§ 14. Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give special directions to Government Departments with a view to their estimates for the forthcoming financial year being 186 so framed as to secure reductions in Government expenditure.
§ Mr. DiamondDepartments are already operating on instructions based on the plans for public expenditure in 1969–70 announced last January.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterDoes that mean that the right hon. Gentleman has given no further and more emphatic direction? Secondly, can he say to what extent he expects public expenditure in the coming year to be less than that in the current year?
§ Mr. DiamondIn answer to the first part of that supplementary question, as the right hon. Gentleman knows probably better than anyone else in the House, this is a matter for continuing management and not for special occasions only. Certainly we are continuing to give the matter most careful thought. It is a matter which engages my attention certainly every week and sometimes every day. The answer to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes. The increase as already announced is expected to be about 1 per cent.".
§ Mr. ShinwellWill it be possible to reduce Income Tax by 4s. in the £ in the next Budget, as suggested by one prominent Member of the Conservative Party?
§ Mr. DiamondMy right hon. Friend takes the view that it is his responsibility to look after this matter now, next year and for many years ahead, so one need not look too closely into the suggestion mentioned in that supplementary question.
§ 29. Mrs. Ewingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the increase in Government spending of £5,000 million in the last five years, with a view to effecting economies.
§ Mr. DiamondAll public expenditure is subject to constant investigation, and economies are made wherever this is possible without undesirable consequences.
§ Mrs. EwingIs the right hon. Gentleman aware of the commonly-held view in Scotland that Government expenditure is regulated by Parkinson's Law—that work expands to fill the time of the number of people available to do it—and the new 187 law, that Government spending increases according to how much the House of Commons will put up with it? Would the right hon. Gentleman seek to effect reductions, particularly in over-centralised Government spending in London?
§ Mr. DiamondI am prepared to consider most carefully any case which the hon. Lady wishes to make out about extravagant spending in whatever part of the country it is incurred. Since the hon. Lady mentioned one area, she may care to know that in the last five years—the period mentioned in her Question—the increase in identifiable public expenditure has been somewhat greater in Scotland than in the rest of Great Britain.
§ Dr. WinstanleyDoes the right hon. Gentleman's use of the phrase "constant investigation" in answer to this Question and his use of the phrases "constant observation" and "constant management" in answer to a previous Question in relation to budgetary matters mean that we are now to dispense with the pantomime of an annual Budget?
§ Mr. DiamondNo. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when one is dealing with projected expenditure of £15,000 million a year, it is a matter which cannot be allowed to run on on its own.
§ Miss HerbisonWould my right hon. Friend try to discover what effect this expenditure in Scotland has had in relation to bringing very much needed new jobs to the area, how this expenditure has increased under the present Government in the last four years and how it has increased to benefit old people, particularly in Scotland, the chronic sick and all those others who badly need help? Will my right hon. Friend take it from me and from the vast majority of my hon. Friends that there are no complaints whatever in Scotland about expenditure on these two vital matters?
§ Mr. DiamondI have noted carefully and sympathetically what my right hon. Friend has said. I will endeavour to obtain such information as is accurately available.