65. Mr. Sharpiesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he had with bodies representative of local government, and with individual local authorities, prior to framing the proposals for cuts in public expenditure set out in Command Paper No. 3515.
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsIt would not have been appropriate to consult local authorities about the public expenditure cuts
268W
PUBLIC EXPENDITURE 1964–65 TO 1966–67 £ million (Current Prices) 1964–65 1965–66 1966–67 Defence Budget … … 1,916 2,069 2,152 Roads … … 410 413 448 Public Housing Investment … … 552 626 724 Housing Subsidies, etc. … … 160 192 208 Police and Prisons … … 224 252 286 Education (with school meals and milk) … … 1,493 1,675 1,873 Health and Welfare (with welfare foods) … … 1,215 1,369 1,502 Benefits and Assistance (with family allowances) … … 2,051 2,417 2,551 TOTAL … … 8,021 9,013 9,744 Other Programmes … … 2,464 2,663 2,894 GRAND TOTAL … … 10,485 11,676 12,638 prior to their announcement to Parliament.
§ 68. Mr. John Hallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the same form as the table on page 15 of Command Paper No. 3515 a table showing the proposed reductions in expenditure on each item listed in the Treasury analysis of public expenditure on pages 129–131 of National Income and Expenditure, 1967.
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsI am considering the possibility of preparing and publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT a Table which will provide the hon. Member with the information for which he asks.
§ 75. Mr. Hordernasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the outturn for the main programmes of public expenditure and their total, as defined in table 18.1 on page 178 of the National Plan, for each of the years 1964–65, 1965–66 and 1966–67 in the current prices of each year, recalculated on 1965 prices, and recalculated on any other convenient constant price basis.
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsBelow is a table in the form requested showing outturn figures for the years in question expressed in current prices. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) on 24th January, the conceptual difficulties of expressing statistics of public expenditure (including transfer payments) for past years in terms of constant prices are such that I do not feel able to publish these figures revalued in terms of constant prices.—[Vol. 757, c.134–51
269W
§ 76. Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the main public expenditure programmes and their total, as defined in table 18..1 on page 178 of the National Plan for each of the years 1967–68, 1968–69, and 1969–70 in the current prices of each year, recalculated in 1965 survey prices, and recalculated on any convenient constant price basis for which there are available comparable figures for earlier years
£ million (1965 Survey Prices) 1967–68 1968–69 1969–70 Defence Budget 2,020 1,973 1,949 Roads 514 531 559 Public Housing Investment 652 676 664 Housing Subsidies, etc. 208 245 266 Education (with school meals and milk) 1,740 1,806 1,876 Health and Welfare (with welfare foods) 1,419 1,440 1,495 Benefits and Assistance (with family allowances) 2,719 2,903 2,922 TOTAL 9,272 9,574 9,731 Other (excluding S.E.T. additional payments and R.E.P. and Investment Grants)* 3,469 3,652 3,621 TOTAL 12,741 13,226 13,352 S E.T. additional payments and R.E.P. and Investment Grants 359 516 511 GRAND TOTAL 13,100 13,742 13,863 *Includes Police and Prisons. The reduction in 1968–69 and 1969–70 on this programme cannot yet he identified separately from the reductions on Home Department Services given in Cmnd. 3515.
§ 77. Mr. Templeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to control the growth in public expenditure in line with the Government's plans and whether he is satisfied that the official statistics available to him are adequate for this task.
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsThe methods I am using are those which have been developed over recent years and are being continuously improved—a regular and comprehensive review of forward plans. The Answer to the second part of the Question is "Yes", but our statistical methods are under continuous development.
§ Mr. Hordernasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of public expenditure on a national income accounting basis for public authorities' current expenditure on goods and services, public authorities' gross domestic fixed capital
270W
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsBelow is a table showing the estimates at 1965 Survey prices. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said in reply to the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on 17th January, it is not customary to publish any forecast of pay and price adjustments such as current price estimates would disclose. The only available comparable figures for earlier years are those given in the National Plan, and these are on the 1965 Survey price basis.—[Vol. 756, c.648ߝ9]
formation, respectively, at 1958 constant prices for 1967, 1968 and 1969, before and after the cuts announced by the Government on 16th January consistent with and implied by the figures given in Command Paper No. 3515.
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsThe information in respect of 1967, which was not affected by the cuts, will be published in March in the usual White Paper giving preliminary estimates of the national income. I am not prepared to give estimates for 1968 and 1969.
§ Sir S. Summersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of public expenditure, as defined in the table at the end of Command Paper No. 3515, Public Expenditure in 1968–69 and 1969–70, for 1964–65, 1965–66, and 1966–67 at the current prices for each year, recalculated on the basis of 1967 survey prices, and recalculated on a consistent basis in any other convenient constant prices, respectively.
271W
§ Mr. DiamondAs regards the first part of the question, total public expenditure (excluding debt interest and the capital expenditure of the nationalised industries, etc.) at current prices (as shown in the Treasury Analysis of Public Expenditure in the National Income and Expenditure Blue Book, 1967) was as follows in the years in question:—
As regards the other parts of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) on 24th January.—[Vol. 757, c.134–5.]
£million 1964–65 1965–66 1966–67 10,485 11,676 12,638
§ Sir S. Summersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in table form his estimates for the main public expenditure programmes, as defined in table 18.1 on page 178 of the National Plan, for the years 1964–65, 1965–66, 1966–67, 1967–68, 1968–69, and 1969–70, before and after the 1966 Budget, the 1966 July measures, the 1967 Budget, the 1967 Devaluation package, and the January 1968 public expenditure cuts, respectively, in the current prices of each year, recalculated on the basis of 1965 survey prices, and recalculated on any other convenient constant price basis for which he can supply comparable figures throughout.
§ Mr. DiamondThe compilation of such a table, which would in any case raise some serious conceptual difficulties, would involve a disproportionate expenditure of staff, time and effort.
§ Mr. Higginsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give figures showing how the figures in column 1 of the Appendix of Command Paper No. 3515 appeared before allowance was made for the £400 million reduction in public expenditure announced on 18th December, 1967.
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsI assume the hon. Member refers to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's statement on 18th November. The measures he then announced to curtail public expenditure did not affect 1967–68 and so would not affect column 1 of the Table attached to Cmnd. 3515. Column 2 of the Table272W (for 1968–69) takes account of the reduction in defence expenditure (£100 million), in S.E.T. additional payments (£100 million) and in the investment of nationalised industries, etc. (£68 million—excluding £3 million for the Atomic Energy Authority) announced on 18th November and 21st October. The abolition of export rebate is classified as an increase in revenue and so does not affect the Cmnd. 3515 figures.—[Vol. 754, c. 951-2; Vol. 756, c. 488]