§ 2.36 p.m.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the reduction of £14 million in the public investment in roads announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on July 25 is consistent with the Minister of Transport's statement on the same day that the only effect of the restrictions on capital spending on the road-building programme would be to reduce in the current year and in 1967–68 the extent of the recovery hoped to be made in these years following the 1965 deferment measures; and whether they will make a statement to clarify the position.]
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION)My Lords, these statements are consistent. As the Minister of Transport explained on February 9 this year, expenditure on the English road programe for 1966–67 would permit some recovery in that year from the effects of the 1965 deferment measures. Moreover, if the economic situation permitted, expenditure after 1966–67 would be increased to make up more of the lost ground. £12 million of the £14 million reduction in 1967–68 announced by the Chief Secretary on July 25 will affect expenditure on roads in England. There will also be a consequential reduction of about £3 million in English road expenditure in 1966–67. These figures indicate the extent to which the recovery will be reduced.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, could the noble Lord say how and why this figure of £14 million was included in the Chief Secretary's statement that cuts of £150 million of public expenditure were to be made, when the cut had already been made and, according to what the noble Lord has just told us, the total would therefore be £136 million and not £150 million?
§ LORD CHAMPIONMy Lords, what it really amounts to is that the cut is made in the recovery that we hope to make following the Minister of Transport's announcement in February of this year. That is how it works. I could give the noble Lord a long list of figures showing exactly how this works out, but it would take a column of Hansard, and I should have thought the subject was inappropriate for question and answer at this point.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, however much he may care to wrap it up in columns of Hansard, it is difficult for us to accept it as a new cut, when the cut has already been made?
§ LORD CHAMPIONMy Lords, "wrapping it up" is not my job, and I normally never do such a thing. I give the House all the information I possibly can, and I will, of course, assist the noble Lord afterwards if he cares to look at the figures.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that I accept that it is not his job, but that he seems to be making a very good "fist" of it, just the same? Could the noble Lord say whether, and if so how, and by what amount each year, it is intended to restore these deferments, which apparently are not cuts, to attain the target expenditure which the Minister has already announced will have been made by 1970 under the National Plan?
§ LORD CHAMPIONMy Lords, yes, I could do that, but as I have said, I should have to tell the whole story going back to the £55 million cut, what it was intended to restore in 1966–67 and subsequent years, and what would now be the position, and as I have said this would take a column of Hansard. I can assure the noble Lord that I am not trying to dodge this question.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I am very pleased to hear that? Does he realise that it is the years subsequent to that in which I am now interested? If it is so complicated, will he kindly circulate this information, perhaps in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
§ LORD CHAMPIONMy Lords, I will certainly consider that suggestion.
§ ,LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
§ Following is the information referred to above:
§ 1. So far as the English road programme is concerned the 1965 deferment measures resulted in the deferment for six months of the starting-dates of 81 major road schemes, involving Exchequer expenditure of £47 million.
§ If nothing had been done to recover any of the lost ground this would have reduced planned Exchequer expenditure as follows:—
| £million | ||
| 1965/66 | 1966/67 | 1967/68 |
| —7 | —18 | —11 |
§ 2. The Minister of Transport announced in February this year that the deferment measures would be rounded off by a reduction of only £12 million in Exchequer expenditure in 1966/67. This would be followed, if the economic situation permitted, by an acceleration of the rate of expenditure after that year. The position in these years would then have been:—
| £million | ||
| 1965/66 | 1966/67 | 1967/68 |
| —7 | —12 | +5 |
§ 3. As a result of the current measures the revised level of planned expenditure on English roads in 1967/68 will be reduced by £12 million and there will be a consequential reduction in 1966/67 of £3 million, with the following result on the original planned expenditure in these years:—
| £million | ||
| 1965/66 | 1966/67 | 1967/68 |
| —7 | —15 | —7 |
§ 4. Comparison between these three sets of figures shows that the effect of the current measures on the English road programme is to reduce the extent of the recovery in 1966/67 and 1967/68 by £3 million and £12 million, respectively, while maintaining a recovery of £3 million in 1966/67 and of £4 million in 1967/68.
§ 5. Decisions have not yet been taken about the position in subsequent years.