HC Deb 11 March 1952 vol 497 cc1284-6

The estimated total of ordinary expenditure in 1952–53 is £4,240 million—that is £43 million more than the original Estimates for 1951–52 and £82 million more than the Estimates as revised after the last Budget. One half of this is attributable to the Debt Charge and other Consolidated Fund services. The increase of just over £40 million in Supply services consists of an increase of over £60 million in total net expenditure on defence preparations, offset by a net decline in civil expenditure of over £20 million.

I will devote a few moments to analysing these in turn. Under defence preparations I include, first, the Service Estimates, which stand at a net figure of £1,377 million. As the Committee are aware, this represents some slowing down compared with what was projected for the coming year under the original programme. The reasons for this were fully explained to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I need not elaborate them now. To this figure of £1,377 million we must add Civil Defence at just over £45 million, giving a total so far of nearly £1,425 million, an increase of £130 million over the current year's Estimates and margin for supplementaries.

Assistance for the development of industrial capacity in connection with defence stands at £65 million compared with £48 million in the last Budget, but the provision for strategic stockpiling is reduced from £143 million to £61 million in the current year. The reasons for which we have reluctantly had to take these decisions are only too well known to hon. Members. This gives us a total of about £1,550 million for defence preparations in the broad sense, and shows a net increase of over £60 million on the figure, under £1,490 million, provided for 1951–52.

I turn now to civil expenditure. Miscellaneous supply and trading services, for which I have provided £94 million, are up on the last Budget by £30 million; this is accounted for by the Post Office cash deficit of £14 million, increased civil expenditure by the Ministry of Supply and changes in the stocks and debtor-creditor position of the Ministry of Food. The Exchequer contribution to the National Insurance Fund, at £69 million, takes credit for a full year's reduction in that contribution and is, therefore, down by another £40 million. That leaves me with the remainder of our ordinary expenditure—that is, the normal civil expenditure to which I have directed the attention of hon. Members during our two previous debates on the subject, and to which our efforts at economy have been mainly devoted.

I told the House on 29th January that we were holding this expenditure at about this year's figure, and we have done so. The figure is £1,903 million, or just over £10 million less than the corresponding figure for the current year, and that despite a considerable rise in costs.

It is worth looking a little more closely at these figures, which can be divided into social services, food subsidies, the balance of ordinary civil expenditure and so forth. The social services stand at £1,471 million, against this year's revised estimates of £1,454 million—£17 million more. The National Health Service, at £393 million, excluding the Civil Defence part of it, is down by £5 million. Education, including universities, is up by nearly £8 million at £259 million. This, I hope, is a sufficient answer to those who consider that I am leading a drive towards illiteracy, or engaged in cutting the throat of a child of my own creation.

The other social services at £819 million, are up by £14 million. Most of this increase is due to a rise in Exchequer contributions to local revenues and to the increased National Assistance rates announced last year. The balance of civil expenditure, comprising every kind of service, is down. It stands at £432 million, a reduction of over £30 million.

Sir Waldron Smithers (Orpington)

Not enough.

Mr. Butler

Perhaps my hon. Friend would take account of some of the other economies to which I have been referring and will add up the figures afterwards.

This is a definite achievement, even greater in real terms because of the increased prices that have occurred since last year. It has not been done solely by the few big measures which have been separately mentioned to the House, or by the disappearance of items such as the Festival of Britain. In every sector there has been a deliberate cutting back of services, at the cost of many sacrifices, I agree, in the general interest—coast protection, new Government works, grants-in-aid to many useful bodies, are only a few examples chosen at random. And to keep this up we need a sustained effort to put economy first: an effort which my colleagues have agreed to make, and in which I ask all local authorities and other public bodies to share to the full. I cannot stress sufficiently the importance of economy in the sphere of local government as well as national Government.