HC Deb 19 December 1967 vol 756 cc1086-7
Q5. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his television broadcast on 23rd November dealing with the economic situation.

The Prime Minister

I did so on 28th November, Sir.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

That made very interesting reading. However, will the right hon. Gentleman clear up two small points about the non-appearance of Mr. Jay on this programme? Will he, first, confirm that his office approved the appearance of Mr. Jay on this programme on Wednesday? Will he, secondly, agree that he countermanded that approval after reading Mr. Jay's article on Thursday, in which he said that he, the Prime Minister, had destroyed papers relating to devaluation?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman has already been given the answers to that question, although they do not seem to have satisfied his curiosity.

Sir Knox Cunningham

What answers?

The Prime Minister

Answers given to the House of Commons. Even the hon. Gentleman can read.

The position was that we communicated our view that it should not be a matter for purely financial editors and that there should be someone who could raise wider questions, including industrial questions. That was not replied to, but an announcement was made by accident —and I have had an apology from the authorities concerned—that their original three names would stand. On Wednesday there were further discussions. Certainly this was too important a discussion to spend its time going into highly inaccurate and secret details in statements.

Mr. Maudling

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my hon. Friend's question. Will he make this quite clear: is it true that, on the 22nd, No. 10 gave a clearance to Mr. Jay and that, on the 23rd, this was rescinded?

The Prime Minister

There was no clearance from No. 10 as far as Mr. Jay was concerned. This was discussed on Thursday night—I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite want to pursue this sort of question. [Interruption.] Right hon. Gentlemen opposite not only said who would be interviewing or would appear with them but, in one case affecting me, they vetoed my going on the air. The position, as I have said, is that No. 10 indicated that it should be a more representative group of journalists— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—and we had had no reply from them until they announced in the Press that they were appointing Mr. Jay. They expressed their regret for that afterwards.