HC Deb 28 November 1951 vol 494 cc1674-84

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South)

We had a debate on the Committee stage of this Estimate, and at this time I do not propose to go over all the ground again, but I did ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a number of questions and he was not able at the time to answer more than a very few of them. He may perhaps have observed that "The Times" newspaper, in a leader, recently referred to this matter and suggested that these questions might be answered today. Perhaps I might read what The Times" said on this: The many detailed questions which Mr. Gaitskell asked on Wednesday, and with some justice complained had been left unanswered by Mr. Butler, are important. There will he another opportunity in the House of Commons next Wednesday. The leader goes on to refer to two of the criticisms which we made on that occasion, and I think I cannot do better than continue the quotation which will also serve to refresh the memory of the right hon. Gentleman and of the House. The leader continues: The precise value of Lord Cherwell's analysis and interpretation of statistics for the Prime Minister is not easy to discern. nor can one be very clear about the functions of Sir Arthur Salter in his rôle of Minister of State for Economic Affairs, though it would seem that the over-riding responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nowadays an important requirement, may prove to be intact. Perhaps I might refer to the main questions which we are much concerned with in these appointments. So far as Lord Cherwell is concerned, I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister whether he was going to be in a position where he would advise the Prime Minister on economic affairs. The House will recall that on the Committee stage the Prime Minister rather brushed aside the criticisms which I ventured to make on the ground that he was concerned with purely statistical aspects, and I asked him whether he was, nevertheless, going to be concerned with economic matters. I am bound to say I got what can only be described as an evasive reply.

I would like, therefore, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I appreciate it may be a rather embarrassing question for him—whether Lord Sherwell is going to advise the Prime Minister on economic matters with the help of a special staff for this purpose, and, if so, what is the purpose of having a second special economic unit in addition to the economic section, in addition to the Central Statistical Office, in addition to the Treasury, in addition to the right hon. Gentleman himself. I hope we shall have a clear answer in which the right hon. Gentleman will give us his views on this peculiar situation.

As to the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, I am bound to say that what lie has said to the House in the right hon. Gentleman's absence in Rome has filled us with some concern. I dare say the whole proceeding will have been reported to the Chancellor, and he will appreciate that, at any rate, there is certainly some need for some co-ordination inside the Treasury. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, in passing, be able to explain away the peculiar pronouncements which the Minister of State has been making in his absence.

Apart from that, I would again ask whether the Minister of State for Economic Affairs is to have anything to do with the central economic planning, whether he is concerned in any way with the raw materials allocations or the investment programme, or whether he is to confine his activities solely to overseas finance.

This brings me to one other question closely associated with it, which the Chancellor said he would endeavour to answer if I put a Question down. He will recall that I was pressing him on the arrangements for settling the investment programme, at headquarters—central decisions. He said that if I put down a Question he hoped to be able to give me the necessary information. He will understand that in his absence in Rome there would have been no particular purpose in putting a Question down, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer this evening and give the House some indication of how the new Government structure will deal with this important issue.

Third, there is the question of the overlords. I asked a number of detailed questions about their functions, and I would sum them up by putting to the right hon. Gentleman this fairly general question. Are these supervising Ministers in another place really Departmental chiefs, or not? Are they solely concerned with co-ordinating any differences of opinion, any common problems which may arise between the Ministry of Transport on the one hand and the Ministry of Fuel and Power on the other? Or are they supervising Ministers, and if they are supervising Ministers, to whom are the civil servants of those Departments responsible?

I do not wish at this late hour to prolong the proceedings, but I hope that this evening we shall get some adequate replies to these important questions.

11.38 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler)

I am only too glad to reply to the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman. He assumed a modesty which we have come to associate with him by not referring to his own letter in "The Times" newspaper today which occupied the greater part of a column, and which I read with my early morning non-Continental breakfast—having returned to England—with the greatest pleasure. His speech this evening was more terse and succinct than his letter, and as many hon. Members wish to catch their evening trains I propose to be somewhat brief myself, though, I hope, to the point.

I think I will leave "The Times" newspaper and revert to the Floor of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman asked one or two questions about my noble Friend, Lord Cherwell, the Paymaster-General. To please "The Times" newspaper, which appears to govern the actions of the right hon. Gentleman and also to give information to the House, I had better follow literally the notes I have taken with great care of everything the right hon. Gentleman has said.

He asked whether Lord Cherwell is responsible for economic affairs and for giving such advice as he can on those affairs to the Prime Minister. The answer is that he is not responsible for economic affairs, and, to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman, he has no special economic unit. The Paymaster-General has a small personal staff, and, taking up again "The Times" leader, he is there to help my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, of whose mind he has special knowledge.

It is an open secret and well known to all who know how the mind of the Prime Minister works, that for many years he has in emergencies—many of them of grave national importance—relied on the personal help and advice of the Paymaster-General. He hopes that in the emergency we are now inheriting from the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends opposite, to rely again on the advice and help he is likely to get from the Paymaster-General.

Mr. Gaitskell

I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House whether it is the case that Lord Cherwell's staff will include a very distinguished economist who was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech on Committee stage, namely, Mr. MacDougall, and if he is not really to have anything to do with economic affairs why is this distinguished economist being employed?

Mr. Butler

The answer is quite simple. The fact is that that distinguished economist is one of the members of Lord Cherwell's staff. That does not mean that the Paymaster-General has the monopoly of advice on economic affairs with the Prime Minister. I may also tell the House, as the right hon. Gentleman seems determined to cast an air of mystery round some arrangements which are really quite normal, that that particular economist is in close touch with the Treasury and with my own personal economic adviser, of whom he happens to be a close personal friend; and who, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well, emanates from the University of Oxford. I have nothing to do with that at all. I only regret that my own personal adviser should emanate from Oxford and not from that ancient seat of learning, Cambridge, from which I emanate myself.

I hope that that will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman and show him that in helping the Prime Minister, which is the major duty of the Paymaster-General, there is the most intimate liaison between the two Oxford economists, one of them being in the Treasury and the other serving the Paymaster-General himself.

I do not think I need go any further into the duties of the Paymaster-General. I believe that he will be of great service to the Prime Minister. As I told the right hon. Gentleman on the last occasion, the surprising part about this Government is that we all work together on the most close and friendly personal relationships, and, therefore, we are not in the unhappy state of mind, which the right hon. Gentleman has so plainly exhibited this evening, of being in a perpetual state of doubt and irritation with our own colleagues.

Passing on to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, he is fulfilling an office and duty very similar to that which the right hon. Gentleman himself fulfilled when he was Minister of State in a previous incarnation. I do not know why all this mystery and cloak of extraordinary characteristics should be cast round the very able and genial personality of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs.

The position, as I see it, is that I am aided as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Treasury by two colleagues of singular ability: the Minister of State for Economic Affairs and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I am very fortunate in the help that I receive, and I am helped by my colleagues in a certain degree. The Financial Secretary occupies himself with the classical duties of the Financial Secretary, which I need not define to the right hon. Gentleman as, I believe, he knows even more about the Treasury than I do yet. I hope shortly to have as much knowledge as he once had. I need not, therefore, define the duties of the Financial Secretary.

In regard to the duties of the Minister of State, I am quite certain that he will be of great help, not only to me but to the Government, and I have really nothing to add to what I said previously, namely, that he is going to have some special duties involved with the exchange position and with overseas finance, but that he will, so to speak, have the run of his team in the Treasury in interesting himself in the various aspects of work which arise out of the Treasury.

It has always been my practice, ever since the former Home Secretary and the present right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), was my Under-Secretary in the Ministry of Education, when any Ministers served with me that they should have absolute access to all the papers, including, if they like, my own private papers, in order that they may work with me as colleagues and I may have their support and they may have mine. That is the answer to the whole mystery that the right hon. Gentleman attempted to create about the Minister of State for Economic Affairs. He is one of my trusted lieutenants and one of my collaborators.

Mr. Gaitskell

The only mystery was the mystery created by the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to disclose information. There is only one question I have asked and which the right hon. Gentleman has still not answered. It is a very simple one, and I am sure he can answer it. Has the Minister of State for Economic Affairs any special connection with economic planning? That is the question I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When I was appointed to that office I had a very special connection with it, and so did my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in the late Government. I merely asked whether the Minister of State has the same sort of function.

Mr. Butler

The particular unit to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was established some time ago and continues within the Treasury. My right hon. Friend has as much access to it as I have.

Mr. Gaitskell

Nothing special?

Mr. Butler

No, nothing special. The position is that he is a Minister within the Treasury and that the responsibility for Treasury policy and the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer devolve upon my shoulders. I fully realise now the burden that they involve. I am aided in that task, and I do not withdraw from the responsibility of fulfilling that task the Minister of State for Economic Affairs from any particular sector. I do not think there is any mystery on this matter, and I am looking forward to his help, as I have had it in the past.

The next question the right hon. Gentleman asked was about the investment programme. The Chairman of the Committee which looks after this vital question is a member of the Economic Staff and in the Treasury, and he is, therefore, directly responsible to me and, therefore, I must assume direct responsibility. I hope that is a straight answer and that it will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.

Now we come to the fascinating question, which reminds us of ancient Egypt, and perhaps modern Egypt, of the overlords or pashas to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Here, again, he has attempted to weave round these personalities, these singularly able and devoted public servants, a whole tissue of extraordinary ideas. He asks whether they are solely concerned with co-ordinating or have any supervisory functions at all. I endeavoured to give one or two instances of possible co-ordination in my last speech. I mentioned, for example, the question of transporting coal.

There are one or two other matters in co-ordination like the business of oil supplies, the business of fuel for transport, and the inter-related effect of various price increases, such as miners' wages on coal and, therefore, on rail freights, and vice-versa. In all these sort of questions it is absolutely vital to have the services of my noble Friend because he can save Departmental Ministers and the Government considerable difficulty.

I will take it further. The right hon. Gentleman said that it seemed a pity to have Co-ordinating Ministers' Cabinet committees. We all know the passion of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for the committee system. We too, have preserved the main structure of the committee system because it obviously relieves the Cabinet of much day-to-day responsibility, but we found that when we had in the sphere in part of which the right hon. Gentleman was previously engaged the noble Lord who is involved in this Supplementary Estimate, it saved much of the work of the. committee owing to the work of coordination he is able to do before matters go to the Cabinet committee, and in these few weeks we have been able to accelerate the business and work of the Cabinet committee.

I will be frank with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that when he was debating this he was right in saying that there must be some element of supervisory functions as well as co-ordination. That showed the shrewd perception of the right hon. Gentleman. It is obvious that when an overlord is placed in an important position there must on occasions be an element of supervision, and it would be fairer of the right hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that there are certain functions which are in addition to the functions of co-ordination, namely, help to the Ministers concerned in these Departments, which can be performed by the overlords.

It would be out of order to mention the question of food and agriculture, but on this Supplementary Estimate it is in order to mention the question of transport, fuel and power, and I am in order in saying that the Ministers concerned are only too glad to have the help of this singularly distinguished statesman, who rendered such noble service in the war and whose experience in these matters is almost unrivalled in our country. It is of great value to our Government to have this personality in our midst to help us in the many different problems that arise.

I have gone in a detailed manner through the questions which the right hon. Gentleman put. Even "The Times" newspaper would find it difficult to say that I have not answered the right hon. Gentleman's points. I would only conclude by saying that the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough in his letter in "The Times" newspaper this morning to say that this debate must be limited, and, therefore, those pundits throughout the country who write in our periodicals, particularly at week-ends, who want to criticise the structure of government should await an occasion when I should be in order in describing the whole structure of government in that majesty that we can do it on this side of the House. If I were in order, I would then be able to do full justice to a fascinating subject and be able to silence the right hon. Gentleman for ever.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Edward Shackleton (Preston, South)

I shall not detain the House more than two or three minutes. It is obvious that the Chancellor has not enjoyed the experience of an all night Sitting on the Committee on the Home Guard Bill, as his right hon. Friend did. I should like to refer particularly to his reference to the Paymaster-General, Lord Cherwell. This is a propitious occasion to discuss this subject because, in the absence of the Prime Minister we can, I hope, discuss it calmly, without rancour.

We should like to know the answer to certain questions. Perhaps the Chancellor, who has concerned himself mainly with answering points put by my right hon. Friend on economic matters, would also answer questions with regard to the functions of the Paymaster-General in the field of defence. Perhaps he would deal with them on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

I am not quite clear what is the function of the Paymaster-General alongside the position of scientific adviser to the Minister of Defence, and I hope we shall have an explanation of this, because it appears that duplication is possible. It is obvious that the real function of the Paymaster-General arises because, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he has a special knowledge of the Prime Minister; in other words, he is the Minister for the Prime Minister.

This is surely a unique innovation in British constitutional history—that we should have a Minister charged solely with interpreting the mind of the Prime Minister to his Cabinet colleagues. I am not going into the question of the astrologers, but I do suggest that the Chancellor did make a rather indiscreet remark in making that suggestion. I hope the Prime Minister will have normal conversations and traffic with his colleagues and Parliament, without going through a Minister who has special knowledge of the Prime Minister.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has replied to certain points put by my right hon. Friend with unexpected grace and eloquence, and most attractively, but with the minimum of information. So far as I can judge there are questions still not answered. Some reference was made to the very remarkable and rather portentious statement made by the Minister of State for Economic Affairs on Friday, and when the right hon. Gentleman said that documents were available to all his Ministerial colleagues one wondered whether the HANSARD Report of Friday's debate had been made available to the right hon. Gentleman—who really must have read it, and read it with fascinated interest, but, possibly, I think, with a certain sense of foreboding of things to come.

My right hon. Friend suggested that any future Minister of State would be allowed only to speak in a Secret Session. The observations he did make on Friday have been spread throughout the world, and everybody knows them. When we are discussing Estimates of this magnitude we are entitled to have a reply to the question whether this was just a sort of observation that can be thrown out by a junior Minister on a Friday without our attaching too great importance to it, or whether it really was an advance note of the policy of the Government.

I understood my right hon. Friend to ask that question. We have had a great deal of discussion of some letter that appeared in a newspaper this morning. It is not a newspaper that I read, and, indeed, if I did I doubt whether I should read the correspondence column. But we are discussing financial questions of some magnitude and importance, and I suggest we should have an answer on that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), made a point of some constitutional importance. We have had presented to us a Minister who is appointed not because he knows the Prime Minister—that explains the appointment of the Minister of Supply—but because he has a special knowledge of the Prime Minister's mind—in other words, he is a specialist in that matter. It must be a very fascinating attribute that we should like to share it with him, especially when the Prime Minister is one we like and admire, to be able to find out how his mind works; and to know how his mind worked in the last three weeks, when he was making this series of fantastic Government appointments, would be a contribution to common knowledge of the deepest interest, in which all of us in this House would like to share. But the point at the moment is not about the Prime Minister's mind. What we want to know at the moment is, who knows something about Lord Cherwell's mind? It is exceedingly important that we should know because we are told that he is the backroom boy who is to provide the advice which will provide the basis of the thinking we are told His Majesty's Ministers contemplate embarking upon on 7th December.

What is the range of thought and opinion that Lord Cherwell will supply? I thought it was to be purely scientific, but we now gather that it will have an economic side. We are entitled to know to which particular school of this curiously astrological science Lord Cherwell is attached and to what form of economics he is about to subscribe. In the unfortunate absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Rome, in the last 48 hours we have heard some most astonishing economic theories. Indeed, the Financial Secretary has provided an astonishing theory in the course of the debate today—that we increase rents to reduce the cost of living.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter)

I can only say that I did not say that, although I am not responsible for the hon. Gentleman's understanding.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that would be in order on the Report stage.

Mr. Hale

I should not wish to go wide, of course, but I heard the hon. Gentleman say—and this is material to the Estimate—that when people paid more for their money it remained, quite constant, in a public fund and never reached those who lent money to the public fund. That is a substantial matter about which the Chancellor will perhaps say something in the near future, although it may not strictly be in order on this debate.

The House is anxiously waiting, even at this late hour, to know what was the purport of the observations, on Friday, of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, how far they were authorised, whether he has been on the mat since for making them or whether he has been applauded for giving some indication of the sort of life we shall have to lead in the months that lie ahead.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Forward to