HC Deb 28 February 1973 vol 851 cc1569-88
Mr. Pardoe

I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 4, line 39, at end insert:

?and shall publish at intervals of not less than one month reports showing why their exercise of these powers appeared to them appropriate for such purposes'.

Mr. Speaker

I suggest that we also discuss Amendments No. 28, in line 39, at end insert: 'and shall hold public hearings at intervals of not less than three months at which they shall answer to the public for the exercise of these powers', No. 30, in Clause 7, page 5, line 29, at end insert: 'and shall publish at intervals of not less than one month reports showing why the exercise of these powers appears to them appropriate for such purposes', No. 37, in line 29, at end add: 'and shall hold public hearings at intervals of not less than three months at which they shall answer to the public for the exercise of these powers', and Government Amendment No. 17 to Schedule 1.

Mr. Pardoe

Yesterday we debated suggestions of how to get the aims and achievements of the policy into the shops, how to get shops to co-operate in achieving those aims, and how to gain the public's co-operation at the point of sale. The Government refused what both Liberal and Labour Members thought was a reasonable proposal for public participation. The Government offered unconvincing reasons for refusing this request. But the matter does not end there.

The public have still to be won over to whatever prices and incomes policy is in operation. Whatever Government introduce the policy, whatever kind of policy it may be, it must still be acceptable to the public if the public as a whole and industry are to co-operate in its aims.

The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) last night rejected the idea that the nation was in a state of crisis, and I agree with him. We may not be there yet, but that does not mean to say that we shall not get there. The only way to ensure that we do not reach that situation is to analyse public support for democratic means of dealing with inflation, rather than wait for public frustration to build up to a point at which people begin to demand strong men to take strong actions and bring in anti-democratic measures.

The agencies which the Government are to create under this Bill are very powerful bodies, and among their powers they have the power of discretion. Now that we have seen the code we know just how much discretion they will have. It is inevitable that, unless a prices and incomes policy is extremely rigid, there will be built into it this kind of flexibility. The policy advocated by the Labour Party in a document issued today jointly with the TUC emphasises that price control under Labour would be flexible. Inevitably, there will be great discretion with the Minister or with the body which Parliament sets up to do his dirty work for him.

Clause 6(1) spells out the matter clearly. It says: The Price Commission shall exercise the powers conferred by this section in such ways as appear to them appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the provisions of the code which concern prices and charges are implemented. We must note that it is not Parliament or the courts which are being asked to exercise these powers in such a way as appears to them to be appropriate, but an ad hoc body. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that as this body goes along making these discretionary decisions—decisions of interpretation which in the past we would normally have left to the courts—it must come to the public and tell them how the powers are being exercised. There is plenty of scope for an infinite number of discretionary decisions about what it means in each and every case.

The whole purpose of Amendment No. 27 is to ensure that the Pay Board and Price Commission report regularly. It does not matter whether they report to the Secretary of State and he then places the report before Parliament, so long as the public, the Press and Parliament are able to comment upon it. In Committee the Minister gave us some reassurances on this matter of reports. But I did not feel that those reassurances went far enough, were wide enough or were satisfactory. What I want to know is just how often these agencies will report to the public, exactly how they will report and what kind of reports they will make.

The Price and Pay Code says, for instance, that price reductions must fully reflect any fall in costs. Clearly, we need to know in the early stages of the policy how far the Price Commission has been able to fulfil that instruction, what it has done to achieve it, and how far it has been achieved.

One of the Pay Board's instructions is to facilitate a relative improvement of the low paid. That is an aim for any prices and incomes policy that we will all share. But again we need to know how the board is carrying out that instruction, how far it has been successful in doing it, and whether it has succeeded during the working of this part of the policy in ensuring that there is a relative improvement of the low paid. We shall also need to know what steps the board is taking to ensure that it happens in the future.

We need regular reports, to Parliament, of course, because the agencies have to be made accountable to us, and also to the public, because the public has to be brought into the working of the policy and into participating in it. I want reports not just on the general aspects of the policy, though it will be essential in the early stages to have monthly reports on the general aspects. But we also need specific reports on individual aspects of it such as the two to which I have referred dealing with price reductions in relation to falling costs and the relative improvement of the low paid.

Amendment No. 27 simply calls for regular reports from the Price Commission. One of the other amendments linked with it calls for similar reports to be published by the Pay Board at monthly intervals. But two of the other amendments linked with it refer to public hearings. Amendment No. 28, for example, says: The Price Commission … shall hold public hearings at intervals of not less than three months at which they shall answer to the public for the exercise of these powers. There is a certain parallel here in the setting up of the Income Tax Commissioners.

It seems to me right that there should be some appeal procedure which is not exactly a full court of law. This possibility was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell). But before even getting to that appeal procedure it is essential that the principles of the policy should be heard in public and that the board should have to answer in public any arguments put to it.

Public hearings were a major part of the early stages of the American policy. We heard last night from the Chief Secretary that what was in the early stages of the American policy did not necessarily have to be enshrined in our policy. I accept that. In some senses there is too much Americanisation of our prices and incomes policy. But in this case there is substantial evidence to show that the public hearings brought the public into the whole business of policing prices and participating in those aspects of the policy referring to pay and dividends.

7.15 p.m.

We had the instance of the Wilberforce Committee which sat in public. The Press and the public were able to attend. There was room for them. It would have been possible, and I hope it will be in the future, to hold meetings of this sort, rather than in the sense of Congressional hearings in America, and to have the full panoply of Press and television brought to bear on them.

If we are to have the Ford workers arguing their detailed, carefully worked out and sophisticated case to the Pay Board, why not have those arguments put in public? They may be put in writing, of course. But shall we be able to see it happening and see the cross-questioning between the so-called guardians of the public interest and the specific interests of the group making the application or the company which is making the application to increase its profits or put up its prices?

I have said that these meetings would be a considerable part of the policy, and I hope that the Government will be able to say that they intend that at least some meetings of the board will be held in public even if they cannot go the whole way with me and insist that these meetings should be held at three-monthly intervals. I suggest that they should not all he in London. They should be around the country. This again was a feature of the American policy, where there was almost a touring road show of public hearings by the various agencies set up under the Nixon policy. I should prefer to see none of these hearings in London. I should be delighted to see them all around the country. This again would bring the focus of public attention to bear on the way to fight inflation and defeat it.

The board and the commission are being given very substantial powers of discretion. We are entitled to ask how they are to exercise that discretion. If the public are to participate in the working of the policy—and it will not work without public participation—we need also to know exactly how it is being done, how the Price Commission thinks it is fighting price increases and how the Pay Board thinks it is fighting pay increases.

I view this policy not as one who is unsympathetic to the idea of a statutory prices and incomes policy. I was amazed to see that the Conservative candidate in the Lincoln by-election was arguing yesterday, if this morning's Press is to be believed, that the Government of a party which did not hold in principle with a prices and incomes policy had a better chance of succeeding with one than one which did. I seem to represent the only party in this House which accepts the principle of a statutory prices and incomes policy.

I believe that these proposals are important to the working of this policy. Unless we get it to work we shall have to fall back on the views of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) in his extraordinary article in The Times this morning, where he said that it was all hopeless and that there was nothing we could do about it. He was virtually implying that the unions were too tough for a Labour Government and too tough for a Conservative Government, so what help could we get from a policy of this kind. He went on: And if it doesn't work? Well, then the inflation must proceed until it hurts so much that we all insist on it being stopped. West German inflation is now within bounds because a sufficient number of Germans have seen the Deutsche Mark lose its value twice in a lifetime and don't want to see it happen again. It is quite possible that we shall have to accept something like the German experience. I hope that we do not have to accept anything like the German experience which came as a result of the pre-war inflation.

It is for those reasons that I support a prices and incomes policy, and a statutory one. I want to see this policy work whether it is implemented by a Conservative or a Labour Government. The Government did not accept my proposals for improvement yesterday. I hope that the Minister will be able to come some way towards us today and accept at least the spirit enshrined in these two parallel amendments.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

I have not hitherto spoken in these debates, for the simple reason that I knew that many of my colleagues on both sides of the House were deeply interested in the matter and wanted to take part in them.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on putting forward what is obviously a desirable amendment to the clause, under which the Price Commission is given vast powers. This is setting a precedent for any party which in the future wishes to interfere with the workings of private enterprise, and I am grateful to hon. Gentlemen opposite for having brought in this provision. It may be useful in the future.

Subsection (2) says: For the said purpose the Price Commission may restrict any prices or charges for the sale of goods or the performance of services in the course of business, where the relevant transaction is effected at a time when this part of this Act is in force. That is arrant nonsense. It is a stark, staring, raving untruth. The Government are purporting to give to the Price Commission a power which they do not have the authority to give and which the House has no authority to give so long as the European Communities Act is in force.

There was a long discussion in Committee under Clause 8 on the relationship between the Bill and the European Communities Act. The Chief Secretary said: It is questionable—and here I must leave it as a question, because it is not one which admits of a categorical answer—whether merely to take the power, even if it were not to be used, would not of itself amount to a breach of Community obligations. Certainly to use the power, if it were contrary to our Community obligations, would obviously ipso facto contravene those obligations. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was not his intention to break the European Communities Act and the Treaties of Rome, Paris and Luxembourg, and he believed that the Bill, so far as it could constitutionally be achieved, did not do that, but he then said: I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that those qualifying words must go in".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 15th February 1973; c. 736.] I realise that this may seem to be not relevant to the clause, but I think I am leading my argument into it. The reason why the Chief Secretary cannot say that is that ultimately the courts must decide whether the Bill conflicts with the European Communities Act. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North seeks to make the Price Commission publish its exercise of this power, when it has been clearly stated that we are not even certain whether giving it a power of so wide an ambit is an illegality and when it has been clearly said by the Chief Secretary that any use of such a power might be illegal, and certainly would be illegal if it conflicted with——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)

Order. I am having great difficulty in finding out how this could be relevant.

Mr. English

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am having great difficulty in understanding how, if all the matters leading up to a decision of the Price Commission were not published, the courts could decide whether the action was legal. We were told in Committee by the Chief Secretary that to take a power may be illegal, and this is apparently such a power, because the provision is that any price or any charge can be altered by the Price Commission. That is one such power, and to take such a power may be illegal. We have been told that to use it would be illegal if it contravenes the Treaty of Rome. How will courts be able to decide the issue if the matters leading up to it are not published?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. This is a matter of publication of reports.

Mr. English

Precisely.

Mr. Macmillan

Perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman. The points that he is raising about the European Communities Act do not arise under Clauses 6 and 7, but they could arise on Clause 8. Clauses 6 and 7 give the agencies power to operate under a code. The code as expressed in the consultative document excludes the products of the European Coal and Steel Community as defined in the Treaty of Paris. It also exempts goods and services where prices are regulated as a result of international agreements or arrangements.

In a previous debate I said that general price restrictions of the kind about which the hon. Gentleman is thinking do not contravene either Article 85 or Article 86 of the EEC competition policy. Therefore, as these clauses operate a code, and as the code either is designed to exempt goods or is not affected by European policy, I think that the point being made by the hon. Gentleman is covered.

Mr. English

I shall not press the point further, but, in my view, to say that the Price Commission can restrict "any prices" is a matter of slovenly drafting. The butter subsidy provided an example of Ministers not having been told something by their Department. They appeared surprised that they could do something which hitherto they had been forbidden to do. By law they cannot reduce food prices, but they were allowed to reduce the price of butter if they wished to do so. But they did not know, for the simple reason that, although there was a Community decision applying to the original member States, a corresponding decision slightly varying that in relation to the new member States was in draft in Brussels but had not been published and Ministers' civil servants in Brussels had not told them about it. Ministers did not know because it was a decision of the Commission. We have here a specific example of publication and how important it is.

The hon. Member for Cornwall, North asked how one could conduct these discussions in private and simply produce a fiat that a price must be reduced or restricted. We are already aware, with this slovenly piece of drafting, which is here merely because draftsmen have not altered their form of words to cope with the fact that we have another legislature elsewhere as well as this one here, that hon. Gentlemen opposite no longer know of legislative decisions which will affect and change the Bill after it is passed. Although we decide on this matter, it may be altered by other means in the future. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must brush themselves up and publish things that will affect the Bill.

I support the hon. Member for Cornwall, North in suggesting that the two agencies should publish their decisions so that we can see whether they are operating legally under the code and also whether they are operating legally under Community law.

Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster)

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) made a valid point. I do not wish to pursue it. I propose instead to draw attention to the fact that there is a difference between paragraph 10(ii) of the code, which exempts prices of goods and services where the application of the control would be inconsistent with an international agreement or arrangement and so on, and what my hon. Friend is asking for: that notwithstanding that provision the Price Commission and the Pay Board should have the power to investigate and make reports upon circumstances which necessitate increases. My hon. Friend gave the good and valid example of the increase in butter prices flowing from European Community policy.

7.30 p.m.

These amendments are obviously a logical continuation of the interesting and useful debate that we have had today. We are talking essentially about the same subject—namely parliamentary, and hence public, accountability and control. We are considering another aspect of the same theme. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) are a useful and constructive set of amendments towards that end. They go right to the root of the objections, expressed not only from this side but by hon. Members on the Government side, to the extraordinary powers of the two new creatures, the two new Government watchdogs, and the question of who will hold the leads on those watchdogs and whether they will be let loose to create havoc and destruction.

We were told in Standing Committee—although it has been repeated so often, it bears repetition—that these bodies are to have unprecedented powers. They will exercise, in the words of the Chief Secretary, a more pervasive influence in these fields than anything that has preceded them, and they are to have quasi-judicial powers. The alarm which has been repeatedly expressed cannot be over-emphasised, nor can our concern about the transfer of so much power on a dramatic scale, so much control, from Parliament to extra-governmental agencies over which we shall have precious little or no control.

We are giving a licence to govern to people who will not be publicly accountable, and at the same time we are diminishing the powers of this House. In 12 months the Mother of Parliaments, as we are pleased to call ourselves, the fount of democracy in the modern era, will have handed over power—passively, the Government hope—to the EEC and now to these two new agencies. In short, over great areas of our economic, commercial and industrial life these two new bodies will be given a licence to govern.

The House should try to impose on them some public accountability and control, certainly in much greater measure than has been proposed by the Government so far, notwithstanding the minor concession that the original proposal of an annual general report has now been modified to a quarterly report of a general character. In spite of the way in which the Secretary of State keeps teetering on the brink, there is no commitment that the House will be able to debate or reach any conclusions about the content of those reports.

I was pleased that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North should have referred to the importance of specific reports as opposed to what we are offered—general reports. It is important that we not only consider the generality of the influence of these two bodies on the economy and the pattern of pay and prices but also give them the opportunity to repeat some of the valuable and constructive work of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. One of the most useful things that that board did was to build up a quarry of information about pay structures and methods of determining prices.

I was very disturbed by the intemperate and ill-informed speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson). I regret that he is not present and I apologise for not having given him prior notice that I intended to refer to him. He followed up a series of criticisms and attacks that we have heard of late, primarily from the Government side, on productivity deals. It seems to me—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is muttering from a sedentary position. I do not know whether he is agreeing with his hon. Friend or not. It appears that he is. Those who attack productivity deals are damaging industry and not helping industrial relations or the development of productivity in industry.

This matter was the subject of two references to the old National Board for Prices and Incomes. I cite them as two examples of the kind of report which could usefully be produced by governmental agencies. In its report No. 36, the board set out what were accepted and applied as the guidelines for productivity deals, in so far as the productivity stemmed from a more efficient and effective utilisation of labour. Because of the criticisms and allegations of bogus and sham productivity deals, the board instituted an inquiry which resulted in its report No. 123, which found them to be without substance and pointed out the useful role that productivity deals had played in increasing industrial efficiency and raising the levels of production and productivity.

There will in future be a range of matters into which the House might reasonably expect the Price Commission in particular to inquire. One thinks, for example, of the monitoring and policing of VAT, which is embodied in the Bill—very ineffectively, as we said in Committee. One would hope that the Price Commission would be given a remit and an opportunity to produce a report for Parliament on the way in which VAT will have been applied by retailers and distributors.

Not all of us share the Chief Secretary's naïve and touching belief that traders will behave fairly, particularly, as we reminded him in Committee, in the light of the way, as he himself acknowledged, they had abused decimalisation.

The Chief Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)

I did not say that. What I said was that decimalisation was changing to a different type of currency and that, as a result, shoppers lost their bearings and found themselves prepared to pay prices which, in the old money, they would have resisted. That is what I said; I did not say that anyone cheated.

Mr. Walker

I hope I am not doing the Chief Secretary an injustice. I share his recollection of his words, but the conclusion one draws from them is that, because the shopper was bemused and confused, she was exposed to exploitation and was exploited. It was not the housewife who put up the price but the retailer or the distributor who took advantage of her.

What I am saying—I am sure that my view is shared by many people not only here but outside—is that the shopper will be similarly confused by VAT and similarly unable to make the calculations. I cannot make the calculations, so I do not know how my wife will be able to. She will be exploited in the same way. It is interesting to see the Chief Secretary smiling cynically. I only wish that those who will be suffering that exploitation could have seen the expression on his face just then.

One final example is brought to my attention from our debate late on Monday evening, when we debated the Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation Scheme. The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office, repudiated suggestions about possible increases in bacon prices, and said: I must say … that I am a little concerned at the rather loose talk of prices going up 2p and 3p a lb. I should be interested to know where that comes from. My hon. Friend pointed out that the overall effect on bacon prices would be rather less than ½p a lb."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February 1973; Vol. 851, c. 1225.] The Times today carries the words of the spokesman of the industry, Sir John Stratton, Chairman of the British Federation of Bacon Curers. It says that he yesterday predicted a wholesale price increase of at least 5p a lb. on British bacon"— not a retail increase of 2p or 3p— if the Phase Two proposals were implemented. Within two days, therefore, we have had an extraordinary contrast between what a Government spokesman apparently genuinely believes to be the case in an important area of food distribution and retailing and what the trade is saying. One would have thought that this was the kind of thing into which the Price Commission should be given a remit to inquire and to produce a report and make recommendations. The spokesman of the British Federation of Bacon Curers went on to castigate the Government for an apparent denial of their stated bacon policy in phase 1.

I find it extraordinarily difficult to follow why bacon is not classed as a processed food in phase 1 but is treated as such so that its price can be controlled. What is the difference?

Mr. English

We are all fascinated by my hon. Friend's argument. Will he accept that what is even worse is that because it is a food price and comes under Community law, the Government have no power to reduce the increase? They might reduce the increase in the price of butter, but they can reduce the increase in prices of other foods only with the commission's permission, and the commission has not given its permission for a reduction in the price of bacon.

Mr. Walker

My hon. Friend has expertise in these matters. He has studied the EEC, the treaty, the legislation flowing from it and the work of the Commission. I am prepared to accept his word.

The dilemma confronting the Government in this area is that on the one hand they are confronted with price increases which arise from purely indigenous factors, and on the other hand they can have grafted on to those the decisions and developments within the Community. I am not sure to what extent the increases are within the Government's control, if at all, in the case of a processed food which is, presumably, subject to control. Here we have the difficulty of whether bacon is a processed food. I am not sure whether it is a fresh food or a processed food, and apparently neither the Government nor the industry are clear about it.

Finally, I draw another point from the same article in The Times today. There is reference to the fact that Some retailers want the Government to adopt a far more active rôle in explaining food price increases to the public. One would have thought that when the Price Commission is eventually established it will, for example, when we have another fiasco about beef and meat prices, tell us who is making the lolly. That is the kind of thing we shall expect the Price Commission to be able to tell us. Clearly many people have made a lot of money out of these increases and their income has not been restricted in phase 1. In the absence of a report from the Price Commission—as that body has not yet been created—perhaps the Government will tell us that if there is any repetition of that kind of ramp the commission will say exactly who has been making what out of whom, that information not being buried in the details of a general report but clearly stated in a specific report.

I stress the importance and value of having reports about specific matters sufficiently early to have topicality and relevance rather than having these things lost in the blur and confused detail of a general report. I hope that the Secretary of State will see the good sense and democratic appeal of our arguments. I hope he will show a sympathetic response to our arguments and give us a reply on the specific point I have raised.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan

For once there is not very much dividing the House on this issue, except perhaps the frequency of the report which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) would like to see, and the statutory obligation to have a national television programme once a week or so.

Mr. Pardoe

Every three months.

Mr. Macmillan

I deal first with one or two particular points raised during the debate.

The Price Commission will be able to keep under review the prices of fresh foods and to issue regular information and advice about them. That applies whether or not the products are subject to the Community's common agricultural policy. That was what the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) was asking—that the agency should be able to report on what it was not able to do as well as what it was able to do. That is possible. It will be able to do that and report on it.

Similarly, the Price Commission will be able to keep under review the effect of other prices that it cannot control, such as prices of raw materials, and that can form part of the report.

The hon. Member for Cornwall, North mentioned appeals. He referred to the question of an appeal against a decision of the agency to the courts as if that were in all circumstances impossible. I think that he was referring to this matter in relation to the need for publicity, but it would be wrong to give a mistaken impression. It is always possible to have recourse to the courts on the ground that an agency has acted ultra vires. That would normally happen only after the agency had made an order or given a notice, because only then could there be any question of a challenge against the agency's action.

There may be other ways in which the agency could be challenged, such as by an action for a declaration, and there could be an appeal if anyone were convicted of contravening an order of the agency. Again, on the question of an appeal against a conviction under an order, the question of vires could arise.

I want to make it plain that the agencies are not, as has been unintentionally implied, apart from action in the courts. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North and the hon. Member for Doncaster that one of the main objectives the agencies must have is to get the maximum amount of publicity and information to the public, for the general reason of making the policy work, and to the House for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Doncaster, so that we here can fulfil our proper rôle of being accountable to our constituents and for what happens to them.

If the House would direct its attention to Amendment No. 17 to Schedule 1, it will be seen that this requires the agency to make reports to the Secretary of State. That applies to whichever Secretary of State is responsible to whichever agency. The Daily Telegraph has implied that I would be responsible for insurance, but I think that that was due to a technical error in not understanding that Secretaries of State are interchangeable. In this case the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs will be responsible for the Price Commission, and the Secretary of State for Employment will be responsible for the Pay Board. The phrase "Secretary of State" in any piece of legislation can apply to the relevant Secretary of State, regardless of which one he happens to be. Sometimes it can be confusing.

Each report has to be submitted to the Secretary of State within 30 days of the end of the period which it covers. It is a quarterly report. The third paragraph of the amendment to Schedule 1 states The first two months during which Part II of this Act is in force shall be covered by a separate report. The object of that is simply so that the first report does not come after the House would normally have risen for the Summer Recess. That paragraph of the amendment also covers the question of a terminal report if the agencies should cease to operate their statutory powers.

The last paragraph of the amendment deals with the Minister responsible for seeing that the agencies make a report, and in relation to the Price Commission it includes the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with the Secretary of State. That is just to make sure that there is no mistake there. This requirement for the agency to make a monthly report would be too big a burden, particularly if it were to be as detailed as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North wants. Although it is right to leave the form in which the agencies should report as a matter for them in the first instance, I have powers of direction, as does the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and we can ensure that the report meets the needs of the House. But it is difficult to dictate the precise form of the report that an agency of this sort will make in advance of its coming into action.

Later amendments ensure that for every order the agency makes, warning notices, notices of restriction and consent, and all such matters of considerable detail, have to be published. That will make an impact, bearing in mind that contravention of the code is not itself an offence, of the functions of the agencies clearly on the public. It is important to notice, and we referred to this in Committee not completely——

Mr. English

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the soft tone of his answer. He mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) wanted the Price Commission to report on what it could not do as well as what it could do and had done. Will he undertake that he will ask it, at least in the most general terms, to do that, because, as I think we have illustrated, it is a very important matter now?

Mr. Macmillan

I think we could get on more quickly if I went on with my arguments, I was about to come to that point. I was referring to the point about general publicity. In Schedule 1(16) to which Amendment No. 17 refers, the agency has the power to arrange for publication, and the instruction is deliberately drawn in wide terms— in such form and in such manner as they may consider appropriate, of such information … and so on so as to enable the agencies to get on with the sort of publicity which hon. Members opposite and the Government want, and which the agencies want for their own purposes.

Paragraph 17 enables the Secretary of State to give directions in this respect, and he can, therefore, give directions about any general matters of publicity.

The other general point raised by the hon. Member for Doncaster concerned the agency making specific reports in depth on specific problems. That it is empowered to do in Schedule 1(1) and (2). I have the power to direct it so to do. That comes under its advisory capacity, and it is not dependent on the statutory obligations, as are the other powers which have been discussed.

I hope that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North and other hon. Members will feel that all these provisions must be taken together. The question of the publication of notices, of orders and of consents, the capacity of the agency to act in an advisory role by making specific reports on specific problems, the obligation of the agency to make a quarterly report—which I hope will be in detail—covering its activities, and its power to go in for publicity beyond its statutory obligation—which is extremely important—cannot be taken in isolation. I should not like it to be thought that the agencies were confined to the sort of report which is made mandatory on them in the Bill, but I would hope that they would be able to enlist public support for their actions in the way suggested by the hon. Members.

Mr. David Clark (Colne Valley)

We accept with approval the Secretary of State's emphasis on publicity and the support of the public. But I wonder meanwhile whether or not the Government will undertake that responsibility. For example, let us take the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) on bacon prices. On the one hand the Government are saying that bacon prices will rise by ½p a lb. and on the other hand wholesalers are saying they will rise by 5p a lb. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will do everything he can to clear this up and to clear up other points in order to allay the fears of the general public?

Mr. Macmillan

That is outside the terms of the amendment, which relates to the agency and not to the Minister. But I can assure the hon. Member that it is in the interests neither of the public nor of the Government that there should be room for doubt about these matters at this phase of the standstill.

I hope that the House will feel that the provisions not only in Amendment No. 17, which we are discussing, but linked with those which we are to discuss later go as far as is reasonable to expect the Government to go in meeting the point raised by the hon. Member.

Amendment negatived.

Back to
Forward to