HC Deb 23 January 1974 vol 867 cc1624-8
2. Mr. Strang

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement outlining how the statement announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th December will affect public expenditure in Scotland.

4. Mr. William Hamilton

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report details of the cuts in public expenditure to be made by his Department in agriculture, fisheries and food, trade, industry and employment, private industry and commerce, roads and transport, other environmental services, law, order, and protective services, each of the social services and other public services.

Mr. Gordon Campbell

I refer to the information by programmes given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 21st January.—[Vol. 867, c. 244.]

Mr. Strang

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cuts which he is seeking to impose are of unparalled ferocity and that there is in particular extreme resentment at the cavalier way in which the Scottish Development Department has stopped approving all council improvement schemes? Is it not clear that if nothing is done we shall move from overheating in the building industry in Scotland to severe unemployment before the end of the year?

Mr. Campbell

The measures are being carried out on a United Kingdom basis. The housing improvement schemes to which the hon. Gentleman referred are those for which local authorities are responsible. So many have already been approved that local authorities will have difficulty in digesting them. New housing has not been affected by the measures.

Mr. Hamilton

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his Department is spreading circulars like confetti? To my knowledge ait least four have been issued dealing with various aspects of health, education, housing, and other matters. They mean, in effect, a cut in the standard of living of ordinary, poor working people. That is the indictment of the Government, that repeatedly, budget after budget and public expenditure cuts after public expenditure cuts hit people who can least bear the burdens. That is the gross unfairness of the society the Government have created since 1970.

Mr. Campbell

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The circulars have been sent out quickly in response to requests for information and advice about the application of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. MacArthur

In order to get the matter into perspective, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many housing improvements are now taking place, or how many have been completed in the last year for which figures are conveniently available? Will the postponement of expenditure announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have any effect on the rebuilding of the A9 Perth to Inverness road and the further development of the M90 motorway, both of which are central to oil development in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell

In answer to my hon. Friend's first point, I cannot give an exact figure without notice. House improvement schemes in both the private and public sectors have been much greater in number in the past year or two than ever before. I confirm that work on the A9 is not affected by my right hon. Friend's announcement and that other road programmes connected with North Sea oil are exempted.

Sir M. Galpern

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the housing improvement schemes approved by Glasgow Corporation are of extreme urgency? Should not the House be told that the Secretary of State for Scotland has stopped all such improvement schemes?

Why, therefore, is it fair to tell the House that this is a matter for the local authorities? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared, in the case of the City of Glasgow, to give special consideration to the urgent problem of improving houses which at present are slums?

Mr. Campbell

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. There are house improvement schemes which have been approved. There is a great deal to be done, and it will be difficult for what has already been approved to be digested and carried out. It is new schemes, from a certain date, for which approval has been stopped.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

Will my right hon. Friend take a further step to put into proper perspective the hypocrisy of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and confirm that it is not a question of cuts in public expenditure but merely a question of curbing the growth rate in public expenditure? Did not the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends support their Government in 1969 in imposing far more savage restrictions on the growth of public expenditure?

Mr. Campbell

The reduction we are discussing is in respect of future programmes. It is a general reduction of 20 per cent. in capital formation and 10 per cent. in procurement expenditure, with exemptions in Scotland for important infrastructure expenditure connected with North Sea oil developments.

Mr. Ross

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if there are to be cuts of 20 per cent. in capital expenditure and 10 per cent. in current expenditure, but certain areas are to be exempt, other areas will have to bear much more savage cuts? Is he aware that there are to be cuts of £18 million in education and that roads, transport and environmental services bear more than 50 per cent. of the £72.3 million cuts. In view of the hopes and expectations of improvements in services, which are much needed, and which he took pride in saying that the Government were going to spend money on, that is not a matter for triumph but is a severe reflection on the Government's handling of the whole economy.

Mr. Campbell

The right hon. Gentleman must have been in dreamland if he did not realise that the programmes he mentions are amongst those which we hoped to carry out before the international energy crisis and events at home caused this to be done. I have made clear publicly that I am disappointed that programmes for Scotland have to be slowed down in this way at a time when all the indicators in 1973—emigration, unemployment, and, above all, job vacancies—were so good and were set fair for Scotland.

14. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has so far had with local authorities regarding the implementation of the Government's decision to curb the rate of growth in public expenditure.

Mr. Gordon Campbell

Representatives of the local authority associations discussed with me on 18th January the rate support grant for 1974–75 and the savings required in both capital and current expenditure.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

Since the curbs on excessive State spending go to the root of inflation, will my right hon. Friend make sure that full publicity is given to any recalcitrance on the part of any local authorities, so that the people of Scotland may know who the friends of inflation are? Will he at the same time reassure the House that there is no truth in reports that he indicated to the local authorities that he was reducing by £2½ million the savings that were required of them and that there has been no backsliding at St. Andrews House in this respect?

Mr. Campbell

I think that I got the co-operation of the local authority representatives who appeared to recognise that the national economic situation called for special measures. But, understandably, they represented the serious consequences to the services for which they are responsible. I informed them of the exact amount of savings that they would have to make, which were slightly less than they had originally been told.

Mr. Grimond

Does the Secretary of State agree that the importance in public expenditure is not only the rate of growth, or growth at all, but the purposes for which it is used? Will he do his best to impress on local authorities that they should concentrate on useful purposes, such as assistance to production, housing, and the improvement of the surroundings of houses, and not on such things as office building and, in some cases, the unnecessary straightening out of corners on roads which are already quite adequate?

Mr. Campbell

I think that the local authority representatives were in agreement with me that it was necessary to concentrate on essential services and projects. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in agreement with that.

Mr. Ross

May we take it that the figures given by the Secretary of State on Monday, 21st January, at col. 244 of Hansard, in a Written Answer to his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) were virtually the allocations given to the local authorities for various matters? That being so, did he get the agreement of the local authorities? Of course, there was not much that they could do about it when he said that that was all the money they were getting. Surely he was not discussing the Rate Support Grant Order for 1974–75, because we had that last year. I presume that he was discussing the rate increase order that is due to come before the House. Indeed, I am surprised that we have not yet had it. When shall we get it?

Mr. Campbell

We were discussing the rate increase order, but we also discussed the new Rate Support Grant Order, because the Local Government (Scotland) Act has changed the situation and we must start with another order. In the context of considering the Rate Support Grant Order we naturally had to take into account the reductions in expenditure that local authorities now have to make. Within the broad headings and figures the local authorities are left to make their own decisions, but, as I have just said, we agreed that essential projects and services should get priority.