ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY (COURT OF INQUIRY) (Hansard, 19 January 1971)

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber)
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to answer Question No. 45.
As the House knows the terms of reference of the court of inquiry appointed by my right hon. Friend referred inter alia to the interests of the public and of the national economy The secretary of the court of inquiry wrote to the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury informing him that the court had decided that it would be helpful to it if the Treasury could submit a document to it on the significance of the dispute to the interests of the national economy, and also asked whether representatives of the Treasury would be prepared to come to a public hearing for the purpose of clarifying points arising from the written material.
A memorandum was accordingly prepared by the Treasury and with my approval submitted to the Court. Copies were placed in the House of Commons library on 15th January and, for the convenience of the House, it has been published as a Government White Paper. Treasury officials will be attending a public hearing tomorrow for the purpose of clarification.

§ Mr. Hordern
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole country is behind 723 the Government in their determination to curb inflation and believes that it is right that the terms of the court of inquiry should have regard to the national interest? Is it not rather strange that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) should show such new-found enthusiasm for an incomes policy? What sort of incomes policy were his Government following six months before the General Election?

§ Mr. Barber
As to the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks, I am sure that he is echoing the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of the nation. On the other part of his comments, no doubt in due course the right hon. Member for Stechford will explain why he changed his mind.

§ Mr. Roy Jenkins
Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he decided that verbal evidence should be presented to the court by officials rather than by himself or another Treasury Minister, since the matters to be raised are bound by their very nature to be somewhat political? What instructions, for instance, has he given to officials about what they should say if comparative questions should be asked about the attitude to this claim and his own attitude to the doctors' claim during the General Election?
Secondly, will he tell the House what purpose he thinks has been served by abolishing the Prices and Incomes Board, with its experience in these matters, and setting up a special court of inquiry when two of its three members were reported yesterday as saying that they were unable to understand detailed economic arguments?

§ Mr. Barber
To take the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question first, the simple fact is, as I should have thought by now he would agree, that the Prices and Incomes Board was associated with what has turned out to be a discredited policy of statutory control of incomes pursued by the previous Government, which they quite rightly abandoned in the light of experience. As to the appearance of officials, there is nothing new in this. If the right hon. Gentleman recalls it, it happened at the time when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He referred to the doctors' and dentists' pay 724 award. He has chosen a very good example, because within the last year of the previous Government, when he was Chancellor, officials, no doubt with his approval, gave oral evidence on considerations of the national interest as they affected the pay of those particular groups.

§ Mr. Thorpe
Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we are creating a somewhat unfortunate precedent in that civil servants are being asked to express opinions which are essentially political in front of a body which is quasi-judicial, and that it would be preferable for Ministers to give those political opinions? Since it is a quasi-judicial hearing, are we to take it that those who give evidence, from whatever quarter, will be subject to cross-examination?

§ Mr. Barber
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the court will decide the way in which it wishes to pursue its inquiries. It did ask that representatives of the Treasury should be made available to clarify certain points which might arise on the written evidence which had been submitted. There is nothing new in this method which we have employed. I believe it is the right one, but it is for the court to decide who it wishes to call and answer questions. If it wishes to ask me I shall be delighted to attend, as will any other Minister.

§ Mr. Roy Jenkins
It will be accepted by the House that officials can give evidence—they often have—within the lines laid down by Government policy and proclaimed and defended by Ministers. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the difference here is that by this evidence he is in effect laying down what is an incomes policy for the public sector in everything but name and he should answer fully for that. Are we not now in great danger of having an incomes policy in everything but name in the public sector with nothing for the private sector, which is very near to the worst of all possible worlds?

§ Mr. Barber
No, Sir. I disagree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. The evidence was prepared by the Treasury and submitted with my approval. It is now published in a White Paper. I hope that he will take the view that it is objective evidence intended to help the court.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Chair is in difficulty today. Later there is to be a debate in which a great many hon. and right hon. Members are interested which must finish at 7 o'clock. I have a Private Notice Question, two statements and possibly one other matter of business. I think: we must go on. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.