§ Q4. Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Postmaster-General in London on 26th March about the state of the balance of payments represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Q5. Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Postmaster-General in London on 26th March, 1969, on the state of the economy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ 6. Mr. Waddingtonasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Postmaster-General to the Electronics Engineering Association in London on the 26th March on the state of the economy represents Government policy.
§ Q7. Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Postmaster-General in London to the Electronic Engineering Association on 26th March, 1969, on the economic situation represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. Members to the reply given on my behalf by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 1st April.—[Vol. 781, c. 85.]
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneWill the Prime Minister tell us why the Postmaster-General got into such hot water on this occasion for telling the truth about the state of the balance of payments, or are all Ministers, apart from the Chancellor, required to subscribe to the Prime Minister's own fancy about an economic miracle?
§ The Prime MinisterThat raises a number of questions with which I should like to deal. First, my right hon. Friend got into hot water only in the more imaginative sections of the Press. My right hon. Friend, having heard what he thought were several rather complacent speeches about the economy at the business lunch which he was addressing, felt it right to put them in perspective. He spoke fully on the lines on which my right hon. Friend and I have spoken, and he used the word "critical" quite rightly in the sense of a turning point. This country economically is facing a turning point, and the House spent four days last week debating that. It was a very interesting debate.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasIs not the truth of the matter that the Prime Minister has long been intoxicated by his own natural but excessive optimism over the state of the economy, and would not it be for the good of us all, if not of his party, if for once he would admit that he had been wrong?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman has suggested a state of inebriation about the economy. I have repeatedly in many speeches warned the nation and the House about the problems which we face, particularly in relation to exports. I also warned my own party that, because we have done so much to restructure industry, we intend to get the fruits of that, and of that economic miracle which others have talked about, and not leave the fruits to right hon. Gentlemen who have not earned them.
§ Mr. DobsonIs the Prime Minister aware that many hon. Members on the benches behind me feel that he would be well advised to answer these questions by informing the House of the massive contributions to the electronics industry which the Government have made, including the restructuring of the industry and the Government contracts which have been placed, and also of the excellent research which has been done?
§ The Prime MinisterThis would be very apposite. If I thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite were interested in real facts, I could, with the help of my right hon. Friend, on a suitable occasion give some very important figures to the House about the remarkable growth of productivity in the publicly-owned industry which my right hon. Friend was defending at the luncheon, and about the remarkable increase in investment, particularly in the telephone service, for which the Government have been responsible and for which we have had to find the money.