§ Q3. Mr. Laneasked the Prime Minister whether he will now reduce the number of Ministers concerned with economic and industrial matters.
§ Q4. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister whether he will restructure the appropriate: Government Departments so 210 as to enable them to deal more effectively with the unemployment situation.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer hon. Members to what I said on the machinery of government in the debate on the Fulton Report on 21st November.—[Vol. 773, c. 1557–60.]
§ Mr. LaneWill the Prime Minister give more thought to this so that we can have less confusion in economic policy, and less interference with in dustry?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is the need for consultation with industry—and I have recently had discussions with the C.B.I. about the need for still further consultation—which makes necessary the work done by various economic Departments. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has said in any sense represents the views of either side of industry.
§ Mr. MartenIs the Prime Minister aware that 16 Ministers are concerned with economic affairs, and that none of them appears to be capable of giving a straight answer to a simple question about the level of unemployment which is acceptable to the Government in line with their election pledge of full employment? Can the Prime Minister say what it is?
§ The Prime MinisterI answered that question as long as 20th July, 1966. The hon. Gentleman can look at that answer. I am sure he will rejoice in the fact that the underlying trend, seasonally corrected, for employment has been falling quite sharply in recent months.
§ Mr. CroninWill my right hon. Friend give one of the economic Ministers the task of counteracting the malicious, politically-motivated activities of rumour mongers who so recently have had such a bad effect on our balance of payments?
§ The Prime MinisterI hope that my hon. Friend will not take this situation too seriously. It is a fact that a minority of people who are able to affect the holding of national assets are extremely amateurish in the political rumours in which they believe, which no hon. Member would be likely to accept, but, even having allowed for that, and such degree of political slant as my hon. Friend finds in some of them, I think that what happened last Friday was totally unpredictable so far as the belief in these stupid 211 rumours is concerned. What was totally predictable was that the right hon. Gentleman, seeing trouble for sterling, would seek to make capital out of it.
§ Sir R. CaryMay I ask the Prime Minister whether, if pressure continues on sterling, and the nation finds itself with a badly depreciated currency, that will bring about crisis decisions whereby Parliament will have to act as a Council of State?
§ The Prime MinisterI think I was right in my assessment about who the senior Conservative was who titillated the interest of The Times. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, which is entirely hypothetical, I should say that one of the qualifications of hon. Members is that they are sufficiently wise and experienced not to believe some of the silly rumours which were circulated last Friday, or some of the silly red herrings which have been started since then. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the strength of sterling basically depends on the progress we are making with our balance of payments and the relation between exports and imports, and on that my right hon. Friend, in the last economic debate, and again on Saturday, made quite clear what the very strong upward trend in exports was. I think that a Council of State might spend more time putting these facts across to the country, and even to the most naive speculators, and it may be led in that respect by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. J. T. PriceIs my right hon. Friend aware that it is not so much the gnomes of Zurich or the leprechauns of Thread-needle Street who disturb me, but rather the pixies and bambies on the other side of the House who never hesitate to make unpatriotic statements if they think they will give them a party advantage?
§ The Prime MinisterI would have thought that that was so self-evident that it was not necessary for me to confirm it. What I think does cause serious trouble is that certain people abroad who are free to speculate in the British nation's reserve assets believe that a great deal could be done by reduction of Government expenditure, as we are repeatedly told by the party opposite, yet for the last three days the Leader of the Opposition and their spokesmen have been 212 pressing for large increases in local authority expenditure.
§ Mr. BirchReverting to the actual Question which the right hon. Gentleman was asked, could I know when the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs is going to issue his National Plan Mark II, and how much it has been delayed by the events of the last two months?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman whose interest in these matters is well known, will be delighted to know that tomorrow morning the document on future planning will be considered by the National Economic Development Council, under my chairmanship, and that it has not been delayed. The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual fairness, will, I am sure, join me in expressing the deep regret of the House at the pretty serious illness of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and the fact that he will not be able to play a part in the discussions tomorrow.
§ Mr. DickensWill my right hon. Friend remind the House and the country that Britain is very much a creditor nation, that our overseas assets vastly exceed our liabilities, and that the balance of payments deficit over the past four years is more than accounted for by the foreign exchange costs of overseas military spending and the private outflow of capital to advanced countries?
§ The Prime MinisterIf I were so to remind them, I would further point out that the overseas military expenditure, which grew out of all proportion from the early 1960s onwards, has now been cut back and will be cut back very severely over the next four years, despite the fact that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are committed to vast increases in that expenditure. What my hon. Friend says is right as to the facts, but, in a neurotic situation, people are not so interested in facts as in rumours. The fact on which they should base themselves is the progress of this country in relation to the trade balance, of which my right hon. Friend gave figures a few days ago.
§ Sir C. OsborneReferring to the unemployment situation mentioned in Question No. Q4, will the right hon. 213 Gentleman be good enough to promise the country that, in the coming year, the present half a million totally unemployed will be cut by a half?
§ The Prime MinisterThat would be so completely opposed to the policy always advocated by the Opposition that I would not give such an assurance because their whole prices and incomes policy depends on keeping the labour market in such a state that wage claims would not be pressed at all. It would mean further unemployment. Unemployment is at the moment falling, although it is too high, as we have said, but what is of paramount importance is that employment opportunities should be spread more evenly. In this context the whole House will have noticed the serious attacks on our development area policy ard expenditure by the Leader of the Opposition in the last economic debate.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We are well past Question Time.