§ 18. Miss Elaine Burtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that the price rise this year, in all rationed and unrationed food, shall not exceed a maximum of 1s. 6d. per head per week.
§ Sir A. SalterThe figure of Is. 6d. per head per week for the price rise of subsidised foods (rationed and unrationed) was based on the best estimates at the time of the Budget of what our supplies of food would cost us during the year. Unless costs increase further, for reasons unconnected with the reduction of the subsidy, I do not see any reason to vary the figure of 1s. 6d.
§ Miss BurtonThe country will be very alarmed at that statement. Is the Minister aware that the country believes that there was an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the maximum rise in prices per head per week would be 1s. 6d.? Do we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that the Government no longer give that guarantee?
§ Sir A. SalterThe statement made related to the effect of the reduction of the subsidies and other factors known at that time. To give an unqualified prophecy about future developments, which must depend partly, of course, on matters completely outside our control, would obviously be improper.
§ Miss BurtonI can well understand that the party opposite is nervous about making any more prophecies. What is the figure, beyond that Is. 6d., by which the Government expect that prices will rise?
§ Sir A. SalterWe gave an estimate on the basis of known facts. If the hon. Lady will read the last part of my answer, I think she will see that it covers her last point—that
unless costs increase further, for reasons unconnected with the reduction of the subsidy. I do not see any reason to vary the figure of Is. 6d.
§ Sir Waldron SmithersIs my right hon. Friend aware that no Government could answer this Question? Is he aware that the salvation of this country depends on people producing goods and services and wealth of their own free will and at world prices—or we all starve?
§ Mrs. Jean MannIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for reasons not connected with the Budget, prices have gone up by much more than 1s. 6d.? Is he aware that these reasons are connected with the return of the Tory Party to power?
§ 19. Miss Burtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a list of those benefits, other than tax allowances, which Her Majesty's Government estimate will offset the rise in the cost-of-living for people below Income Tax level.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI explained the general basis of this aspect of the Budget proposals in my reply to the hon. Member of 8th May. The list for which she asks is as follows:
Increased family allowances, retirement and widows' pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits, war pensions industrial injury benefits, increases of pensions under the Pensions (Increase) Act and, of course, as the ultimate protection against want, increased rates of National Assistance.
§ Miss BurtonHow will people below the Income Tax level—something like three million before the last Budget—and those who have not two children or more benefit from the list the hon. Gentleman has given me?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterWhat the hon. Lady asked for was a list of the benefits. I have given her that list. Its application 1609 and effect would, no doubt, be appropriate to a debate on the appropriate Clauses of the Finance Bill.
§ Miss BurtonIs the hon. Gentleman aware that I was very charitable in my Question and that I assumed that the Government thought these increases would offset the cost of living? In view of the answers to both my Questions, it is obvious that they will not. What do the party opposite propose to do about it?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI am sorry that the hon. Lady did not continue her charity from her Question to her supplementary questions. She will appreciate that this is a matter which is perhaps more appropriate for debate on the appropriate Clauses of the Finance Bill than at Question time.