| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Darling: I assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had no luck in the past 18 years in persuading his colleagues of the merits of those schemes when they had responsibility for the A1 and for every other road in the country.
I do not often drive up the A1--it is some years since I have done so--but I think I know the stretch of road to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is reviewing the roads programme, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will want to make representations to him, in the hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to him with more consideration than his right hon. Friends did.
Mr. Giles Radice (North Durham):
Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is entirely sensible for a newly elected Government to implement their manifesto pledge to conduct a root-and-branch examination of public spending, particularly when it amounts to £300 billion? I am amazed that the Conservative party does not welcome such a review--I suppose it is because it is in the throes of a chaotic leadership election.
Mr. Darling:
Nothing surprises me about the Conservatives,, who appear to be descending to some extremely oppositionist tactics. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. He has done valuable work in the past while serving on the Treasury Select Committee. Opposition Members might have grounds for complaint--because it would be quite irresponsible--if we did not embark on reviews such as this. This review is absolutely essential. We promised to conduct it, and it is another Labour promise that we are implementing.
Madam Speaker:
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton):
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is an inconsistency--[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. I called Mr. Heathcoat- Amory--my pronunciation must be very bad this afternoon. We shall hear from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).
Mr. Davey:
I apologise, Madam Speaker: I thought that you had called me.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is an inconsistency in his statement? He began by pillorying the previous Administration and their fiscal figures, claiming that they were always changing and were incorrect. However, he is then prepared to accept their spending pledges and to embrace them as somehow sensible and practical. That approach is not consistent. May I suggest a way out for him and for his right hon. Friend the Chancellor: they could review capping and local
government finance immediately, thereby enabling local authorities to raise council tax and spend the proceeds on education.
Mr. Darling:
The hon. Gentleman will know, if he has read our manifesto, that we are committed to examining the current crude capping system as part of the review process. As for his other points, either he has not listened to the debate or he wrote his question beforehand, because I have answered his queries when replying to other speakers.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
While sitting in this place every day, I have heard Liberal Members asking questions about this, that and the other at every question time. I get the impression that they have already spent the 1p on income tax six times over during this Parliament.
On a more serious note, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that any spending review and any resulting savings could mean a net loss of jobs? Another part of the Labour manifesto promised that we would protect jobs. Therefore, will he ensure that this comprehensive review will not result in a net loss of jobs, and that any savings made will be used to ring-fence prescription charges?
Mr. Darling:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I agree whole-heartedly with what he said about the Liberals. During the election campaign, the Liberals must have spent the 1p several times over. We had only to listen to successive Liberal spokesmen at different studios throughout the country to find that the money was spent over and over again.
We have made it clear that all aspects of Government spending must be examined. It would be wrong, for example, to exclude prescription charge problems where there are anomalies, where one illness is recognised for free prescriptions while others are not. My right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health will be examining that.
My hon. Friend will be aware, first, that we are committed to introducing the welfare to work programme, which is an important part of our promise to the country. The programme will put many people who are now unemployed back into work or into educational opportunities. Secondly, it is essential--this underpins my statement--that we have a stable economic background that will enable us to achieve long-term sustainable growth, which is the one way that we shall be able to guarantee to increase jobs across the board.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells):
May I save the Minister the trouble and expense of this review by telling him that the public expenditure targets that he has signed up to are indeed tough, as they should be, but perfectly attainable given enough political determination? They will not be achieved, however, if he continues to take on extra unnecessary expenditure such as shutting down the entirely legitimate sport of .22 pistol shooting and having to compensate those affected. Will the right hon. Gentleman take responsibility for the expenditure target that he has taken on rather than continue to govern by review?
Mr. Darling:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He seems to have more confidence in the former Government's spending totals than the shadow Chancellor does.
As for the Government's compensation scheme, it is one of those issues where Members have to reach a judgment on whether the banning of the guns concerned is justified, as many right hon. and hon. Members believe. If it is justified, consequences flow for compensation. There is a wider issue at stake, which the House is about to debate, rather than the sum that might be spent on compensation.
Ms Kali Mountford (Colne Valley):
May I take this opportunity of welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement? Does he agree that we need long-term spending plans for public spending priorities, and that it was right to make those plans? Does my right hon. Friend agree also that it is time now to break out of the boom-and-bust policies that so dogged the Conservative party?
Mr. Darling:
I absolutely agree on both points. The legacy of boom and bust, which the previous Government left us, and which they inflicted on the country, has been highly damaging. It is one reason why industry and business have not taken the long-term view that has been taken in other countries. Sound public finances are an integral part of ensuring that we have a stable platform on which to build.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for long-term spending plans. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the difficulties that local authorities face. Difficulties arise where spending programmes are suddenly changed because the Government lose control of their economic objectives. We are determined not to allow that to happen to us.
Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry):
At the beginning of his statement, the right hon. Gentleman expressed his righteous horror at the tremendous growth in public sector debt over the past few years. Is part of the intention behind the review to move towards a balanced budget? If so, what is the right hon. Gentleman's time scale for that? If assets are identified during the review that are not needed, and they are to be disposed of, how will the right hon. Gentleman use the moneys that result? Will they be used for current expenditure or for the reduction of public sector debt?
Mr. Darling:
The hon. Gentleman has raised two points. First, we are committed to the golden rule of public expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have more to say about that in his Budget statement shortly.
So far as assets are concerned, there are two points. The compilation of a national register of all the assets that the state owns is long overdue. The Ministry of Defence, for example, owns some 90,000 buildings, and the public and the House would expect any Government to take a rational view as to whether those assets are needed.
With respect, before deciding how the money should be spent, it is important to find out whether it can be raised in the first place. As I said in my statement, if we do not need assets--wherever they may be--there is no
point in holding on to them. It would be far better to sell them and use the proceeds so that they benefit public finances and public services.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
Can we assume from the Chief Secretary's response to the former Chancellor that the Barnett formula is sacrosanct in all circumstances?
Mr. Darling:
As I said, the Barnett formula has been in existence for some 20 years--it was not disturbed by the previous Government. As my hon. Friend will see when the White Papers on devolution are published, we believe that the Barnett formula, based as it is on the needs of the populations of the different countries, plays a very important part in deciding how public expenditure is to be divided up. He will see the position clearly stated in the White Papers, which are to be published shortly.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |