Endometriosis Workplace Support

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) not only on securing the debate, but on the eloquent way that he presented his arguments, which were excellent and enabled us all to unite around them.

I will speak briefly on behalf of a constituent who wants to be identified, Katie Adwas, who came to see me only last week. She is a teacher, and actually she has a supportive employer. She explained to me what it is like to live with constant pain every second of every minute of every hour of every day, and how exhausting it is to do her job and get through the day. Unless we experience that, it is very difficult to relate to and understand. It makes everything she does in her life so much more difficult.

Although she recognises the need to focus on the world of work, she feels very strongly about the need for a focus on earlier diagnosis, better treatment and funding for research, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. It took 10 years—an entire decade—for my constituent to be diagnosed with endometriosis, by which time she was already at stage 4. She initially went to see her GP regarding a problem connected with her periods. As a consequence of that, at the age of 16, she was not only prescribed antidepressants but told that, as a woman, she would have to live with that kind of thing. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to that. At primary healthcare level, GP training is crucial; if that does not happen, we are destined to continue to have many problems.

Katie has also had a number of operations specifically to try to save her fertility. She wants to start a family, but she made the point that, unfortunately, surgery is not always successful. It can lead to the removal of appendix and ovaries, which, along with the condition more generally, can have a horrendous impact on someone’s mental health. We need to be concerned not just about the physical consequences of this condition, but about the long-term and ongoing mental health problems that, for understandable reasons, many women experience.

Katie very much wanted me to be her voice today. Other women in my constituency have been in touch too. I think we heard that one in five or one in 10 women across the country suffer from this condition. That is an extraordinary statistic. As policy makers and legislators, we must recognise that we have failed to act to date, and that we now have an opportunity and a responsibility to take decisive action. It is incredibly important that there is a joined-up approach across Departments. As the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said, it is clear that there are a number of Departments with responsibility that can make a difference on these issues.

It is also incredibly important that the Department of Health and Social Care does not say, as it often does, “We are not willing to focus on specific conditions; we are willing to have generic approaches to groups of conditions, but we are not willing to train people on, raise awareness of or recognise particular conditions, which need a much greater level of central intervention. It is obvious from the neglect that this condition has experienced for a long time that it needs central intervention. Centrally driven changes in policy are essential. Of course, delivery has to come on the ground—that is about awareness raising, training, early intervention and education—but we also need a specific focus on this condition.

Universal Credit and Child Tax Credit: Two-child Limit

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for securing this timely debate. As others have said, hon. Members might find themselves experiencing a sense of déjà vu, having once again gathered in Westminster Hall to highlight a Government policy focused on hitting the poorest families the hardest. There are 870,000 families with more than three children currently claiming these benefits, with the bottom fifth of the income distribution expecting to lose the largest proportion of their income. We know the policy is set to save the Government £1.6 billion by 2020, which is no small amount. That compares with the £2.7 billion that the Government are spending on giving an income tax cut to the highest earners; they continue to make it clear that they are not governing in the interests of ordinary working people.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that I have House of Commons Library extrapolations of the Budget impact of the 2017-18 tax giveaways. The figure for inheritance tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax is £80 billion over the period 2017 to 2025. Does that not show how wrong the Government’s priorities are?

[Mr Lewis]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister often talks about supporting those who are striving and working hard, but unfortunately in reality, the consequences of Government policy are the precise opposite.

We know that the Government are targeting minority and religious groups with this policy. In my constituency, the Haredi community will be the hardest hit. There is a substantial differential impact on religious communities for whom family size is determined by beliefs and for whom culture is also a determining factor. That was omitted from the Government’s impact assessment, and the Minister might want to respond to that in his concluding remarks. Some 31% of all children live in households with three or more children. For families of the Jewish faith, the proportion is 52%; for families of the Muslim faith, it is 60%; and we know that many families of the Christian faith also have three or more children. We do not expect that those families will change their behaviour because of this policy, which significantly penalises them for their religious beliefs. What has it come to when a Conservative Government are attacking the concept of religious freedom in our society, which is precisely what this policy does? I know that sometimes people do not like talking about faith, but we should say that the concept of religious freedom is central to British values. This policy goes right to the heart of undermining that principle, but it was not even part of the Government’s impact assessment, which is absolutely shameful.

Families with more than two children face a cruel poverty trap, as others have said. They are unable to work their way out of poverty because, for every extra pound they earn, the Government will reduce their two-child allowance by 75p. Those changes severely undermine the financial security of larger families, who stand to lose up to £2,780 for each additional child beyond the first two. Many families will be unable to meet their children’s essential needs. An estimated 200,000 more children will be in poverty as a direct result of this policy. Children raised in poverty, as many hon. Members know, face many disadvantages: worse life expectancy, worse educational performance, and poorer health. Although the policy may make some short-term savings, in the long term it causes tremendous economic and social costs to our society.

One of the most shameful things about the Government’s record is the abandonment of any notion of a child poverty strategy. Right at the heart of any Government who sought to govern in the interests of all of the people of this country, a top priority, whatever one’s ideology, should be the fight against child poverty. The Government have abandoned strategy and a cross-Government approach. They no longer have targets, which means there are consequences. There is no focus whatever in Government to tackle child poverty as a policy priority. We then end up with policies such as those we are debating today, where no impact assessments have been done, adding to child poverty. What kind of society is the Government seeking to create? Most of those affected are working families who are in the just about managing group. Again, the Prime Minister talks about that all the time, but there is a gap between rhetoric and reality. Substantially cutting support sends an unhelpful message about the rewards of work.

In conclusion, the policy does a number of things. It hits the poorest the hardest. It increases child poverty, risks an increase in abortion, undermines religious freedom and causes vulnerable women to be even more vulnerable. The Minister must surely accept that now is the time to U-turn on such an appalling policy.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

The hon. Lady raises a perfectly valid point, which I will get to if she gives me the opportunity.

From 28 November, exceptions will also apply to children in kinship care, regardless of the order in which they joined the household. The exception will also be extended to children who are adopted who would otherwise be in local authority care. It is also worth noting that as a result of natural or managed migration to universal credit, families’ existing entitlement will be protected as long as they remain responsible for the same children and remain entitled to benefits; that will apply regardless of the number of children in their household or their date of birth.

As hon. Members will know, a judicial review of the policy was heard in the High Court earlier this year. The Court found that it was lawful overall—a judgment that the Government welcomed. Several colleagues have spoken about the impact of the policy on particular groups, but I should point out that the High Court judgment on 20 April found that the policy did not breach the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

The Government remain committed to providing support for families. Under universal credit, 85% of childcare costs are covered—up from 70% under the old system—and, for the first time, people in part-time work can get help. That comes on top of the Department for Education’s 30 hours of free childcare provision for three and four-year-olds in England.

[Mr Ivan Lewis]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alok Sharma]

No, I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

The flexible support fund is available to help eligible parents who are moving into work to pay up-front childcare costs or deposits. Child benefit continues to be paid to parents regardless of the number of children within the household. There is also an additional amount in universal credit designed to support disabled children, again regardless of the total number of children in a household.

To return to the Budget, we have listened to feedback about the support available for families on universal credit and we have acted. In last month’s Budget, the Chancellor announced that an extra £1.7 billion a year will be put into increasing work allowances for families with children and disabled people, strengthening universal credit work incentives and providing a boost to the incomes of the lowest-paid. This will result in 2.4 million families keeping an extra £630 per year of what they earn.

Universal Credit

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

We are having this debate because of one man’s vision to radically reform the benefits system. Having lost the Conservative party leadership, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) decided to focus on the challenges facing the poorest in our society. For that, he deserves credit, not derision. He saw for himself what many of us came into politics to address: the horrendous social injustice and inequality that scar too many of our communities, the intergenerational disadvantage, the wasted talent and the lack of hope and dreams that hold back too many of our fellow citizens. The right hon. Gentleman decided that one of our top priorities needed to be the simplification and streamlining of people’s benefits, which would support them more effectively and remove some of the disincentives to work—an objective that has been shared by many progressive reformers since the welfare state was created.

Where did it all go wrong? First, it is not possible to be a champion for social justice while presiding over a hostile environment for those who were the greatest victims of social injustice. Secondly, to successfully implement radical whole-system reform significant extra resources are always required up front, both to manage the organisational transition and to address unintended consequences. Those resources were never made available. Instead, budgets were cut.

Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have seen for myself the human impact of the failings of universal credit, and the roll-out in Bury has been only limited so far. One constituent works for the local authority. She sometimes gets two wage payments in one assessment period, and the rigidity of the assessment period means that she does not get universal credit when that happens. That then affects the housing element that she may have received. She is in private accommodation, so the landlord will not tolerate any arrears, causing extreme financial pressures in the months when she has to pay rent. She is not able to budget in the same way as with tax credits and cannot access any other loans. Consequently, she is considering payday lenders.

Another constituent is single and lives with her six-year-old child in privately rented accommodation. She was transferred from income support to universal credit around the end of 2017. She suffers from dyslexia, anxiety and severe depression. When she was transferred on to universal credit, she was not given the option of claiming employment and support allowance. She was asked to attend a universal credit interview outside our area, which took two hours to reach by three buses and the same in return. When she got there, a piece of paper was pushed under nose, and she was asked to read and sign the document. The same woman was asked to attend a working well interview. She used the sat-nav on her mobile to find it, but unfortunately her phone died. She went home immediately, and her friend phoned the DWP, but she was still sanctioned.

Our society should always be judged by how we support the most vulnerable to have a decent quality of life and empower those who are able to exercise maximum power and control over their own lives. Universal credit is failing in both respects. The Government have behaved appallingly in denying the scale of the impact of their failed policies on our constituents. They must now take full responsibility and stop the distress and hardship that their incompetence has caused, so that thousands of others are not affected in this way in the future.

Universal Credit

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

It would be helpful if hon. Members did not just make up statistics and facts as they went along, as we just heard from the hon. Lady. Hon. Members should listen to us regarding the support that we are now providing to claimants. As I said, it is a topsy-turvy world. There was a ding-dong when the Opposition were calling for the changes. Now that we are introducing the changes, we are back to another ding-dong and they do not want the changes—but never mind.

I turn to the regulations concerning national insurance contributions and childcare. These regulations align the tax and national insurance treatment of employer-supported childcare, where parents opt into the new tax-free childcare scheme. They remove the national insurance disregard to new entrants to the scheme, once the relevant day has been set. They are vital to ensure that the tax system operates fairly and consistently and that the Government can target their childcare support effectively.

For many parents, being able to afford good-quality childcare is essential for them to work and support their families. That is why we are replacing the childcare vouchers with tax-free childcare, which is a fairer and better-targeted system. Tax-free childcare is now open to all eligible parents, who can get up to £2,000 per child per year to help towards their childcare costs. More families will be able to access support through tax-free childcare because only about half of employed working parents can access vouchers, and self-employed parents were excluded from vouchers. Therefore, 1.5 million families are now eligible for tax-free childcare compared with about 600,000 families currently benefiting from vouchers.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

Will the Secretary of State clarify something she said in relation to people getting pay increases that then perversely lead to them being worse off? She appeared to say that she would instruct personal trainers to put that right financially. I can hear a shudder going around benefits offices up and down the country at the idea that she has unilaterally said that if any constituent of ours faces being worse off as a consequence of a pay rise, perversely, her personal trainers will compensate them for that loss.

[Ms McVey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it allows me to explain that universal credit works on a tailor-made basis, so that the claimant will always be in contact with their work coaches to work out what is better, how progression would be better and why they would be taking reasonable work because it makes them better off. I am not saying this unilaterally. I ask all Opposition Members please to go to their local jobcentre and meet the work coaches, who can then explain how the system works.

In 2013, the Government announced the introduction of tax-free childcare as the successor to childcare vouchers. The passing of the Children and Families Act 2014, which legislated for tax-free childcare, had cross-party support. Tax-free childcare is now fully rolled out, and the date for the closure of the voucher scheme to new entrants is April this year. This was set out in the 2016 Budget, giving two years’ notice. Parents receiving childcare vouchers can continue to use them while their current employer continues to offer the scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

The measures that we are debating expose what has been happening to our country since 2010. In the name of deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility, the Tories have allowed the poorest and most vulnerable to become poorer and even more vulnerable. A Prime Minister who once courageously warned her own party that it was perceived by too many as the nasty party is presiding over a Government who have a cavalier disregard for social justice and the poverty that shames our country.

It is true that in the aftermath of a global financial crisis, any UK Government would have had to make tough choices, striking the right balance between spending cuts, tax increases and investment in growth. However, the reality is that too often they have made the wrong choices—choices motivated by an ideological project to wither the state, irrespective of its impact on local communities, the poorest in our society and growth.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Could the hon. Gentleman just remind us all that a note had been left by a member of his Government that said, quite properly, there was no money left? Not only have this Government restored our economy, but in so doing they have absolutely protected the very people that matter to all of us. This is tribal nonsense.

[Mr Lewis]

I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Lady, but to claim that the financial crisis was anything other than a consequence of a crash that started on Wall Street is the biggest distortion of history that we listen to in this country.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman is rewriting history. The fact is that if the Labour Government had fixed the roof when the sun was shining, when that crisis came along they could have weathered the storm. That is what this responsible Government have been doing since 2010.

[Mr Lewis]

The right hon. Lady’s party wanted us to regulate the banks and the financial services sector less than under the regulatory system we had in place. It committed to matching our spending and borrowing and did not want us to rescue the banks. Imagine if that prescription had been followed at the time we were dealing with the financial crisis.

The Government’s choices are motivated by an ideological project to wither the state, irrespective of its impact. Their disproportionate cuts have choked off growth and destroyed too much of our social fabric. Their tax changes have failed dismally to tackle tax avoidance or to ensure that, in tough times, those with the most carry the greatest burden. Their failure to invest in infrastructure, skills and jobs has led to economic growth that is anaemic compared with similar economies. The Government’s own assessments predict that this economic failure will be made even worse by the uncertainty and instability that are the inevitable consequences of Brexit.

Perhaps the right hon. Lady will agree with me on this point: history will record that the referendum was nothing to do with the national interest or giving voice to the will of the people. It was David Cameron’s fix for managing the Tory party through a general election.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lewis]

I am not giving way again to the right hon. Lady. Far from being the party of economic competence, hers is the party of economic chaos.

To be clear, the policies we are opposing today are neither necessary nor acceptable in a civilised society; they are political choices made by this Tory Government. As we have heard in this debate, Tory Members are in denial. Too many of our fellow citizens might as well be living in a different country from the one they describe. The reality for those people is food banks, perpetual debt, a poor quality of life and a lack of hope for themselves and their children. Some, of course, are dependent on benefits, but increasing numbers are people in work on permanent low pay and insecure contracts. This should offend any Member who believes not only in social justice but in the future of mainstream politics. Here and abroad, people who feel left behind by mainstream politics are increasingly turning to anti-establishment nationalism, which spreads hate and division. That is another reason these policies are so irresponsible.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman denigrated Brexit, yet his own area of Bury voted to leave the EU. How would that have helped with the politics of disenfranchising people and making them turn towards extremes?

[Mr Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman entirely misses the point. Of course I believe that the result of the referendum must be respected; I question the motive for the referendum in the first place. It was David Cameron’s folly—that is how history will remember him—and was done in the interests of the Conservative party, not those of our country.

[Anna Soubry]

I too have respect—some—for the hon. Gentleman, although it is beginning to wane. I do not want to fall out with him, but I would make one point to him. It is not good enough just to blame it all on David Cameron. The hon. Gentleman, like me and the majority of people in the House, walked through the Lobbies in support of a referendum, and we are now dealing with the consequences. We were all complicit in agreeing that the British people should vote and determine whether we stayed or left.

[Mr Lewis]

I simply say—I think that history will bear this out—that it was done purely to keep the Conservative party together and to get through a general election. It had nothing to do with the national interest and everything to do with the arrogance of the then Prime Minister and Chancellor in believing that they would almost inevitably win such a referendum.

I will turn now to the measures on universal credit and free school meals. The Government could hardly have made more of a mess of universal credit. The National Audit Office stated that the project had suffered from

“weak management, ineffective control and poor governance”.

Is that the responsibility of the current Secretary of State or her predecessor? Perhaps she would like to respond—no? Okay. Cuts to universal credit passed in the last two years have left a majority of families worse off on universal credit than under the system it replaces, and this further reduction in support will add to their financial pain. The proposed threshold could have a negative effect on work incentives and risks creating poverty traps for families on universal credit, which goes completely against the Government’s goal that universal credit should always reward work.

In the 1980s, Tory policies created a deeply divided society. They have learnt nothing from history and are once again fuelling a cycle of intergenerational deprivation that hurts those most affected but which in the end damages us all. I hope the House will today force the Government to rethink these regressive measures.

Supported Housing

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister’s announcement that the Government will not apply the local housing allowance cap to supported housing is a welcome U-turn. The proposed changes would have been detrimental to hundreds of thousands of people across the country. This is a victory for the housing sector, the Labour Front Bench and those Tory MPs who sought to persuade Ministers to listen.

The application of the local housing allowance rate was totally inappropriate, as it is a market-facing rate that bears no resemblance to the cost of building a domestic violence shelter, extra care schemes or hostels for homeless people. Had the changes gone ahead, they would undoubtedly have led to an increase in homelessness, which has risen every year since 2010.

There are some on the Opposition side of the House who would accuse the Government of deliberately setting out to target vulnerable people across a whole range of policy areas. The truth is that the pattern since 2010 has been for the Government, using the aftermath of the financial crash as the excuse, to slash and burn budgets in Whitehall with scant regard for the impact on the ground. Too often, those without a voice have borne the brunt of those attacks, with the Government cynically calculating that there would be little or no impact in the ballot box.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

Constantly under Labour Governments we heard stories of families claiming £100,000-plus in housing benefit. In welcoming the Government’s announcement today on supported housing, does the hon. Gentleman accept that there was clearly a need to change the way we dealt with housing benefit?

[Mr Lewis]

This is not the place to repeat fake news. That was not the record of the last Labour Government. The reality is that rough sleeping was a consequence of the Thatcher years, which left a deeply divided and damaged society in this country. I see the consequences of that in my role as joint mayoral lead for rough sleeping and homelessness in Greater Manchester. Benefit sanctions and poverty, which mean that people cannot pay their rent, and the conduct of some private landlords are significant factors in the growing numbers of people sleeping on the streets of 21^st-century Britain. We should collectively hang our heads in shame at this awful state of affairs.

In Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham has shown real political leadership by making rough sleeping and homelessness a top priority for his mayoralty. We welcome the fact that, last week, the Government made £3.7 million available to enable Greater Manchester to support people who would otherwise end up on the streets. However, the roll-out of universal credit, savage cuts to mental health services, and benefit sanctions are leading to more people ending up on the streets and without appropriate accommodation. The Government are therefore having to spend money mitigating the impact of their own destructive lack of joined-up social policies.

The test of any society and any Government should be how they treat the most vulnerable, and this Government have a shocking record. If today’s U-turn is the beginning of a new approach, I and other Opposition Members will welcome it.

A supported home is vital. For women fleeing domestic violence, a supported home is a desperately needed safe space. For war veterans, a supported home is vital to help them to adjust to civilian life. For disabled people, a supported home is the bedrock of an independent life.

According to the National Housing Federation, the uncertainty the Government have been causing has already led to providers having to cut the number of supported housing homes they plan to build by 85%. What will the Government do in the context of this U-turn to deal with the fact that there has been a slowdown in the development of much-needed provision?

For thousands of vulnerable people—in my constituency and other constituencies—this U-turn is indeed welcome. The Government should now adopt the Select Committee recommendations in full. They must safeguard the long-term future, as well as the funding of supported housing and of the many excellent organisations that provide it on the frontline.

But beyond that, the Government should reflect on the consequences of failing to learn the lessons of history. The Thatcher era left a deeply divided and scarred society. I am sad to say that the current Prime Minister, who once spoke of the “nasty party”, will have to make many more U-turns to prevent this national tragedy from repeating itself.

State Pension Age for Women

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

It is really good to see my hon. Friend back in good health; I think everyone here would agree. Does he agree that if the Government can find £1 billion to prop themselves up, they can find the money for these women who have contributed to their families, our communities and our economy over so many years? If they can find £1 billion simply to save themselves through a pact with the Democratic Unionist party, they can find the money for these women.

[Grahame Morris]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, there is an opportunity, given the apparent support for such a solution from a substantial number of DUP Members and Conservative Members who were members of the all-party group on state pension inequality for women.

Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds)

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point in apprenticeship week. Absolutely: apprentices will be exempt from this policy.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

Last Thursday, as part of the work I am doing on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on homelessness in Greater Manchester, I went around the streets of the city centre of Manchester and was shocked to see the risk that young people face from the dealing of psychoactive substances and the threat that they face from violence. Does the hon. Lady not understand that this will force significantly more young people in our country into rough sleeping and make them increasingly vulnerable? Is this not the personification of the return of the nasty party?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman makes the assumption that this will increase homelessness. In fact, we expect there to be behavioural change and that young people will, where they can, stay living with their parents. Where they cannot stay living with their parents, they will be exempt from this policy.

Capital Gains Tax (Rates)

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Members for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) and for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), the hon. Members for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) on their excellent maiden speeches.

This is a Budget that will define not only the new Government but the kind of country that Britain is to become for a decade, perhaps even a generation. The choices made in this Budget will have an impact on every middle and low-income family, every community and every workplace. They will determine not only our economic destiny, but the very nature of our society. Those choices, presented as economic imperatives, are in reality driven by an ideology which yet again fails to understand that if a state retreats too far, the result is not a big society but a broken society.

I want to concentrate on public services and welfare. Let us be clear: this is a Budget of choice, rather than a Budget in which there is only one choice. The deficit could have been reduced over a longer period, as happened in the aftermath of the IMF loan in the 1970s and that of Black Wednesday in the 1990s. The balance between taxation, spending cuts and growth could have been different, and the overall package of measures could have been progressive rather than regressive.

Much has rightly been made of Liberal Democrat duplicity. I watched closely on Budget day as the Deputy Prime Minister anxiously passed the Red Book to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), frantically seeking to draw his attention to the tables on pages 66 and 67. The right hon. Gentleman dutifully made a trenchant speech, claiming that this was a progressive Budget and citing the tables as evidence. Within 24 hours, the Institute for Fiscal Studies had made it clear that such claims were as misleading as a typical Liberal Democrat “Focus” leaflet. It confirmed that the overall impact of the Budget measures was regressive and that the poorest would be 2.6% worse off, while the richest would be worse off by only 0.6%. That did not include cuts in benefits and public services, which would widen the gap considerably. I do not see how Liberal Democrats can claim to be progressive when they are willing to vote for this Budget, let alone for VAT increases.

In legitimacy and credibility terms, the Tories have matched the Liberal Democrats in their contempt for the electorate. It seems to have been forgotten that the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), claimed to have modernised his party. It was no longer the nasty party, no longer indifferent to social and economic inequality. The right hon. Gentleman would govern from the centre ground, and would face down the right-wing ideologues in his party.

This Budget proves that that was all a charade. Instead we have the same old Tories, driven by a “leave it to the market” dogma, cavalier about social disintegration and contemptuous of the public sector. As throughout history, they seek to divide and rule, reversing new Labour’s economic prosperity and social justice paradigm and disregarding the link between public sector investment and private sector growth. They stigmatise the public sector and its work force as the primary cause of our economic problems, while irresponsible bankers and markets without ethics hardly get a mention. This narrative emanates from politicians and commentators who mainly use private education and health care, whose personal wealth guarantees their quality of life, and who are out of touch with the daily realities of most people in this country.

Let us consider the public servants who make a difference on a typical day in my constituency and those of every other Member: children’s centre staff and nursery nurses; teachers, classroom assistants and support staff; head teachers; police officers and police community support officers; prison and probation officers; doctors, nurses and ancillary staff; district nurses, home carers and mobile wardens; social workers, youth workers and Connexions staff; area co-ordinators and leisure staff. I could go on and on. Yes, and managers and administrators too; after all, effective organisations in the public as well as the private sector need good management and sound administration. There are also the construction companies, contractors and suppliers, providing a range of goods and services to public agencies. The public sector civilises our society, helps people to fulfil their potential, and protects those who are sick and vulnerable.

I do not deny the need for reform and cuts. In government, we should have devolved more to local government and local communities. The remuneration of public service executives should be transparent, and some roles can no longer be justified when tested against other priorities. However, cutting 25% to 30% of the public sector in only five years will both destroy our social fabric and slow the pace of economic growth. This coalition believes that as the state retreats, enterprise will flourish and the “big society” will fill the gap left by public services. That is fantasy politics and fantasy economics. The private sector will struggle to expand while the economy is fragile, which is why these cuts are too fast and too deep. Also, 1.2 million private sector jobs are dependent on the public sector, and 40% of public expenditure is spent in the private sector. The agents of the so-called big society—voluntary groups and community networks—will have their grants cut by local councils reduced to fulfilling only statutory duties.

The Secretary of State claims to champion the family, but he now wants people to break up their families and give up their homes in the pursuit of work. I thought his party was committed to a balanced, not a “get on your bike”, economy. He was at pains to say, however, that people would not have to go up north; heaven forbid!

Our opponents can attempt to rewrite history but they cannot change history. We are proud of the decisions we took to save Northern Rock, recapitalise the banks and boost the economy with a significant fiscal stimulus. We protected savers and home owners and intervened to save jobs and businesses. Our approach, in conjunction with that of our global partners, ensured recession did not lead to depression. Prior to the credit crunch, we delivered an unprecedented 11 years of economic growth, with people on low and middle incomes seeing major advances in their standard of living. We lifted hundreds of thousands of children and pensioners out of poverty, and public services were fixed and then transformed.

This Budget fails the tests of fairness and economic recovery. The Lib Dems have made their choice. It is Labour that is now left with the duty to fight for the interests of the—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Time is up.