§ Total expenditure above-the-line in 1953–54 I estimated at £4,259 million, an increase of £108 million over last year's estimate. The first element in this, an increase of £48 million in the Debt charge and other Consolidated Fund services, represents about the same charge to the Budget as was actually incurred last year.
§ The second element is defence expenditure. In 1953–54 this will reach the large sum of £1,497 million, an increase of £120 million. This is a net figure after allowing for the sterling counterpart of defence aid already allotted to us by the United States. We have put this at £140 million—£55 million more than last year. The net figure for defence does not include certain expenditure on defence preparations coming under the Civil Votes, which amount to £138 million. As explained in the Defence White Paper, we have made a very thorough review of the defence programme. But for this, defence expenditure in 1953–54 would be running very considerably higher.
§ Civil supply expenditure—that is, all supply expenditure other than the defence programme—is estimated at £2,089 million, £60 million less than last year. This reduction has been achieved against a background of increased prices, inescapable commitments and the natural development of the major services. I intend to run through the main heads in order to attempt to satisfy hon. Members who perform their classical duty of criticising expenditure. I hope to show that it is by no means an unsatisfactory result, but we must keep up the pressure during the coming year.
§ The social services take 60 per cent. of civil supply expenditure, the figure being £1,264 million, an increase of about £80 million on last year. There are three main causes for the increase. Twenty-four million pounds is due to there being, in 1953–54, a full year's cost of the increases in social benefits made in the last Budget. The National Health Service, excluding Civil Defence, will cost £411 million. This represents an increase of £18 million due mainly to rising costs, of which the outstanding example was the Danckwerts Award on doctors' remuneration—which was, of course, not included in last year's original estimate.
43§ Education, including the universities, will cost £286 million—£27 million more than last year. This increase is mainly due to the growth in the number of schoolchildren, the increase in teachers' remuneration, and the need to provide new schools to match the re-distribution of the population in new towns and housing estates.
§ The remainder of the provision for the social services, £567 million, is almost entirely accounted for by National Assistance, £128 million; National Insurance and family allowances, £183 million; war pensions, £89 million; housing grants, £70 million; and Exchequer contributions to local revenues, £68 million.
§ The provision for food subsidies in 1953–54 is, in round figures, £220 million, which compares with the rate of £250 million which I set in last year's Budget as the objective to be aimed at in a full year. This reduction flows from our policy, which has already been announced, of decontrolling eggs and cereals.
§ The remaining items under civil expenditure total just over £600 million, about £85 million less than last year. Part of this decrease—about £35 million—is accounted for by savings on activities connected with the defence programme, namely, industrial capacity for defence, strategic stockpiling and Civil Defence. The general expenditure of the Ministry of Supply, mainly on general research and development, increases, however, by £20 million. But a large once-for-all reduction has been secured by the receipts expected from sales of Ministry of Food trading stocks of feedingstuffs and other grains. Here again the Exchequer benefits from cereal decontrol.
§ There have also been considerable administrative economies. These result from the continued co-operation which I have had from my colleagues in securing staff economies throughout the Government machine. They will be supplemented in the future by such measures of administrative simplification as the amalgamation of Departments recently announced. The Civil Service figures for the close of the financial year are not yet available, but I have every reason to expect that they will show a reduction in the Civil Service since 1st January, 1952, of 22,000.
44§ So much for expenditure in the coming year. But before I leave the subject, I should like to explain to the Committee our attitude to Government expenditure generally. Sometimes, as in the flood disaster—I am sure the Committee will be with me in this—an increase in Government expenditure is well merited. We might also have to incur fresh burdens due to a sudden turn in international affairs. At present some of the straws seem to be blowing towards a relief of tension, but we must not relax. I continually watch our overseas expenditure. At home we have by no means said our last word about reducing Civil Supply expenditure. This process must go on and must play its part in maintaining the health of our economy.
§ We shall work in the spirit that wherever appropriate the Government should do less and that the private citizen should be in a position to do more. During the course of last year, by following this line we introduced some flexibility and more economy. Thus we must enter a new phase in our housing policy, in which private enterprise must play a progressively bigger part and thus proportionately relieve the Exchequer.
§ The Health Service problems are so complex and of such wide interest that we have sought the assistance of a Committee, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health announced before Easter. I fail to see why it should be called political cowardice for those of us who intend to maintain the Health Service to have it impartially examined in order that those who pay for it, whether political or non-political persons, should get value for money spent.