§ Q2. Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure the co-ordination between Ministers with responsibilities for ensuring the protection of the less well-off members of the community from the effects of devaluation.
§ The Prime MinisterNo new steps are needed, Sir, because my right hon. Friends already work very closely together on these matters.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamCan the right hon. Gentleman deny that there was a conflict between the two statements in his broadcast of 19th November, namely, that the pound in the pocket has not been devalued, and that some of our basic food prices would rise. Will he take this opportunity publicly to deny one or other of those statements?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that we have been over this a number of times in the House. The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard the answers that I gave on this question on Tuesday.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamI was here, and I heard them.
§ The Prime MinisterI said clearly in that broadcast that prices would rise. I also said that safeguards were needed to prevent prices rising which were not due to devaluation. I said that action would have to be taken to help the less well-off sections of the community. I stand by those statements.
§ Mr. MaudlingBut does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, in reply to my question on Tuesday, he tried to avoid the issue by quoting only one part of his self-contradictory broadcast? Since the Government now accept an estimate of a 7½ per cent. increase in prices this year, does he still regard this as consistent with talking about not devaluing the pound in our pockets?
§ The Prime MinisterNo such figure has been accepted by the Government so far as prices are concerned. With regard to the earlier statement, my statement was true in the broadcast, that the action of that Saturday night had not devalued pounds in pockets, bank accounts or—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—it had not; it was perfectly clear, despite the legend which right hon. Gentlemen have tried to perpetuate. I said that prices would rise. I thought it right to say that, because it was a realistic assessment of the consequences of devaluation.
§ Mr. BarnettIf we are equating price increases with devaluation, would my right hon. Friend tell us how many times there was devaluation in the previous 13 648 years? If we are really to help those who are slightly above the supplementary benefit level, would he consider raising the starting point for rate rebates, thus helping people in that direction?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend will know that, in the statement on 16th January, we announced not only a forthcoming increase in the supplementary benefit but an improvement in the starting point for rate rebates.
§ Mr. HeathIf the right hon. Gentleman were doing that telecast again, would he put the "pound in your pocket" sentence in?
§ The Prime MinisterAs a matter of accuracy, yes, but recognising the truth of Kipling's quotation,
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spokenTwisted by knaves to make a trap for toolsperhaps not. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamOn a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again.