§ Q7. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will define his responsibilities as economic overlord.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 26th October to Questions by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker).—[Vol. 751, c. 555.]
§ Mr. MartenAs economic overlord, can the Prime Minister say, in view of the rise in prices due to devaluation, what extra funds will be required for the purpose of building schools, hospitals, and so on—and housing—in line with the pledge he gave to the House?
§ The Prime MinisterThe phrase "economic overlord", as the hon. Gen- 642 tleman puts it, is one that I have never used. I announced that I was taking over responsibility for—[Interruption.]—It is a phrase I have never used; I am not responsible for the Press phrase or the hon. Gentleman's phrase—that I was taking over responsibility for the D.E.A. with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is not expected that as a result of devaluation—apart from certain estimates arising from the increased cost of timber, for example, in housing—the increased cost of the building programme will rise all that much or all that rapidly. There will be problems, but it is very much too early yet to say, for example, what effect there will be on the price of steel, which plays a very great part in construction. I therefore think it is too early to attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, which at the right time, I agree, will have to be answered.
§ Mr. ThorpeWould not the Prime Minister agree that, if we are to maximise the temporary advantage devaluation has given us, it will need an enormous initiative by everyone in this country? In the new initiative will not the Prime Minister have to co-ordinate the activities of the Minister of Labour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Board of Trade to get a very large increase in our economy?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with the opening words of the right hon. Gentleman. That co-ordination will go on in the form in which it exists today. It is very intimate, very detailed and very continuous.
§ Mr. WoodburnIs it not a false assumption that everyone will raise prices? Is it not correct that many firms, both abroad and in this country, will absorb these rises in higher productivity and better efficiency?
§ The Prime MinisterProductivity has been rising very sharply over the last year. It is open to many industries working below capacity to increase their rate of capacity working which should help them to absorb some of the additional import costs with which they will be faced.
§ Mr. HeathWill the Prime Minister explain the new constitutional doctrine that when the Chancellor of the 643 Exchequer resigns honourably for breaking his pledges the Prime Minister who broke the same pledges does not?
§ The Prime MinisterThis is not a constitutional doctrine. This was a personal decision on the part of my right hon. Friend. While I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would like to apply the doctrine more widely—[Interruption.]—since it was a unanimous decision of the Cabinet, despite his disappointment the Cabinet is not going to resign.
§ The Prime MinisterIf the right hon. Gentleman's hearing had not been affected by the roar behind him—[Interruption.] Perhaps he did not hear me say while he was labouring at working out that supplementary question—[Interruption.] Perhaps he did not hear me anticipate it by saying that, whatever the right hon. Gentleman would like, the Cabinet are not going to resign.