit from it”!

That is hardly a vote of confidence. When my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) asked the Secretary of State how much extra he had received from the Treasury to get people back to work, he refused to give her a straight answer, and we all know what that means: that he asked for nothing and he got nothing. With unemployment now forecast to rise, the very least that we could expect from this Secretary of State is to stand up for his Department, fight his corner and get some extra help to get this country back to work.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman understands that whoever had won the last election would have had to introduce some tough measures, and we are experiencing those now. Bearing in mind that all other recessions have seen unemployment rising, is he genuinely telling the House that if Labour had won the last general election, unemployment would be continuing to fall today?

[Mr Byrne]

Absolutely. We expected and anticipated falling unemployment, because what we were not doing was cutting so much so fast, or damaging the rate of growth in this country.

[Mr Ellwood]

The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way, but this is an important point. Labour was in denial before the election about introducing major measures to bring the economy under control. Labour now knows—as we have known—that important measures needed to be introduced after the election. That is what is causing the difficulties now. He is now saying, “Yes, you’d be able to bring those measures in without having any effect on employment.” That is completely wrong; he misleads the House.

[Mr Byrne]

Well, let us go through it, shall we? The deficit plan that we put in place would have involved £57 billion-worth of discretionary action—[Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State just pause for a moment? I know that he has read all 40 pages of chapter 6 of the Budget that was published in March last year, but let me just remind him of their contents: £57 billion-worth of discretionary action; £19 billion-worth of tax rises; and £38 billion of cuts, £18 billion of which would have fallen on capital, and £20 billion of which would have fallen on current expenditure, of which £12 billion would have fallen in Whitehall, £5 billion would have fallen on lower priority projects and £3 billion would have been achieved through a pay freeze and asking public sector workers to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I just want to clarify that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) meant that the right hon. Gentleman was inadvertently misleading the House.

[Mr Ellwood]

Of course.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, and I am pleased to see so many hon. Members who also want to participate. I have done my best to speak in other Budget debates, and I am under no illusions that this speech will be read or listened to any more than my previous contributions.

This year’s debate has a different atmosphere from previous years. In 2007 and 2008, there was a sense of denial. In 2009, there was a period of inertia as we waited for whoever was going to win the general election—either Labour or Conservative—to grasp the nettle and make the decisions that the country needed. Finally, in 2010, we saw the launch of the long overdue plan. It is only this year, 2011, that we are really experiencing that pain, which has been debated at length today and in the past four days.

The state of the economy clearly dominates our lives. It is complex: like the cockpit of a 747, there are many buttons, switches and levers. Knowing when to pull a lever and for how long affects the overall performance, the direction of travel and the comfort—or, indeed, the displeasure—of the passengers, who rely on a duty of care. There are four principal levers that we have for the economy: fiscal policy, which determines the management of our deficit and our debt; monetary policy and interest rates, which are now set independently; the regulation of the financial sector and the relationship between the Bank of England, the Treasury, and the financial and business sectors; and finally, micro-economic policies—how we approach education, how to get a competitive tax system, and so on. We need to decide how to use all those levers at this delicate time, as we try to mend the economy. We can be dedicated and vigilant pilots, but we will have our work cut out if we are handed a machine that has been battered and bruised by the previous owner. It is exactly the same with the economy.

We have had five days of debate on the provisions in the Red Book. I will not go into the details of all the issues that have been raised. At the weekend, as I was thinking about what to say in my speech today, I watched the rally that was taking place in Hyde park. I saw all the banners; it was like a summer camp for the unions, like a revival for them as they all called for more money for their own area. They wanted more money for pensioners, for health, for education and so on, but no one said where the money was going to come from or how it was going to be generated, and we have heard no such explanation from Opposition Front Benchers today.

The rally said a lot about Labour, in that the Leader of the Opposition is now firmly embedding himself with the unions. Incidentally, I think he was unwise to make comparisons with previous struggles, such as those of the suffragettes or the US civil rights movement, or with the fight against apartheid. It would also have been nice to hear a bit of mea culpa, a bit of recognition that Labour was partly to blame for what is going on.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the issues to which the Leader of the Opposition referred all had one thing in common with the rally on Saturday—namely, that no Tories took part in any of them?

[Mr Ellwood]

I did not receive my invitation. Perhaps I shall find it in my office when I go back there.

The bottom line is that we inherited an economic nightmare—the worst of the messes in the G20. The gap between the richest and the poorest had grown since Labour came to office, and the size of government had bloomed. In the past decade, the civil service had grown by an additional 800,000 people. I have no idea what those people actually did, but they were in addition to those who were running the country a decade earlier. That is the bloated government that we need to try to get rid of. There was also a culture of encouraging people not to work. It was never easier than under Labour to do nothing and get paid for it. Those are the kinds of issues that we need to tackle.

The number of regulations introduced under Labour was astonishing. We are now faced with about 21,000 regulations, of which about 10,000 were created by the last Government. As I said earlier, Labour was planning huge cuts, had it won the election; it just did not say where they were going to be made. Had it won, it would have received a lot of the grief that we are receiving today, because it would have had to implement very much the same measures that we are implementing.

Looking back at the legacy that we left Labour, we can see that there was an unbroken period of growth from 1992 to 2008. We had growth up to the economic downturn in 2007. The deficit in 1997-98 was £15 billion. By 2007—before the economic downturn—it had already increased to £33 billion. We were not living within our means.

[Emma Reynolds]

I want to put the same question to the hon. Gentleman that I put to the Secretary of State. Up until 2008, his party backed our spending commitments, so is there not a little bit of revisionism on his side of the House?

[Mr Ellwood]

I was not in government then. The spending commitments that we backed did not take into account the state of the economy at the time. They were the plans for the future, but they did not take into account the money that had been spent.

The point that I was trying to make was that, from a deficit and a debt perspective, the previous Government wasted money during the boom years. They lived beyond their means, which placed us on the back foot when the economic downturn came. Again and again, we hear Labour say, “It isn’t our fault. It was an international issue. It was the Americans. It was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was the sub-prime market.” Well, that was possibly the case at the start, but in 2007, 2008 and even 2009, I could have gone to Bradford & Bingley and picked up a 125% mortgage. That was simply wrong. We were still not in control of the situation well after we knew that things were going down the pan.

The Opposition’s approach is now based on several themes. They tell us that, 12 months ago, unemployment was falling, growth was rising and inflation was low and stable. However, unemployment was higher when Labour left office than when it came in. In fact, that has happened every time Labour has been in office. No emergency measures had been put in place. Unemployment goes up in every recession; that is one of the impacts. It was wrong of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) to suggest that if Labour were in power now, unemployment would continue to fall. That is completely incorrect. The Opposition also talk about growth, but it is actually continuing to rise. It rose by 1.3% last year, and the figure will be 1.7% this year. That is not what we expected, but the economy is still growing faster than the EU average. Of course, 2011 is going to be a year of pain. Urgent measures have been introduced, and the VAT rise will hit us.

I do not have time to go through all the other aspects of the situation, but I will end by saying that the Budget is all about continuing to bring spending under control. It is about gaining sustainable revenues from the banks and protecting the most vulnerable in our society. It is also about a shift from big government to small government, and about providing businesses with the tax breaks and incentives to expand, to compete in new markets and to tackle the expected rise in unemployment. History will show that we came close to the economic abyss, but that this Government took the tough decisions necessary to build a strong and stable economy.