division_name: Government Running Costs
motion: <p>
   I beg to move,
  <p> 
   
    That this House takes note of the increase in running costs of central Government and rising waste in public expenditure; regrets that this means resources are not reaching front-line public services; regrets that the Government seeks to deflect criticism of their failure to deliver improvements in public services onto public servants; notes the doubling in the number of paid political advisers; and deplores the Government's reliance on spin-doctoring and bureaucracy in place of support for public services.
  <p>
   I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  <p> 
   
    "notes that, compared to the previous administration, the costs of central Government have not risen in real terms, and have indeed fallen; supports the progress made by this Government in cleaning up politics and rebuilding the bond of trust with the British people, broken through the failures of the previous administration; welcomes the Government's actions to improve democratic accountability; endorses the inclusive approach to policymaking of the Modernising Government agenda, which involves more people from all walks of life; welcomes the improvement in standards in public life; and agrees, with the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that 'special advisers have a valuable role to play.'."
  <p>
  The Kremlin would have been proud of that turn of phrase. In other words, the project will produce the line to be defended at all times. It does not provide substance to the belief that there is the degree of inclusiveness that the Government like to boast about.
  <p>
  That was the position, and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) does not like the fact that NHS trusts are no longer the bastion of Tory party members appointed--
  <p>Question put,  That the original words stand part of the Question:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 179, Noes 331.
   