Budget Aftermath: Pounds 3.5bn spending undershoot 'kept secret': Donald Macintyre reports on a skilful poker game played by Clarke and Portillo
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.TREASURY ministers only revealed to Cabinet colleagues in the final stages of the spending round that they intended to cut pounds 3.5bn from the agreed total for next year, it emerged yesterday.
The highly skilful poker game played by Kenneth Clarke, the Chancellor, and Michael Portillo, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, during the round, helps to explain why, under severe pressure to make cuts, spending departments did not leak that the Treasury was intending to 'undershoot' the Cabinet agreed total of pounds 253.6bn for 1994-95.
The answer now appears to be that the departments - or at least those outside the Cabinet public spending committee, EDX - did not know. It remained the best kept secret in Whitehall. The implication is that at least in the early stages, departments like Environment and Defence - which had to take a hefty share of the cuts - thought that the Treasury was still fighting to keep spending within pounds 253.6bn.
According to some ministers, they might have been less willing to surrender if they had known that the final total was intended to be lower. One minister said: 'We may be a bit warier next time round.'
Mr Clarke played down the significance of the strategy yesterday, saying that 'the undershoot did emerge at a latter stage. Anybody who actually knows where you are getting to on some of the big departments can begin to see what your overall figure is.'
Mr Clarke said that the new system - in which EDX works together with the Treasury in ensuring that limits already agreed by Cabinet are adhered to - was 'working well'.
He added at a press conference: 'The old idea that the Chief Secretary went round a whole series of bilateral negotiations with individual colleagues, none of whom had really a very clear idea of what was happening to everyone else, became a kind of arm wrestling competition around Whitehall.'
He said that under the old system of bilateral bidding, 'the first permanent secretary I ever met said that he always judged his secretary of state by whether he brought home the groceries.
'There was a tendency for people to be winners and losers according to how much money they got out of it.'
He added: 'They can't work like that now because we don't have the bidding, there aren't a great number of bilaterals and there is a whole committee of Cabinet ministers who handle this. 'There are arts to the trade but I think the Treasury needs its black arts rather less that it used to because it does deliver an overall package.'
He said all minsisters had agreed, for example, that the NHS was a priority, laid down in the election manifesto.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments