Laurence Turner

My hon. Friend makes a sensible point, and the issues that he raises are reflected in my constituency. That is one of the major barriers to getting jobs and spending into our high streets. If the Budget last year had failed to raise money for investment in public services, it would have been like changing the colour of the shovel before continuing to dig a hole in the same old ditch. We could not prolong the failed approach of the past 14 years. We can add to that the disgraceful situation that awaited the incoming Labour Government. For all the sound and fury that we have heard from the Conservatives, there is little mystery about that now. Richard Hughes, the chair of the OBR, told the Treasury Committee: “When we had a high-trust relationship with the Treasury those things were being well managed, and managed within the total. That system very clearly broke down.” He said that “there was about £9.5 billion-worth of net pressure on Departments’ budgets, which they did not disclose to us…which under the law and under the Act they should have done.” The decisions that awaited the incoming Government on public sector pay, which is the other element of the £22 billion, had been ducked and delayed until after the election. [Interruption.] We need to be clear on that. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) indicates from a sedentary position. He will know about the situation with the School Teachers Review Body. Conservative Ministers already knew about the STRB’s recommendations and that the recommendations of the other review bodies tend to be similar. Given that the pay year starts not in July or even at the beginning of the election period but in April, why were those recommendations delayed? Because Conservative Ministers and their Departments were late to submit the remit letters and evidence. The Office for Manpower Economics has been clear on that point: “The work of the PRBs is demand led and essentially non-negotiable—departments set the remits and timetables.” That is the truth of the matter. The additional costs were always coming, and the only reason they came seven months into an election year is that Conservative Ministers were content for them to be so delayed. Conservative Members claim that they would not have accepted those recommendations, but they have not said at any point what their offer to public sector workers would have been. I wonder whether any Conservative Member wants to tell us today what their offer would have been, if not 5.5%, had they won the election. It should not be a hard question to answer. What would the difference be in the pay packets of nurses, teachers and members of the armed forces? I would be very happy to take an intervention on that point. [Interruption.] They cannot answer the question.