§ 8. Mr. Canavanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further representations he has received about his forthcoming Budget.
§ Mr. HealeyMy colleagues and I have received many representations, in the form both of deputations and of letters and papers. We are bearing them in mind in drawing up our plans for the Budget.
§ Mr. CanavanIn view of the many letters from all over the country which I have forwarded to my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to include in his Budget a measure to increase public expenditure in favour of deserving causes such as pensioners and children receiving school meals? Will he stop all unnecessary public expenditure for the over-privileged, including the £1,000 per week pocket money which we give to a parasite like Princess Margaret?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that remark. It is not permissible in this Chamber to pass derogatory remarks about the Royal Family. The word "parasite" must be withdrawn.
§ Mr. CanavanI am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if my remark has offended you. I withdraw it.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt has not offended me. It has offended the House.
§ Mr. HealeyIn answer to my hon. Friend, I say that I will, as always, take care to make possible all deserving cases of public expenditure and to cut out all unnecessary forms of public expenditure.
§ Mr. AdleyWill the Chancellor congratulate the Prime Minister on his newfound doctrine of listening to public opinion when discussing taxation proposals for the forthcoming Budget with 1729 his right hon. Friend? Will the Chancellor find out whether this new-found doctrine of the Prime Minister's relates solely to tax cuts which he thinks might be popular, or will the Prime Minister also listen to the voice of the public on nationalisation, immigration policy, law and order and education policy?
§ Mr. HealeyThe hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear that listening to the public is not a new-found doctrine for the Labour Party. Our ability to take note of public views and to lead where leadership is necessary is reflected in the dramatic improvement in our election prospects, as indicated in recent by-elections and in today's opinion polls.
§ Mr. HefferSince one of the bodies which made representations to my right hon. Friend was the national executive of the Labour Party, which has called for a reduction in taxation, particularly for lower-income groups, and a boost to the economy to help construction, health and education policies, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give us a clear indication that he will listen to this advice carefully and, I hope, follow it, particularly since the emphasis is to create employment and to reduce the serious level of unemployment?
§ Mr. HealeyAs my hon. Friend knows, we have listened in the most literal sense most carefully to all the views put forward to us by the national executive of the Labour Party. We have also listened to the somewhat different views put to us by the general council of the TUC. We shall take them all into account when we come to take decisions on the forthcoming Budget.
§ Mr. DykesNow that the Chancellor has renounced, some time ago, the squeezing of certain unspecified people until the pips squeaked, may I ask whether he is now sufficiently broad-minded to look at the result of the French elections? Will he bear in mind that that result took place in a society and in an economic system in which all the rates of personal tax are more modest than in this country—reaching a maximum of 60 per cent.—where there is no distinction between earned and unearned income in the spurious way in which this Government insists upon, and where there is a much more just economic situation in terms of 1730 income, despite certain disparities in incomes at the higher levels?
§ Mr. HealeyPerhaps I can inform the hon. Gentleman that the group whose pips I said I proposed to squeeze if I became Chancellor was the property speculators.
§ Mr. LawsonRubbish.
§ Mr. HealeyThat is the only remark I have made about pips squeaking. Their pips are now too tired to squeak. As for the French election, I note whith great interest that the President of France has made it his first act, following the elections, to call for the type of co-operation between both sides of industry which has already been successfully achieved by this Government. The main casualty of the elections in France was that part of the Government majority which follows the sort of line followed by the Tory Front Bench.
§ Mr. MolloyWill my right hon. Friend bear in mind that only this week hon. Members from both sides of the House met the Tory deputy-leader of the GLC, who impressed upon us the need for much more public spending to ease the problems of the inner cities? He suggested that this increased public spending should be via the Budget and North Sea oil. That seemed a genuine appeal. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that on the next day the Leader of the Opposition said that the lion's share of any benefit to the nation from North Sea oil should arise as a result of cutting taxes? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that it is difficult to know whether that was a genuine expression by the Tory deputy-leader of the GLC or whether it was part of a piece of organised hypocrisy?
§ Mr. HealeyMy hon. Friend will know that we have already allocated a good deal of money towards renewal of our inner cities. We regard this as having a high priority for expenditure of the benefits obtained from North Sea oil. I take the point that to "blue" all the benefits of the North Sea in a short-lived spending spree, largely by the better-off members of the community, would not benefit the country in any way,
§ Mr. LawsonIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a question not of "blueing" North Sea oil money on a 1731 spending spree but of whether it is used for public expenditure or cutting taxation? Will the Chancellor clear away the clouds of waffle in the North Sea oil White Paper and say clearly what proportion of the North Sea oil revenues he thinks ought to be used in increased public expenditure?
§ Mr. HealeyThe hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have already published their public expenditure plans for the next five years and, despite the determined attack by the Tory Party, received an overwhelming endorsement for those plans from the House last week.