Lord Parekh (Lab)

My Lords, I shall speak not so much about the results of the election but about its consequences and two important features that came up in the course of the debate: namely, the Budget and the manifesto. They raise some large theoretical questions, and I will share my thoughts on them. The Budget is an annual event of great importance, and great preparation goes into it. There is a lot of anticipation about it, and then the date arrives. On that day, the question becomes, “Why is it so important? Why do we have a Budget every year?” The answer, obviously—although it is not that obvious—is that this is when the Government share their thoughts on what they want to earn, what they want from us and what they want shared in public services. This is a way in which the Government let people know what choices have been made—or, if we want to look at it democratically, this is a way for people to control how the Government should spend and what the limits should be. I want to suggest that this is outdated. Simply put, it is outdated in the language itself that we use. We are beginning to realise that the Budget is largely concerned with economic matters, and economic matters are never confined to the economic life alone; they have political consequences, cultural consequences, social consequences—and therefore we cannot have a Budget in isolation. If I had time, I would take the House through the Budget item by item, clause by clause, to show how it has profound social and cultural consequences that we recognise and regret. I suggest that it might be a good idea to think of the Budget as a national event where we take the pulse of the country as a whole. We can discuss the role that economic matters play, but also the role of cultural, social, educational and other matters, and look at what progress is being made in these areas. My second point—and I wish to touch on this very briefly—is the debate that we had with the Chancellor on a manifesto commitment not being respected in the Budget. What is the relationship between a manifesto commitment and the Budget? How does a manifesto commitment acquire its own legitimacy, so that we can take it as a point of reference and judge our policies in light of it? I think that it has this authority because it embodies the party’s vision and policies. In this case, when the party becomes the Government, the expectation is that the policies to which it committed itself would be followed through in the Budget. The manifesto should automatically translate into the Budget, so that it cannot be questioned. I want to suggest that it is never like this. Obviously, the Government or the political party might promise lots of things they have no intention of doing, and therefore for many the commitment is critically important to catch the party and to stop it from misuse. The question is: why is it we can organise it to do this? We cannot allow for this kind of continuity. There are lots of things that can happen once you are in power. There are things that are not seen or anticipated; therefore, you have to take decisions on the basis of that information—not the information you had when you were drafting the manifesto. I suggest that the relationship between a manifesto of a party and the policies it follows should be close but not so close that it cannot be superseded.