§ Inland Revenue receipts, at £3,645 million, were £47 million more than the estimate. Customs and Excise duties, including the yield of the surcharge imposed last July, produced £2,595 million. This compares with the Budget estimate of £2,510 million, to which must be added the estimate of £130 million for the surcharge. The actual receipts, therefore, were £45 million less than those combined estimates for Customs and Excise duties.
§ Motor duties at £141 million fell short of the estimate by £14 million, but other revenue at £264 million produced an extra £19 million. In total, the out-turn of the revenue at £6,645 million was £137 million above the original Budget estimate, or, if the estimated yield of the surcharge is taken into account, £7 million more, which, I think, is a remarkable piece of accurate estimating.
§ Now we come to the expenditure. Expenditure above the line came out at £6,235 million, or £233 million above the estimate. Within this total, Consolidated Fund services at £867 million showed an increase of £52 million due mainly to the rise in interest rates following the increase in the Bank Rate last July. Supply expenditure at £5,368 million was £181 million above the Budget estimate. Revised and Supplementary Estimates totalling £248 million were partly offset by savings of £67 million.
961§ The result above the line was a surplus of £410 million. This is £96 million less than my original estimate of £506 million, but £263 million more than the out-turn of the previous financial year when the surplus was £147 million.
§ Below the line, receipts at £517 million were £3 million more than estimated. Total payments at £1,138 million were £49 million more. There were two substantial divergencies from the estimates. Loans to the nationalised industries and the Post Office required £80 million more. Loans for overseas assistance, though up on the previous year, were £29 million less than the estimate. The net deficit below the line was £621 million.
§ Thus, the overall deficit, or I think that the better description is the net borrowing requirement on Budget account, was £211 million, that is, £142 million more than estimated. This figure of £211 million compares with £394 million in 1960–61. In that year, we were able to meet virtually all our borrowing needs outside the market—this is 1960–61—and since, in the year, we made net sales of nearly £300 million gilt-edged securities, we were able to use practically all the proceeds to pay off market Treasury bills. In 1961–62, with our smaller overall deficit, we have been able to do rather better; our borrowing outside the market, for example, National Savings, exceeded our needs by just over £250 million, so that we were able to reduce correspondingly our total indebtedness to the market.
§ Since the proceeds of our sales of gilt-edged securities have been just about enough to meet our liabilities on the two maturities which occurred during the year, the bulk of this reduction has taken the form of paying off market Treasury bills. My expectation, that I should not be looking to the gilt-edged market for new money in 1961–62, has been fulfilled; and for the second year running we have been able to reduce our reliance on market Treasury bills.
§ A notable contribution to last year's result was once again made by National Savings. Given the circumstances, particularly the rise in other interest rates, it would not have been reasonable to expect National Savings to do as well in the past year as in the previous three years. But, despite these difficulties, the amount remaining invested in all forms 962 of National Savings increased by £170 million. Of this, £78 million represents net new receipts to the Exchequer. Once again, and I am sure that the Committee will be with me on this point, I wish to thank Lord Mackintosh and all the other workers in the National Savings Movement for their highly important work.