Food Subsidies (Reduction) (Hansard, 28 April 1953)

§ 31. Mr. Beswick
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the estimated reduction of £60 million of civil expenditure for the year 1953–54 is accounted for by the estimated reduction in food subsidies.

§ Mr. R. A. Butler
As I explained in my Budget speech, £60 million is the net reduction in Civil Estimates in 1953–54 compared with last year's Estimates adjusted for the effect of the Budget changes. These changes both on subsidies and on social benefits were in operation for only part of the year 1952– 53 and direct comparison of individual elements in them between the two years is misleading. The reduction this year in the annual rate of food subsidies aimed at last year is £30 million.

§ Mr. Beswick
Does not the Chancellor think it is equally misleading to compare the proposed expenditure this year with the rate of expenditure at the end of last year, and would it not have been much more frank and in accordance with the Chancellor's customary frankness to say that the proposed expenditure this year will be of the order of £112 million less than the total expenditure last year?

§ Mr. Butler
If the hon. Member follows the explanation I gave in my Budget statement he will see it was absolutely frank and that it corresponds to the statement I have made now. He will further see that, in fact, the consumer benefited from the deferment of the application of the reduction in food subsidies until the latter part of last year. He will also see that I was not comparing the out-turn of 1952–53 with the Estimates of 1953–54. I sympathise with the hon. Member on the complexity, but there is no desire to avoid a frank statement of the position.

§ Mr. Beswick
But there is no complexity about this at all. He said quite definitely that the figure was £220 million this year as compared with a rate of £250 million, whereas, in point of fact, expenditure last year was £112 million more than the Estimate for this year?

§ Mr. Butler
If the hon. Member would take into account the fact, first, that I have said I was not comparing the out-turning to 1952–53 with the Estimates of 1953–54, and, second, that the difference between £30 million and £110 million follows from the fact that the 1952 Budget will be operating for a whole year instead of part of a year, he will see the explanation of those figures. If he would like me to illustrate it by a chart outside I would be glad to do so.