§ Q6. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Social Ser- 1522 vices at Coventry on 6th November on social service expenditure represented official Government policy.
§ Mr. Edward ShortI have been asked to reply.
Yes, Sir.
§ Mr. HamiltonIs my right hon. Friend aware that many of us read that speech with considerable alarm? Does he not recognise that the National Health Service, to take just one example, is on the verge of collapse because of the shortage of capital investment and current expenditure, and that if there are to be priorities—I assume that the Government have their priorities—there ought to be a considerable slashing of the road programme, if that would enable a diversion of resources to such a valuable service as the health service?
Will my right hon. Friend read again the report of the Expenditure Sub-Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), which investigated the cuts in public expenditure initiated by the previous Tory Government in the White Paper of December 1973, in which the Sub-Committee said that in no circumstances must social expenditure ever be cut again in this Draconian way?
§ Mr. ShortMy right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained on 12th November that public expenditure as a whole in the next four years could not be allowed to grow at a greater rate than 2¾ per cent. a year, in real terms. The detailed decisions on the practicable rate of growth for particular services have not yet been taken.
§ Mr. Nigel LawsonWill the Leader of the House take note that if there are to be cuts in the social services it will be a question of priorities, and that the most obvious candidate for such cuts is the provision of taxpayers' money to the families of those who choose to go on strike?
§ Mr. ShortAs I said, public expenditure as a whole will grow at a rate of 2¾ per cent. in real terms, but the apportionment of that money to various services has not yet been decided.