§ Q2. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the structure of the Government Departments dealing with economic affairs; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer which I gave to a similar Question by him on Tuesday.—[Vol. 755, c. 209–13.]
§ Mr. MartenWhile I welcome the trade figures, as I am sure the whole House will, giving them a welcome which is warm but nevertheless with an element of caution behind it, may I ask the Prime Minister, in the context of the Question, to arbitrate between the conflicting views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the ex-Chancellor? After 1,500 days—I think—of the present Government, will the long slog be for two years or longer?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not see any conflict between the statements of my right hon. Friends, but I certainly welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening words. He is right. Anyone with experience of the Board of Trade, such as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and myself, knows that one does not rush either into excessive gloom or excessive euphoria on the basis of a single month's trading figures. Nevertheless, the trend is important, and the House will have noticed that over the past 15 months the increase in our exports has been at a rate of 12 per cent. per annum compared with an average of 3 per cent. in the past decade. The House will also have noticed the balance of payments figures for the third 576 quarter, again to be treated with caution in view of the capital figures, though right hon. Gentlemen opposite who went into gloom and partisanship both on the first quarter's figures of the balance of payments and on individual months' trading figures, might reconsider their speeches of last weekend.
§ Mr. CantReverting to the Question, without casting doubt on the infallibility of the Treasury, would not my right hon. Friend agree that the doctrine of countervailing power would justify the expense of a Department of Economic Affairs? Would not he further agree—going away from the Question—that, even though hon. Members opposite may not be persuaded by the trade figures, they must be persuaded by the fact that everyone in Zurich is buying pounds and no one is selling them?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir—that is why we expect different speeches this weekend. Since some of the excesses of last weekend were based on a flurry in sterling caused by strikes in France—for which, I should tell the House, I have no personal responsibility—no doubt the Leader of the Opposition, who is speaking again on Merseyside this weekend, will think again before making another such speech. I explained during the debate on the Fulton Report the machinery of Government in relation to the economic Departments. Without wanting to over-emphasise the infallibility of the Treasury, I remind the House that the Treasury and Board of Trade Ministers have always said that the real benefits of our post-devaluation policy would not appear until the second half of this year. The trade figures—ignoring a single month's figures—show a sharp upward trend in exports and this confirms what we have said, without importing infallibility to the Treasury.