HC Deb 27 July 1961 vol 645 cc604-6
Q8. Mr. Emrys Hughes

asked the Prime Minister in view of the urgent necessary for long-term planning of British Industry, as revealed by the recent decisions of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the economic situation, if he will now consider appointing a Minister for Economic Planning.

The Prime Minister

No, Sir. Financial policy in all its forms is so closely bound up with the management of the economy that I do not think it would be useful to separate the economic planning and the financial functions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Ministers chiefly concerned with economic affairs work very closely together and it would not help to add to their number.

Mr. Hughes

Does not that Answer reveal that the Government are not really serious about the whole business of economic planning and that the Chancellor is already overworked? Is the Prime Minister aware that the Chancellor has been planning not in the interests of the nation but in the interests of the Surtax payers?

The Prime Minister

In regard to the first part of the supplementary question, the Chancellor announced that he is consulting both sides of industry as to some improvement or alteration of the present procedure, but I still do not think that it would be wise to separate this entirely from the Treasury. I think any Minister who had experience would agree with me.

Mr. Jay

Do the Prime Minister's answers mean that under the existing arrangements the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for economic planning?

The Prime Minister

Primarily, but he is assisted by the other Ministers, as the right hon. Member knows, who are particularly concerned with these affairs.

Mr. Nabarro

Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is a widespread feeling in economic and financial circles that the growth of responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been so rapid in the post-war period that the present arrangement of Treasury Ministers, which leads to grave overburdening particularly in view of the meticulous detail with which many financial matters are now dealt with in this House, means that there ought to be serious consideration given to a reorganisation of all Treasury responsibilities?

The Prime Minister

I quite agree that the enormous size and complexity compared with the problems thirty or forty years ago have increased the burden. I shall certainly consider whether an improvement can be made to handle it.

Mr. Woodburn

Will the Prime Minister give a little study to the history of these supreme advisory committees, going back to Ramsay MacDonald's days, find what has happened to all the others and see that the new one does something useful?

The Prime Minister

That will be our hope.