§ 9. Mr. Dykesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from the public in regard to curbs on public expenditure.
§ Mr. Peter ReesMy right hon. Friend has received a wide range of representations on this question, some pressing for further curbs on public expenditure, some for relaxation.
§ Mr. DykesIf real growth in the economy revives from now on, which is what her Majesty's Government confidently expect, will that not obviate and remove the need for further cuts in public spending in both real and money terms?
§ Mr. ReesMy hon. Friend should be aware that for 1984–85 we plan to stick to the published totals—published before the general election—which will not involve a real cut overall.
§ Mr. FreesonDoes the Minister accept that the prospective reduction in housing investment next year, totalling nearly £500 million, is in fact a reduction in the real economic activity of this country and will produce about 30,000 job losses in building and related industries?
§ Mr. ReesThe right hon. Gentleman must be referring to reductions in council house builds. He will be aware, as will the House——
§ Mr. FreesonAnswer the question.
§ Mr. ReesI am dealing with one aspect of investment. The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that there is likely to be an increase of 10 per cent. in private house building—[Interruption.] I have always regarded house building as an aspect of investment. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to industrial investment, I remind him and the House that the CBI is forecasting an increase in manufacturing investment of 5 per cent. next year.
§ Sir Paul BryanDoes my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the chief beneficiary of curbs in Government expenditure is the standard rate income tax payer? Will he point out to the Opposition that, even in the days of the Labour Government, 95 per cent. of Government expenditure was provided not by the so-called rich but by the standard rate income tax payer?
§ Mr. ReesI am happy to confirm the point that my hon. Friend made so perceptively and to remind the House that the standard rate of income tax is 30 per cent., whereas it was 33 per cent. under the Labour Government.
§ Mr. HattersleyI revert to the original question of perceived attitudes towards public expenditure. Does the Chief Secretary recall that on television on Sunday the Chancellor promised a hard look at every aspect of the social security budget? Yesterday in the House the Secretary of State for Social Services promised that there would be no fundamental reappraisal of the pension scheme. Which of those Ministers spoke for the Government?
§ Mr. ReesIt is the duty of Treasury Ministers to take a hard look at every aspect of public expenditure, but I remind the House that we have committed an extra £700 million this year and £800 million next year to the NHS.
§ Mr. HattersleyI hope that the Chief Secretary will answer at least one of the supplementary questions that have been put to him this afternoon. Will he tell us, not about the Health Service, about which he was not asked, but about the social security budget? Is there, or is there not, to be a fundamental reappraisal?
§ Mr. ReesI thought that I had made my answer clear, but obviously the right hon. Gentleman is a little dazed by his new responsibilities. We take a hard look every year at every aspect of public expenditure.