§ 3. Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount that Her Majesty's Government borrowed in the year 1975–76, expressed in £ sterling per head of the population.
§ The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett)About £157, based 650 on the central Government borrowing requirement of £ 8.8 billion.
§ Mr. MorrisonIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people will consider that a horrifying figure? Will he confirm that it is now more expensive for the taxpayer to fund the interest on the total borrowed than it is to fund the whole of the National Health Service?
§ Mr. BarnettIf the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that subject, I shall be happy to deal with it. I say to the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition generally that they have never yet made a single proposal that would seriously reduce the borrowing requirement. What we have had is a series of generalisations about public expenditure cuts to be offset by specific tax reductions. We have never had a serious suggestion that would reduce the borrowing requirement.
§ Mr. CrawfordWill the right hon. Gentleman tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will not be able to rely for much longer on the revenues from Scottish oil as collateral for spendthrift borrowing?
§ Mr. BarnettI know about North Sea oil. We are not dependent on that for the borrowing requirement. The borrowing requirement will reduce in the coming years. That is our policy. In 1976–77 the Chancellor has deliberately left the borrowing requirement higher than we should like. But if we did what the Opposition have in mind—if they would spell it out—we should probably reduce the borrowing requirement but increase unemployment substantially.
§ Mr. WatkinsonMy hon. Friend has mentioned the fact that the borrowing requirement is perhaps higher than the Government would like it to be. Is he confident that in the upturn sufficient funds will be available, given the size of the borrowing requirement, to fund investment without recourse to printing money?
§ Mr. BarnettThe answer is "Yes, certainly". This is precisely what we had in mind when we made the cuts in public expenditure programmes in the years after 1976–77. We are confident that there will be sufficient funds available for the crucial investment.
§ Mr. CormackHow can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that for every family of four £ 600 a year is the sum involved, or more than that, and then justify the Government's grandiose nationalisation plans?
§ Mr. BarnettI am not too sure how the two parts of that question are relevant. There is no question—and the present Government have no intention of doing so in 1976–77—of taking the kind of generalised action about which we have heard from the Opposition. That would do the maximum possible harm economically, financially and industrially.