§ Q2. Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister when he will declare the first national dividend.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 5th November, 1968, to a Question by 717 my hon Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser).—[Vol. 772, c. 62.]
§ Mr. RidleyIs the Prime Minister aware that, if there were to be a national dividend, under the policies his Government are pursuing, it would indeed be an economic miracle——
§ Sir W. Bromley-Davenport rose——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must not interrupt his hon. Friend's supplementary question.
§ Mr. RidleyWill the Prime Minister pay us an interim dividend by promising to be entirely frank in future about the state of the economy, including the value of the £ in our pockets?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman seems to be in a bit of a rut. In reply to the first part of his question, he will know that the reference to the national dividend was in the context of the T.U.C. proposals in their annual report on how much could be afforded on wages. We had one discussion with them last year on the national dividend involved. We shall shortly be having further discussions. With regard to his suggestion of frankness about the state of the economy, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to a significant article in The Times Business News this morning, which, taking apart the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, proved point by point that his statistics were as "phoney" as his arguments.
§ Mr. WoodburnDoes it not depend entirely on how one measures the national dividend? If it is in well-being, the people are better off than ever they were. If it is a matter of having committed any fault in this regard, is my right hon. Friend aware that the only one that he and his Government have committed is that they did too much too soon, and people spent the dividend before it was earned?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend has put a serious Question, and I agree with him. As for the definition of the national dividend and the speech from which the phrase was culled by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), it referred to the amount of money which can be afforded for wages, salaries and other income 718 payments out of the increase in productivity. Unfortunately, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have so consistently opposed an incomes policy that they have nothing to contribute to this debate.
§ Sir W. Bromley-DavenportDid not the right hon. Gentleman declare a sort of national dividend on 19th November, 1967, in his memorable broadcast on devaluation, in which he said that the £ here in Britain, or in our pockets or in our purses or in the banks, has not been devalued? It was wonderful.
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. and gallant Gentleman will recall that I suggested to his right hon. and hon. Friends the other day that they should read the actual text of that broadcast. I am not sure that that is advice which I could give him.
§ Mr. SpriggsWill my right hon. Friend tell us what was the state of the economy in 1964 when he took over the Administration from the Conservatives?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. We have had ample opportunity for debating that. The significant fact was that the real state of the economy was concealed throughout the election which preceded it.