§ Q6. Mr. Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at Doune, Perthshire, on 8th July, 1972, about wage earners represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Q2. Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at Doune, Perthshire, on 8th July, about economic affairs, reprerents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Q16. Mr. Kaufmanasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech on inflation of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at Doune, Perthshire, on 8th July, 1972, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Q21. Mr. Charles R. Morrisasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at Doune, Perthshire, about inflation on Saturday, 8th July, 1972, represented Government policy.
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir.
§ Mr. AtkinsonIs the Prime Minister aware that opinion throughout the country, as a result of the Foreign Secretary's speech and that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that the Government are now pursuing a class vendetta against wage earners? If the word "wages" in that speech were replaced by the word "profit", would the Prime Minister's answer then be "Yes, Sir"—that he agrees with it?
§ The Prime MinisterI cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's allegations. I have had many reasonable exchanges with him across the Floor in which we have tried to influence each other, but I cannot accept allegations of that kind.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that I have included Question No. Q2 in the group which I am answering. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was not present when it was originally called. As he is now present, perhaps he may have an opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
§ Mr. MeacherI am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving me this opportunity, and I regret my unavoidable lateness a few minutes ago.
As the Foreign Secretary's speech praised the Government's efforts at economic growth, how comes it that the latest 1533 Bank of England figures reveal that fully one-third of the last three months' increase in bank advances went to the current finance and property boom, while manufacturing industry had precisely 2 per cent. of the new funds? When will the Government start building up the productive base of the economy instead of frittering away our resources in an orgy of unproductive profiteering?
§ The Prime MinisterThe figures for growth given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor show that we are achieving the growth which he set out to achieve in his Budget. As regards investment, the explanation is that industrial firms were not at that time making demands on the banks for further investment. The inducements which we have given in the Budget should lead to that.
§ Mr. St. John-Stevas.Was not the theme and point of the Foreign Secretary's speech that, if export prices continue to rise we shall price ourselves out of world markets, and is not that basic common sense?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir, and my right hon. Friend was saying that we can move forward now to a reasonable rate of growth of 5 per cent., provided that together we exercise reasonable restraint. We can achieve a great deal provided that we are prepared to go at a reasonable rate.
§ Mr. KaufmanDoes the Prime Minister agree that the greediest men are those like the property speculators in Manchester who seven months ago bought a tiny plot of land for £36,000 and last week sold it for £100,000? Ought not the Foreign Secretary to have condemned the greed of these people, who made £64,000 without doing a hand's turn, rather than attack working men who would not see £64,000 in a lifetime of hard work?
§ The Prime MinisterThose who make capital gains are taxed, as they were taxed under the last Government, and that is absolutely right. I have no sym- 1534 pathy whatever with the case the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
§ Mr. MorrisWill the Prime Minister take it that the speech was received with something less than enthusiasm in my constituency, especially among steel workers at the British Steel Corporation who accepted a reduction of £2.50 a week in their earnings and still found themselves redundant and unemployed? If the nation is to be subjected to a series of lectures on greediness from Ministers, will the Prime Minister consider asking his right hon. Friends that, when they intend to make such speeches, they divest themselves of their inherited and private affluence and live on the weekly wages on which postal workers, steel workers and engineering workers have to live?
§ The Prime MinisterI have told the House about the theme of my right hon. Friend's speech. I should have expected the hon. Gentleman to be the first to acknowledge that the only way to provide more employment, particularly for those concerned with a radical reorganisation of industry like those in the steel industry, is to make steady progress instead of trying to achieve high monetary wages and high prices, which impede progress
§ Mr. RidsdaleAs the national Press will not be printing any of my right hon. Friend's replies, does he not think that he should arrange for television to be brought into the House so that the country can see what is going on?
§ The Prime MinisterI am already involved in enough controversy without joining in that one. It is a matter for the House to decide.
§ Mr. Joel BarnettIf, as the Foreign Secretary said, greed is the root of the problem, will the Prime Minister say whether the Chancellor's tax proposals have helped to cure it?
§ The Prime MinisterI think my right hon. Friend's tax proposals have given people of all income groups an incentive for greater output.