| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Mellor : I should like to finish this passage and then I shall give way, if the hon. Gentleman wants to take issue with me on the health service.
In 1977-78 Labour cut real spending on the NHS by 2.5 per cent. It is true that, during their period in office, real spending increased, but it was at less than half the rate that we have managed, and they cut real capital spending by no less than 16 per cent.
One does not have to travel too far in this country to see evidence of the massive increase in hospital building, renewals and renovations in today's health service.
Mr. Battle rose
Column 294
Mr. Mellor : I am still on the subject of the health service. I shall certainly give way ; I have not forgotten the hon. Gentleman--I know that he takes an interest in these matters.
I want to spend a moment or two considering Labour's claims about the future of health service expenditure. The 1979 Labour manifesto called for increases in the percentage of GDP devoted to health--an implicit acceptance that 1974 to 1979 was a period when the Labour Government underfunded the NHS. Apart from the slashing cuts to the hospital building programme, there were also cuts in the pay of national health service employees. Nurses' pay went down by 21 per cent.
Moving forward to the 1987 election, Labour continued to say that the national health service was underfunded. A point that I hope will not be lost on those on the Opposition Front Bench is that, at that point, the Leader of the Opposition was calling for a 3 per cent. real-terms increase in spending on health. Labour fought the last election on the basis that the underfunding of the NHS would be addressed by a 3 per cent. real terms increase in spending every year.
Let us look at what has happened in the last five years. We find that this Government have increased spending on health not by 3 per cent. in real terms but by 3.5 per cent. in real terms, yet Labour still says that the NHS is underfunded. What does it propose to do about it ? As usual, there is muddle and confusion. At one moment the Leader of the Opposition told the interlocutor-general, Mr Walden, that there will not be an immediate increase. Later, he said that spending on health will rise in line with gross projections of 2.5 per cent. per annum and that it will take its share of the £20 billion crock of gold that he magically conjured up for his audience last Wednesday--"just like that," as the late Tommy Cooper used to say. How much we could do with him now in order to demonstrate the inadequacies of the Labour party's policy.
What sort of a policy is it? If that policy of a 2.5 per cent. increase in real spending on the NHS had been pursued since 1979, spending this year on the NHS would be £2.6 billion less than it actually is. Therefore, Labour's analysis--that the only problem with the NHS is underfunding and that anything that the Labour party proposes will put it right--is plainly wrong. At every stage, the Labour party proposes a scale of increase that it less than that which we have achieved. An unholy alliance has allegedly built up between the Labour party and the British Medical Association, but did the Labour party rush to say--if I have got this wrong, someone will intervene--that it will immediately given the BMA the £6 billion that it thinks is necessary? Silence is golden when it comes to that line of argument.
The Government have therefore arrived at the irresistible conclusion that, if we have increased expenditure on the health service by 3.2 per cent., in real terms, every year for more than 12 years--that of itself is not enough to put everything right, although it has led to very major improvements in the NHS--then we must address issues such as organisation, efficiency, better value for money and improved responsibility when it comes to the needs of patients. What would the Labour party do about those issues? It has nothing to say about them. Although the Opposition condemn the status quo as inadequate, they suggest no effective alternative policies for change. The hon. Member
Column 295
for Livingston (Mr. Cook) delighted his many admirers in the House yesterday. He is ever so bright-eyed, bushy-tailed and aggressive in the House when these issues are debated, but I want to know when he intends to show similar forthrightness when he talks to the health service unions. When is he going to get them to allow him to outline policies to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the NHS? That is where he should be exercising his formidable strength of character and rhetorical powers. Until he is willing to say boo to the unions' goose, his fiery oratory here will be merely the big boom of an empty drum.Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West) : Why is the proportion of Britain's gross domestic product spent on health less than that spent by the United States, Germany and Italy? As a share of GDP, does the Minister want that amount to increase or decrease? He tells us about output figures, but why will the Government not set targets to bring down increasing waiting lists?
Mr. Mellor : Is the hon. Gentleman really commending to me the system in the United States, where 10 per cent. of gross domestic product is spent on health care, yet 33 million people are without health cover? That is the spuriousness of international comparisons. The hon. Gentleman falls precisely into the trap that I identified earlier, of confusing input with output. If, when I was Minister of Health, I had obtained £1 billion from the Treasury and had literally burnt it at the Cenotaph, which lies conveniently between the Treasury and the Department of Health, allegedly I would have increased the proportion of GNP devoted to health, and we would have had a better health service. That is the nonsense of it. The whole House should realise that.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : Before my right hon. Friend leaves the health service, surely the way to clarify some of the problems in Labour party policy would be to drop a note to the Leader of the Opposition, asking him to clarify the figures. I had it in mind that my right hon. Friend had done so but I have not been able to find a copy of the reply. My right hon. Friend must have received a response ; perhaps he would like to tell the House what was in it.
Mr. Mellor : It may have been posted, but it has not yet arrived, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Mr. Salmond rose--
Mr. Mellor : I shall not give way ; I have to get on.
I want to deal with last Wednesday and the antics of the Leader of the Opposition about the £20 billion. His speech was heavily trailed. The astonishing thing was that what one learned about it the night before was not built on in the speech itself. The commitment is in four lines on a piece of paper. It does not tell us many things which we have waited a further week to be enlightened upon ; we still do not know.
Was the £20 billion announced in full awareness of the Government's expenditure plans? On the radio on Monday, the shadow Chancellor seemed clear that it was not in addition to the Government's expenditure plans. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday was ridiculing the Government's expenditure plans, saying that they were
Column 296
based on nominal money, not real money, so the Government's expenditure programme did not amount to much. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that the £20 billion may be on top. Is it cumulative? Is it £20 billion added up, with little contributions here and there?I gather that the shadow Chancellor gave a press conference today at which he talked about £4 billion a year over five years. Or is it the final year cost? The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I think that we should be told, if the Opposition are setting themselves out to be credible on these vital public finance issues and to manage their public expenditure as the legacy of previous Labour Governments made clear. There is nothing more fundamental to issues of confidence in Government than that.
No doubt the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has come to the House aware of the extraordinary hole in the centre of Labour's mint on the issue and will want to address it at great length. I look forward to being told exactly what the Leader of the Opposition was up to when he said what he did. I do not think that people will understand if we are not told the answer to that question.
We have published our plans in the Red Book. We will increase spending by £26 billion in cash over the next two years. We plan in cash, not in funny money. In today's money, allowing for inflation, that provides for significant growth in real terms. Everything is set out in the Red Book, including assumptions for growth, inflation and the PSBR. One thing is clear. Labour cannot magic extra public spending painlessly out of growth dividends.
Of course there will be growth. The record shows that there is more likely to be growth under us than under Labour [Interruption.] Oh, yes. I have given the non-oil GDP figure ; let the hon. Gentleman argue with that in due course. As I say, we have taken account of it in our published plans which are on the record for all to see. There will be extra spending ; that too is on the record. If Labour wants to spend more than that--apparently, despite attempts by the shadow Chancellor to restrain him, the Leader of the Opposition does--it has two simple choices : either it has to put up taxes to pay for it or it has to find the money by allowing the PSBR to stay up, and even go up. If Labour does that, it will go back to the bad old days of the 1970s ; the bill would have to be paid, and taxes would have to rise.
We already know that the chap on £20,000 a year--the deputy head teacher, the police sergeant-- [An Hon. Member :-- "The nurse."]-- yes, some senior nurses--and middle management will have their marginal rates increased by 9 per cent. There will have to be tax increases, but the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has still not told us about the exciting ideas for different bands of tax--between 20 per cent. and 50 per cent.--which would allow many sly increases to the basic rate man. I suspect that, with Labour's expenditure plans in such disarray, the average taxpayer would if Labour were elected, be carried across more thresholds than Elizabeth Taylor or Zsa Zsa Gabor.
I shall deal with the muddle and confusion into which Labour's public expenditure proposals have been plunged. Aneurin Bevan said that socialism was the language of priorities. In today's Labour party, everything seems to be a priority. In February last year, the hon. Member for Derby, South propounded what I call "Beckett's law", which states that Labour has only two spending priorities
Column 297
--pensions and child benefit. That was a desperate attempt to impose some discipline on the extraordinary range of public spending commitments poured forth by Labour's spokesmen. That was in February 1990, but let us consider the language of priorities since then. I begin with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. In Blackpool on 1 October 1990, he said :"education and training will be a key priority for Labour because they are vital to the success of the economy."
In February 1990, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said on Radio 4 :
"We accept that there have got to be priorities and I can say now that as far as the Labour party is concerned, bridging the skills gap is going to be a priority."
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East proceeded to Leeds yesterday and told the chamber of commerce :
"The Labour party believes strongly that more rather than less expenditure on developing human capital within the British economy is an urgent priority."
The hon. Member for Derby, South will no doubt tell us how that fits in with Beckett's law.
In March 1990, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East told Tribune :
"growth and investment in manufacturing should be a key priority" and :
"the Government should directly support growth in manufacturing industries, and in new technology, and in the skill of our people". The hon. Member for Cynon Valley, (Mrs. Clwyd) told Labour Party News :
"As Shadow Secretary of State, I want to see Britain reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP as a top priority."
This morning, on Radio 4's "Today" programme, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) once again said that training would be one of Labour's priorities. Those who heard the interview will know that he repeatedly denied the assertion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that he was in any way constrained in saying that by Beckett's law, which appears to have become utterly redundant.
However, things get worse. Labour's Janus-faced approach to these issues has been exposed. The Opposition Treasury Front Bench team have been on the prawn cocktail circuit in the City reassuring people : "Labour doesn't mean it ; we are frightfully responsible these days." But all Labour's spending spokesmen have been going around the country spewing out to every interested group that wants to know any number of spending commitments. I only have time for three--[ Hon. Members :-- "More."] There will be time for more.
Something that must have frightened the Labour party more than anything was a headline in--[ Hon. Members :-- "The Sun."] No, not in The Sun but in The Independent of Friday 10 May 1991. This is a quality debate. The headline stated : "Meacher tells of pension plans". That is enough to send shock waves the length and breadth of the Labour party. In 1987, the verb "to meach" was coined. It means to make extravagant additional commitments hourly. The hon. Gentleman was sat on for that. Some people thought that he was no longer with us when, like something out of "The Munsters", he lurched back into the pages of The Independent with a whole raft of expenditure plans on pensions--the status of which the hon. Member for Derby, South will tell us all about, no doubt.
Column 298
The principal rival of the hon. Member for Oldham, West in the "meaching" stakes--although it is a hotly contested status in the Labour party these days--is the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who leads for the Opposition on transport matters. Labour has a little list of the people who will pay more tax ; I have a big list of all the things on which the Opposition say they propose to spend it.Let me tell the House just one of the commitments given by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. By the way, it is not ancient history ; it appeared in Hansard on 22 April 1991, and it is well worth listening to :
"the Government have the overriding"--
note the use of the word "overriding"--
"responsibility to see that there is a high-speed rail link from the tunnel not only to London but to areas beyond--the midlands, the north, Wales and Scotland."--[ Official Report, 22 April 1991 ; Vol. 189, c. 760.]
The issue is not the desirability of the project but its cost and affordability and the priority that it is to be given.
I want to know what the hon. Member for Derby, South thinks the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East meant by "overriding responsibility". Just so that people should not be tempted to joke about the matter, I should explain that we are not talking about billions of pounds ; that pledge would involve tens of billions of pounds. We are not messing around with little numbers here. We must get on, and I certainly want to finish my remarks--[ Hon. Members :-- "Shame"]--but I cannot resist ending my speech with a reference to the visit of Mr. Andrew Rawnsley of The Guardian to Monmouth in connection with the by-election campaign. Mr. Rawnsley writes :
"If much of what Mr. Evans says is gobsmacking, Mr. Edwards"-- who is, of course, the Labour candidate--
"appears to have been gobstoppered. You get the impression that he would not go to the lavatory before checking with Neil Kinnock for permission."
The House should bear in mind the fact that Mr. Rawnsley was writing in The Guardian. [ Hon. Members :-- "More."] Hang on a minute ; we have not even got to the best bit yet. Mr. Rawnsley continued :
"But it became apparent that when Labour lobotomised this candidate, they did not quite finish his reprogramming. Did he expect Labour to renationalise the water companies? Er, um oh,' the candidate said, eyes flashing with panic. Yes,' he finally gulped. Not on day one,' came a stage whisper from the shadow minister, Ann Taylor. Yes,' Mr. Edwards amplified."
What does all that mean?
Mr. Mellor : Not a lot--the hon. Lady is absolutely right. To the aficionados of the renationalisation of water-- [Interruption.] This is a typical tactic. For the benefit of those geared to the renationalisation of water, a genuflection is made in their direction-- "Water will be renationalised." To those concerned about financial probity, "Not a lot," says the hon. Member for Derby, South. To make sense of all this and to avoid getting into a muddle, Labour Members will not have to renationalise water ; they will have to walk on it.
Mrs. Beckett : I have as little faith in my chances of doing that as I do in those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. My remark referred to the article by Mr. Rawnsley. I do not think that his comments mean
Column 299
anything at all, given that Mr. Rawnsley has made it plain that the Conservative candidate is a gift to the speech writers, whatever he may be to the electorate.Mr. Mellor : I can tell the hon. Lady this : our candidate is an estimable man, and one of the main reasons why he is estimable is that he does not make reckless public expenditure commitments.
Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford) : Before my right hon. and learned Friend concludes, I should perhaps tell him that, the other day, I had the pleasure, with my friend the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), of interviewing the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South--[ Hon. Members :- - "Derby, South."] The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was able to tell us more about the Labour party's spending plans for the health service, which appears to be an overall, overriding, key, superior, first- class, top priority--as opposed to an ordinary priority. She explained that Labour would abide by the commitment to increase the pay of all lower-paid staff to at least half--I think that this is the terminology--the median pay of an industrial worker. This, she thought, would have no effect on differentials. None the less, all health service pay would be fully funded, and the commitment to increase spending on the health service was additional. Apparently, these commitments to extra spending relate only to patient care, and pay is on top of that. My right hon. and learned Friend can add that to his impressive list.
Mr. Mellor : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The spotlight is being shone on Labour's expenditure plans, and the Opposition Front-Bench Treasury spokesmen are finding it impossible, as the water gushes over the feeble dam that they have erected, to maintain--that they are responsible. That is demonstrated by every single statement about spending priorities, and it will be a key issue for the future.
I am sure that the hon. Lady will have answers to all these questions, so the best thing I can do is make way for her. The contrast between the Government plans that we are debating today--carefully prioritised, sustainable and targeted where spending is needed most--and the cloud- cuckoo-land ambitions and total incoherence of the Opposition's plans is striking and dramatic. It is on that basis that I commend these reports to the House.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to point out that, despite the fact that this is a vitally important debate, the Opposition have managed to muster only 10 Back Benchers and a dog--and the dog is worth more than the rest of them put together. This poor attendance is despite the fact that public spending is what Opposition Members are meant to be good at.
4.36 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South) : I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof : "regrets the continued decline of the public services under this Government ; regrets the Government's refusal to provide a proper level of support for the United Kingdom's manufacturing base and for the provision of training ; and furthermore condems this Government's clear intention to
Column 300
learn nothing from the recession into which this neglect has plunged the country, and to continue to put tax cuts before public investment".I am most impressed by the Conservative turnout to support the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I had no idea that he needed such support. My hon. Friends are working very hard in Monmouth to ensure that the Government's public spending plans are carefully scrutinised.
Mr. Battle : Where was the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) yesterday?
Mrs. Beckett : I am disinclined to take attendance lectures from the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), whose attendance record is far from good.
Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady has just told the House that her hon. Friends are canvassing in Monmouth. Is it not a fact that they are paid to be in the House of Commons? [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. Let us get on with the debate.
Mrs. Beckett : By tomorrow, there may be another Opposition Member paid to be in the House of Commons.
This debate, entertaining though its tone has been, is meant to be a review of the record and intentions of the Government's spending programme, in the pretty dim light cast on them by the publication of the departmental reports as a follow-up to the broad predictions of the autumn statement. In the House today, as on television at the weekend, the Chief Secretary asked, "Why look in the crystal ball when you can read the book?", serenely unaware, evidently, that in all too many state schools these days the problem is first to find the book. What he meant, of course, was unexceptionable. He meant that we should look at the facts, the evidence, and not just what is written in the departmental reports, or the autumn statement, or the autumn statement supplement, or, indeed, the Red Book. He wants us to look at what is written in those books, but also at the facts of the vast improvements that he claims have occurred in public services. This debate is bedevilled by two factors. The first is the Government's determination to be all things to all people and to face both ways at once. Perhaps even more serious is their terror of finding themselves trapped into rational debate about the choices that confront this country in the years ahead. The first factor has led the Government--in their determination to please all audiences--into the ludicrous position of boasting to Tories how they have kept public spending down, and to the electorate that they have increased it. The Chief Secretary was at it again today.
The Government's terror of admitting that there could ever be any merit in anything that Labour says has put them into an even more extraordinary position. They claim to detect wild extravagance in our proposals, and then --sometimes on the same day--they condemn us for proposing to spend less than they would have done.
Mr. Skinner : They did that today.
Mrs. Beckett : As my hon. Friend says, the Chief Secretary managed to do both in his speech today.
Column 301
To support their case, such as it is, the Government fling about different and fairly meaningless statements and figures. It is hardly any wonder that the phrases "creative accounting" and "being economical with the truth" both came into common usage under the present Government.Let us look first at what the spending plans show. There are wild variations in the Government's cash figures. The Chief Secretary did not refer to them with such gusto today, but there has been mention of £26 billion here and £40 billion there--all in cash terms. However, between the public expenditure White Paper published in February 1990 and last November's autumn statement, there was a leap in the planning totals for the current year of £9 billion in cash terms, and for next year, of £11.6 billion.
It is for that reason that more interesting and relevant are the spending figures in real terms when inflation is taken into account. What they indicate is that despite the figures of £26 billion and £40 billion that the Chief Secretary quoted for different periods the planning totals have changed very little since 1985.
In presenting his autumn statement last November, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said :
"Since 1984-85, while the economy has grown by nearly 20 per cent., total public spending has risen scarcely at all in real terms."--[ Official Report, 8 November 1990 ; Vol. 180, c. 117.]
That means that, even in 1988-89, during the boom years to which the Chief Secretary referred--they seem to be the only years to which he wanted to refer--public service investment at best stood still. The departmental figures show that in the three years ahead covered by the current plan, there will be either a standstill or a decline in real terms in the budgets of the Departments responsible for industry, employment, transport, housing, education, and overseas aid. That picture is borne out by what little clear information we can glean from the departmental reports. Support for industry has been halved since 1978-79, and is due to fall still further, until it is one third of the level that the Government inherited. Since 1985, the industry budget has been cut from more than £2,000 million to a planned £730 million for 1993-94. That means a cut in collaborative research and development, technology transfer, consultancy budgets, and regional and export support. That is even before the Government implement their insane plan to sell off the Export Credits Guarantee Department, even if the only people who will buy it are our competitors.
Mr. Tim Smith (Beaconsfield) : I refer the hon. Lady to the table on page 26 of the "Autumn Statement", which details public spending in real terms over the past 25 years. In 1974-75, that figure had reached £180 billion, but by 1978-79, it had fallen by £5 billion to £175 billion. That is Labour's record. Since then, public spending has risen to £209 billion in the current year. If we want a real indication of what would be likely to happen in the event of a Labour Government, perhaps we should consider that party's past record.
Mrs. Beckett : It will take me a few moments to find the table to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but his remarks do not in any way controvert the point that I was making. As the Chief Secretary was kind enough to remind the House, while the Government enjoyed all the benefits of North sea oil and what have been described as the miracle years of growth, public spending stood still--and only now is it forecast that it will possibly rise.
Column 302
As to training, an even more extraordinary picture emerges in the present period of recession. There is a real-terms cut in employment and training programmes of £365 million, of which £120 million was quietly restored recently--still leaving a net cut of £245 million. That was also the picture last year. Then, the Government asserted that it was perfectly all right for training investment to fall because unemployment was falling. In itself, that was a dishonest argument, because not only was the overall figure falling in real terms, but there was a cut in training per head--including support not only for the young and long-term unemployed but for those suffering from disabilities.This year--with unemployment undoubtedly soaring--we should surely expect employment and training budgets to rise. Certainly not. The budget continues to be cut, but now the Government have a new excuse. This year, cuts are being made not because of falling unemployment, but because, to quote the Department's document,
"Training is not always the best way of getting the long-term unemployed back to work. For the long-term unemployed, the Department has reviewed existing programmes and expanded employment services." The impression is given that, although training provision is being cut, other efforts are being expanded. There are two things wrong with that assertion. Cash cuts in training for the unemployed this year total £597 million. Cash increases in the other employment services that are to be provided total just £36 million--representing a net cash cut of £560 million.
Also revealing is the change in the content of the Department's report. Those right hon. and hon. Members who are familiar with these debates may recall that in 1989, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) drew attention to a helpful chart in the transport document, which distinguished between roads that had been improved and those that had deteriorated--and which presented a very bad picture. By 1990, that helpful little diagram no longer appeared in the relevant document.
Last year, I pointed out that a table in the relevant document showed an overall cut not only in training but in the training budget per head. Guess what? That helpful table is not included in this year's document either. That puts the House in a dilemma, and perhaps we may look to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to someone else, to assist us. How can we continue to sustain such debates over the years if, every time that we cite useful pieces of information, they disappear?
The Government's programme also includes a provision of £60 million to help the elderly with private health insurance, and £300 million for reforms that are being implemented without pilot projects being undertaken, and within a time scale that will probably mean that much of that money will be wasted. The budget for city technology colleges is on much the same scale as all the money that the Government are making available for the rest of the nation's schools.
It was strange that the Chief Secretary referred in his television interview on Sunday to the waste of surplus school places. Six hundred surplus places in secondary education exist in my own city of Derby, because, despite efficient tertiary reorganisation, approved by the Department of Education, it is not always easy to match exactly numbers of pupil places. However, the
Column 303
Government are proposing to add another 900 to those existing 600 surplus places, by opening a city technology college in Derby. That would seem to make likely the closure of another school--but it is unlikely that such a closure will go ahead.One of the main reasons for the surplus places is the Government's opt-out programme. Even when a school is opting out only because the local authority, obeying the Department of Education and Science, wishes to remove surplus places, the Department is likely to approve the opting out. It was incredible that the Chief Secretary complained about that waste of public money--which it is--when it is the Government who have made it impossible for economies to be made.
Mr. Winnick : The Chief Secretary was characteristically delighted with himself and made some funny jokes--or that is what he intended--but does my hon. Friend agree that in the real world, such as in Derby, Monmouth and many other places where by-elections and local elections have been held, people are fed up with the delays, difficulties and cuts to which she referred? Although the Chief Secretary was able to persuade about 30 Conservative Back Benchers who listened to his speech, he seems unable to convince the country, including Monmouth.
Mrs. Beckett : My hon. Friend is right.
Apart from the opt-out scheme, there are various black holes in the Government's spending plans into which about £6 billion net of public expenditure will have disappeared, such as personal pensions and the £10 billion or more that was spent on the poll tax, for which not a single extra teacher, home help, caretaker, firefighter or police officer has been provided.
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : The hon. Lady is obviously concerned about education. Will she explain to teachers who are earning more than the basic wage how she will compensate them for removing the upper limit on national insurance, or is that yet another expenditure pledge that the Labour party will fail to meet?
Mrs. Beckett : If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I shall deal with that matter later.
Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle) : Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that the Red Book forecasts an increase in public spending of £38 billion in cash terms over the next three years? To avoid keeping the House in suspense any longer, will she solve the mystery to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary alluded? Is the Leader of the Opposition's promise of an extra £20 billion over the lifetime of a Parliament in addition to or instead of that £38 billion, or does she not know?
| Next Section
| Home Page |