Commons Sitting of 12 June 1974

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster, signified.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENVIRONMENT

    House Building
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his attempts to improve the house building programme.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): There are encouraging signs that local authorities are responding to the initiatives we have taken to increase their house building programmes and extend social ownership. Extension of building and acquisition by housing associations together with the loans being offered to building societies should also improve the housing programme.
    Mr. Carter: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that as a result of the previous Government's disastrous housing record there are now 30,000 people on the waiting list in Birmingham, and more broken homes and split families than in the last 20 years? Will he assure the House that if there are to be cuts in public expenditure in the future, housing will not be affected by them?
    Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend's observations on the situation in Birmingham—a situation that applies in many other parts of the country—go to the root of our deep concern to get something done about housing—to climb out of the mess we inherited. So far from cutting housing expenditure the Government have increased it and will maintain it at the levels we raised it to recently in order to get more houses built.
    Mr. Eyre: In his consultations with local authorities will the Minister give full emphasis and encouragment to schemes for sponsoring low-cost housing? That could be of great assistance to lower-income couples seeking home ownership and could also provide work for small building companies.
    Mr. Freeson: Yes. Indeed, the present Birmingham authority has a very good record in that respect. Provided that the provision by local authorities

    1591
    of housing for sale for owner-occupation, preferably at the lower end of the market, does not mean a reduction in the number of houses built for rent by those authorities, we shall certainly back any moves in that direction.
    Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that we cannot and will not build sufficient houses to meet the people's needs if we allow other types of lower priority building to go ahead? To build houses requires men, materials and capital, but these are also needed by the less important projects. In that context, therefore, will my hon. Friend take steps to stop the building of the proposed 29 yachting marinas, possibly costing upwards of £1,000 million, projected for the coasts around Britain? If that sort of development goes ahead we shall not solve the housing problem.
    Mr. Freeson: The provision of yachting marinas and other similar facilities does not come within my scope as Minister for housing, but I shall consult my hon. Friend in the Department on the point raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Rossi: Will the Minister give an estimate of the increase in the number of starts that will take place this year as a result of the new policies of the Government?
    Mr. Freeson: No, not yet. This is no laughing matter, and two Conservative Members should be the last to laugh about it. We inherited the worst disaster in housing construction in 40 years. I shall be able to give some estimates in the not too distant future. There are positive signs, certainly in the local authority sphere, that there will be considerably more starts than were prepared for by the previous administration, as set down in their public expenditure survey document published in their last year of office. That document forecast 70,000 local authority housing starts in this financial year. We shall certainly be well above that figure.

    EEC Road Transport Permits
    Mr. Gryllsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to seek an increase in the number of EEC road transport permits allocated to the United Kingdom for 1975; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I am considering the Commission's recent proposal. This would give 272 EEC permits for 1975 and 318 for 1976—a considerable improvement on the present allocation of 129.
    Mr. Grylls: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, and an improvement is obviously welcome, but will he confirm that that allocation is connected with our policy on heavy lorry axle weights within the EEC, and that as Minister he will continue to follow the firm line of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and resist any further increases, as proposed by other members of the EEC? I believe that if an increase is allowed the people in our villages and towns will revolt, because they do not want bigger juggernauts.
    Mr. Mulley: I do not accept that there need be any link between the number of Community quotas and the question of the dimensions of lorries. We have had no meeting of Ministers since I took office, but I have met other Ministers individually, and I confirm that we are opposed to any increase in the dimensions of lorries.

    Highcliffe Castle, Dorset
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now call in proposals to develop the site of Highcliffe Castle, Dorset, listed as a Grade I building by his Department, and hold a public inquiry.
    The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Charles R. Morris): A planning application—for 30 flats—is being referred to my right hon. Friend and he will consider whether it should be called in for his decision.
    Mr. Adley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that over a period of seven years his predecessors, the county council and the local authority all did everything they could to prevent development on the site? Will he keep a sharp eye on the buccaneers—until recently anonymous buccaneers—who bought the property? If they succeed in their aim, there will be great disillusionment in my constituency about the power of Governments and local authorities to stick to plans which they have set.
    Mr. Morris: I have noted the substance of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. Bearing in mind the possibility that there could be an inquiry into the application, I hope that he will understand if I make no further comment on it.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Does the Minister agree that there is a national object lesson to be learned from the steady decline of Highcliffe Castle and its surroundings, which have already been seriously encroached upon by modern buildings of one sort or another quite unsuited to the setting of a major historic building? Is he aware that it is not too late to preserve the best of the ruin and the vista to the sea, and the trees? If, as a nation, we took more practical steps, we should not find ourselves in such situations.
    Mr. Morris: I shall have regard to that point of view in our consideration of the matter.

    Sewerage Rates (Cornwall)
    Mr. Dixonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now make a statement about sewerage rates in Cornwall for 1975–76.
    The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell):
    Under the Water Act 1973, the South West Water Authority is responsible for fixing such charges for sewerage.
    Mr. Dixon: Will the Minister elaborate on statements made by his ministerial colleagues to the effect that in 1975–76 there will be a reduction for people who are now invited to pay a sewerage rate but who are not on the main sewerage system? Can a concession be introduced for 1974–75 as well?
    Mr. Howell: I answered that question in an Adjournment debate two nights ago.
    Mr. Marks: Will my hon. Friend emphasise that sewerage has always had to be paid for through the rates? Does he not agree, however, that it and the other activities of the water authorities should now be transferred to the national Exchequer, out of the rating system?
    Mr. Howell: There is considerable discontent about water and sewerage charges, exactly as we predicted when we were in opposition. The setting up of an administration taking those services out
    1594
    of local government is costing a great deal of money. We predicted that, and it has happened. I very much regret that this Government came to office much too late to stop this trend.
    Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister confirm that the 150 per cent. increase in my sewerage rate and in the sewerage rates of my constituents in Cornwall is a direct result of the Water Act, which was supported in the Lobby by the hon. Members for Truro (Mr. Dixon), St. Ives (Mr. Nott) and Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd), and the then hon. Member for Bodmin, Mr. Hicks? Will the hon. Gentleman also confirm that it is as a direct result of the previous Government's proposals that we are suffering a massive increase in water rates at the same time? Will he and his colleagues reconsider the Act, and if possible get rid of the unfortunate effect it is having on rural areas?
    Mr. Howell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that all this was predictable, and it was predicted. We voted against the Act, and we very much regret its effects. But we came into office three weeks before the new service was implemented, and there was hardly time to change it. We are stuck with it, and we must do the best we can and see how, as the years pass, we can improve matters. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's sewerage rate increased by such an abnormal amount. The highest figure I have for Cornwall is 61·2 per cent., which is bad enough. It seems that in Liberal households there is a need for even greater increases.

    Bromsgrove Eastern Bypass
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what replies he has received to his letter of 16th April to those participating in the public inquiry following his inspector's report on the inquiry into the proposed Bromsgrove Eastern bypass; and if he will make a statement about his intentions in regard to the modified proposals.
    Mr. Mulley: To date 18. No decision can be reached on the modified proposals until these and any other representations which might be made have been considered.
    Mr. Miller: Whilst I thank the Minister for his reply, I must point out that

    1595
    these proposals have now been delayed—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not point things out; he must ask questions.
    Mr. Miller: I was coming to my question, Mr. Speaker. Whilst I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him to observe that there has been a considerable delay over the construction of both ends of this road? When may he come to a decision on the question whether a further public inquiry is needed?
    Mr. Mulley: The question of a further public inquiry will arise only if modifications are required. The timing of a decision about the road is largely a matter for the county council.

    Advanced Passenger Train
    Mr. Berryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the advanced passenger train to be introduced into service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress made in the advanced passenger train project.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the introduction into service of the advanced passenger train.
    Mr. Mulley: I am considering the board's proposals for the construction of four prototypes, which could be in trial service from 1977.
    Mr. Berry: Is the Minister aware that I hope he will take into account the environmental results of the trains? We welcome their earliest possible use, but the effect on those living nearby will be serious, and must be considered. Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the attitude of the unions, particularly ASLEF, following the report in the Daily Mail earlier this week about the high-speed diesel train and action which may have lost us considerable exports to the United States? It is an important matter, and I hope that the Minister will consider it seriously.
    Mr. Mulley: The decision involves a number of difficult matters, which is why it is taking a little time. The environmental aspects are among those that must be considered. I understand that there have been no problems about the train or the high-speed diesel train running for trial and experimental purposes, but the union has put a ban on their use for the carriage of passengers. I understand from the Chairman of British Rail that that is why the difficulty arose earlier this week.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that there is great enthusiasm in Scotland about the advanced passenger train, which will revolutionise transport from Scotland to London? When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Edinburgh—London and Glasgow-London services to start? Is it the policy of the Government or the Railway Board to impose a surcharge for the faster journey?
    Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman wants to jump a large number of hurdles all at once. The first need is to get the train into production and have satisfactory trials before we can give firm dates for the start of particular services. The question of fares policy will not arise until we are in a position to go firm on particular services.

    Railways (Scotland)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet in a position to make a statement on investment plans for the modernisation and extension of the Scottish railway system.
    Mr. Mulley: The electrification of the main line to Glasgow has been completed. I am considering the board's programme for further work.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend seized of the urgent need to get the matter right, in view of the increased prospect of getting more and more North Sea oil, with the consequent increase in heavy traffic, which is quite unsuitable for the road system? Will he make representations to the Scottish area of British Rail to ensure that there is more and more electrification on both fuel and environmental grounds?
    Mr. Mulley: It is still a little too early to say whether fuel costs will substantially strengthen the case for continuing electrification programmes. I accept what my hon. Friend says about the importance of doing all that is reasonably possible to transfer freight from road to rail. I shall, as he wishes, discuss the Scottish aspects with the chairman of the board.
    Mr. Douglas Henderson: In his conversations with British Rail will the Minister ask the board to reflect on the past folly of having closed railway lines which would now be beneficial to the community? With reference to the developments that are taking place in North-East Scotland, will he ask the board to carry out a feasibility study of the reopening of the Aberdeen to Peter head and Fraser burgh lines, which would be beneficial to the whole community?
    Mr. Mulley: There is not much benefit to be gained from trying to go over past history. When we consider the substantial sums that would be required in terms of both revenue support and investment, it is probably not easy to go back and reopen a lot of lines. I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's point is brought to the attention of the board.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister give us a clear assurance that there will be no question of the Government's cutting the substantial investment programme for the Scottish railway system which was approved shortly before the General Election?
    Mr. Mulley: I am not sure what investment programme the hon. Gentleman has in mind. My predecessor made a statement of his intention on 28th November but there was a cut of 20 per cent. within a fortnight. I have made it clear that it is our intention to support the broad investment strategy of the British Railways Board plan that was before us last year. I cannot now give the details but it will be noted that I am introducing a Bill today which will deal seriously with the whole problem of railway finance.

    Road Haulage Industry
    Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he can now say when he proposes to
    1598
    announce details of the Government's plans to nationalise sections of the road haulage industry.
    Mr. Mulley: Not at present, Sir.
    Mr. Howell: Is the Minister aware that serious damage is being caused by the uncertainty that is hanging over the road haulage industry? Does he appreciate that it is important that he should make a statement very soon?
    Mr. Mulley: I have no evidence of any damage due to uncertainty. Of course, I am considering the extension of public ownership of road haulage in the context of the criteria that we set out in our election manifesto.
    Mr. Tom King: Will the Minister give an undertaking that before considering the nationalisation of the haulage industry the interests and views of all those who work in it will be consulted?
    Mr. Mulley: Naturally before taking any decision of this kind there will be full consultations with all those concerned.
    Mr. Loughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of the proportionate cost to the taxpayer of road building on the basis of usage by the road haulage companies? For example, will he tell us, on that basis, what a motorway costs per mile? The road haulage companies use motorways extensively in the pursuit of their business.
    Mr. Mulley: I cannot give an answer off the cuff. It would be difficult in any event to give a figure of the cost of a road strictly in the road haulage sense, because all our roads are used by different categories of transport. For a dual three-lane motorway the cost per mile is approximately £1 million.

    Tied Cottages
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he can now announce his conclusions on proposals to abolish the system of tied cottages.
    Mr. Freeson: Not yet, Sir, but I hope to be able to say something after my meeting with union representatives on 20th June.
    Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the very day that we met certain union representatives—he may well be meeting them in the near future—one of the most privileged members of our society was allocated a mansion with countless bedrooms? At the same time we hear lurid stories of the cold, ruthless and efficient way in which the roofs were being removed from over the heads of agricultural workers' families and from the homes of some miners. If my hon. Friend has difficulty in getting legislation brought to the Floor of the House, will he adopt the measure that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) will introduce next Wednesday?
    Mr. Freeson: I am not responsible for allocation policy for council or other dwellings. Therefore, I cannot comment on the allocation to which my hon. Friend has just referred. That must be so whatever views my right hon. and hon. Friends may have on the matter.
    Following the meeting that I shall have on 20th June, I shall consider legislation in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There are various forms of legislation which could be used and we shall consider the best form to use to tackle the abolition of tied cottages.
    Mr. Corrie: I hope that the Minister will keep in mind the immense problems that the untying of cottages would cause the agriculture industry. Will he suggest how dairy farms can be run without tied cottages?
    Mr. Freeson: I have little doubt that the NFU will express its views in detail on the various options that we shall consider in tackling this matter. Let there be no doubt that the Government are committed to abolishing the tied cottage system.

    Football Match (Ministerial Visit)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his official visit to the England versus Northern Ireland football match.
    Mr. Denis Howell: This match was played at Wembley on 15th May 1974. It was an interesting and well-conducted match, marked by sportsmanship and enthusiasm on all sides. England won by one goal to nil, scored by Mr. Keith Weller
    1600
    in the 72nd minute. I do not wish to be too parochial but I am sure the whole House will wish me to send good wishes to Scotland as it enters the World Cup.
    Mr. Dalyell: Now that the Northern Ireland Executive has fallen, will my hon. Friend agree that there is no longer any need for circumlocutory Questions? Those of us who recently visited the Shankill area of Belfast, Long Kesh and the prison at Armagh wonder whether the appalling lack of facilities in Belfast is not in some way connected with all these drillings of 17- and 18-year-olds in the Long Kesh prisoner-of-war camp?
    Mr. Howell: I think that my hon. Friend is asking a serious question, which is concerned with the part that sport can play in unifying a country such as Northern Ireland. I am happy to say that I share that belief passionately and I shall, in the new circumstances, consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to see whether we can do all that I would like to see done through sport to bring the communities together.
    Mr. Lane: Is it the Minister of State or someone else in the Government who is delaying the reintroduction of the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill?
    Mr. Howell: The reintroduction of the Bill has been promised and will take place as soon as time permits.

    Private Houses (Local Authority Purchases)
    Mr. Stanleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many newly-built unsold private houses have been purchased by local authorities since 28th February.
    Mr. Freeson: Full information is not yet available. Circular 70/74, which contained details of the Government's initiative in this matter, was issued only on 19th April. A number of proposals have, however, already been approved and local authorities are in negotiation with builders on a substantial number of schemes.
    Mr. Stanley: Is the Minister aware that the unfortunate but predictable result of the Government's policy is that private developers are tending to withhold estates from private purchase and, instead, are

    1601
    seeking to protect their profit margins at public expense by sales to local authorities? Instead of the Secretary of State instructing local authorities to extend municipalisation to these properties, will he instruct private builders to reduce their profits?
    Mr. Freeson: I am tempted to use a rather blunt word in answer to the comments which we have just heard. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are totally at variance with the facts. What is more, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the house building industry has welcomed this initiative, as it is a means of getting properties in use which, under the previous Government, were remaining unsold and uncompleted under construction to the extent of approximately 30,000 dwellings. The important objective which the Government set themselves was to get the cash flow moving and to get such houses into use, so that the builders could continue to build.
    We have also taken steps, which the hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked, to try to get mortgage funds flowing more rapidly after they had sunk through the floor as a result of the previous Government's ignoring the problem for about six months before we came into office.
    Mr. Rose: In considering this policy, will my hon. Friend look at the sordid series of events in my constituency, where the Conservative Government prevented the purchase of land by the local authority and allowed a private purchaser to buy the land and then sell it to another private purchaser, with the result that the newly-built houses on the Failsworth golf course, built by private enterprise, cost £2,000 or £3,000 more than if they had been built by the local authority, and are now being offered for sale to the local authority by the private purchaser, who cannot sell them? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the kind of abuse and profiteering permitted by the Conservative Government is not allowed to continue.
    Mr. Freeson: I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers and his sustained concern and interest in it. He raised it in the House during the last Parliament. We cannot undo what has
    1602
    been done and what we have inherited. The Government's proposals for land policy are primarily being prepared by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government, and will, when eventually put before the House and approved—
    Mr. Jeffrey Archer: The hon. Gentleman will not be here much longer.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That sort of intervention only delays Question Time.
    Mr. Freeson: Does the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Archer) want to take us on? We should be glad for him to do so. The kind of sordid events to which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has referred will be taken care of in the proposals for land policy which we intend to introduce.
    Mrs. Thatcher: But if the hon. Gentleman is anxious to help first-time purchasers, why does he provide grants to local authorities to purchase the very houses which those first-time purchasers want to buy?
    Mr. Freeson: The right hon. Lady should stop talking nonsense. The average number of dwellings remaining unsold at the end of any particular year in the private sector has usually been about 10,000, spilling over into the following year. The figure we inherited at the end of last year was about 30,000. Our task was to get those houses into use as quickly as possible. It was also to try to get mortgage funds flowing more rapidly again. It was also to get house building in the public sector on the upturn again. In all three directions we have taken the initiative, and they are all related. They will all assist in getting the country's housing situation out of the disastrous mess in which the Conservative Government left it.

    Rented Accommodation
    Mr. Sainsburyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of privately rented accommodation is provided by landlords letting part of the building in which they themselves live.
    Mr. Freeson: According to figures derived from the 1971 Census, approximately 5 per cent. of all privately rented

    1603
    lettings in England and Wales are provided by owner-occupiers or by tenants who sublet part of their own tenancy.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the valuable role played by the private rented sector, especially in certain areas, as indicated in Supplementary Table 6 of the report of the Francis Committee? Is he further aware of the amount of accommodation which is now vacant because of the continued discouragement given to private landlords? Will he, therefore, give early consideration to allowing the landlords to recover the increases in costs of services that they provide to tenants?
    Mr. Freeson: I am not aware of large numbers of properties standing empty as a result of rent increases, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. There has been a steady decline in the rented market for some years. That decline has increased in recent years. It has been running at the rate of about 130,000 a year over the last five or six years. We need to take steps to prevent a continued decline in the rented sector, and our municipalisation and socialisation policy will help us to do just that.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Is it not
    necessary to distinguish between a house in which an owner-occupier lives and lets off one or two rooms and, at the other extreme, a block of flats where the owner lives in one of the self-contained flats? Will my hon. Friend assure us that the Government will not commend to the House any legislation which, in the latter circumstances, will remove security of tenure from the tenants?
    Mr. Freeson: The Rent Bill is already going through Parliament. It is being dealt with in another place and will soon be introduced here. It will be best to leave detailed consideration of its terms to that occasion.

    Footpath Maps
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of all the local authorities which have not completed definitive footpath maps for their areas; and what action is being taken to encourage those local authorities which have not done so to complete such maps.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Yes, Sir. My Department is urging the local authorities concerned to complete action on definitive maps for the outstanding areas—eight former rural districts, two former county boroughs and one former municipal borough.
    Mr. Bennett: Does not my hon. Friend agree that all those people who use the countryside for work or leisure are extremely concerned that the definitive maps were not completed a long time ago? Does he not also agree that now that the Ordnance Survey has adopted new signs and symbols on its maps it is particularly urgent that these definitive maps should be completed?
    Mr. Howell: I agree that it has taken a long time—25 years. I shall try to bring the matter to a head as soon as possible. There are two appeal cases in progress which are nothing to do with the local authorities. One is in Bedfordshire, where there are 150 appeals to the Secretary of State against the local map. The other is on Humberside, where there is an appeal to the court. My hon. Friend can rest assured that we shall try to complete the matter as soon as possible.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my hon. Friend give encouragement to the Ramblers' Association and other bodies in their campaign on this issue, recognise the enormous value of walking both to health and as a non-inflationary measure, and tell local authorities to get on with the job of producing these maps?
    Mr. Howell: We shall do all we can to encourage the Ramblers' Association. I am glad to say that its former general secretary has been put on my working party to advise on future sport and recreation policy.

    Empty Houses
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ask local authorities to make to him a return of the numbers of residential properties unoccupied, the cause of the unoccupation where that can be established, and the ownership of such properties.
    Mr. Freeson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Tebbit: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of us on the Opposition

    1605
    side of the House will regret, even if we are not surprised at, that negative attitude? If we are to have informed discussion in the House on housing matters, it would be helpful if we had these figures. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that hon. Gentlemen opposite see only unoccupied privately built houses, and perhaps some of my hon. Friends see only the vast areas of council property left vacant and unused in London, and that it would be helpful if we had the right figures?
    Mr. Freeson: The kind of return for which the hon. Gentleman has asked would not be worth the tremendous effort and cost that would be involved. However, I can give him figures which will be of use to him. On the basis of a sample survey which involved about 700 authorities, undertaken by my Department not long ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] During the time of the last Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "What date?"] It seems that hon. Members opposite, having left a disaster behind them, are not interested in listening to answers.
    Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Do not be so nasty.
    Mr. Freeson: I am, after all, giving a reply to one of their hon. Friends. The figures are a 1 per cent. vacancy rate for local authorities as compared with a national average, according to the last available census, of 4 per cent. in England and Wales and 3·8 per cent. in London.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Are not vast numbers of desperately-needed private houses being kept empty for long periods, usually because the owners are holding out for high prices or high rents? In consequence, is it not the case that these houses are being ruined by vandals and in many cases have to be demolished? Will my hon. Friend introduce legislation to permit local authorities to requisition houses kept empty for over three months without good reason?
    Mr. Freeson: Before taking steps of that kind—which have already been considered in the Department in one form or another during the last three months—I should like to see the results of initiatives we have taken through the recent circular that has been issued, and
    1606
    other housing advice that has been given to local authorities. We should also like to await the results of the Housing Bill which is currently in Committee and which will encourage local authorities to extend their ownership of houses available to let. This should help to resolve the kind of problems that my hon. Friend has raised.

    New Towns (House Building)
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the proportion of homes built for sale and rent in new towns.
    The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) on 10th April [Vol. 872, c. 175]—policy on this matter is under review and my right hon. Friend will be making a statement in due course. He will not anticipate this statement, except to say that the main need at the present time in the new towns is for more houses for rent.
    Mr. Morris: In view of that statement, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to explain why the manager of the new town of Northampton, at least, has been instructed to stop the sale of any houses for the moment because the ratio is changing from 50/50 to 75/25 in favour of rented accommodation? Is the Minister aware that young families moving into new towns like Northampton have the greatest objection to the withdrawal of a facility that they thought would be their right when they applied to come to the new town?
    Mr. Silkin: The ratio policy is under review. What we are concerned about is future house building and getting the right balance between the numbers of houses built for sale and the number built for renting. It is certainly true that many young couples would like to move to the new towns and buy their own houses. There will be such houses. But the vast majority at the moment need houses for rent. We have to see that these, too, are available.
    Mr. Edge: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the need to compel development corporations to make houses available for renting to local people who are now homeless as a result of the difficulties

    1607
    placed in the way of the public building sector following the activities of the last Government?
    Mr. Silkin: It was the realisation of this that caused my right hon. Friend and myself to undertake this review. It is the tragedy of the long waiting lists in the new towns that has pressed the issue.
    Mr. Allason: Since it was the last Labour Government which introduced this concept of 50 per cent. of new town houses for renting and 50 per cent. for owner-occupation, what justification can there be for changing it? Is it that the Government want new towns to be different from the rest of the country? Do they want them to have nothing but tenanted homes?
    Mr. Silkin: It was in 1968, or perhaps a year or two earlier, that the 50/50 ratio was suggested under a Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman might look at the housing figures of that year. He will find that at that time the highest number of houses ever built by any Government in the history of this country had been built. The position last year was calamitous, and something had to be done about it.

    Building Societies Association
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made by his joint advisory committee with the Building Societies Association; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made by his joint advisory committee with the Building Societies Association.
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further discussions he has had with the Building Societies Association; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: At the meeting of the joint advisory committee on 6th June the Building Societies Association was offered the third tranche of short-term loans of £100 million at 10½ per cent. out of the total of £500 million to be made available if necessary. The Council of the Building Societies Association will consider this offer at its meeting on 14th June.
    Mr. Latham: Has this expert body yet estimated the likely amount of mortgage finance which will be available during 1974 and, if so, on what level of private house building is any such estimate based?
    Mr. Freeson: I am not aware of any such estimate having been made by the Building Societies Association or the joint advisory committee which would involve consultation with officials of the Department.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister lend more money to local authorities at the favourable rate recently granted to the building societies, so that they can provide more mortgages—100 per cent. mortgages if necessary? Will this not be possible when the building societies repay the £500 million or, as is possible, do not take up the third part of that sum? Will my hon. Friend not do more for the local authorities?
    Mr. Freeson: If there were any difficulty about the flow of funds into local authorities for mortgages we might have to consider how to stimulate that flow. This was the position with the building societies. For the first time in living memory there was a net outflow of funds. This is not the position with local authorities. There is no limit on lending by them and, so far as I am aware, there are no difficulties for them in raising money for granting mortgages. Should there be difficulties we shall be glad to consider ways of dealing with them.
    Mr. McCrindle: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether any discussions are taking place dealing with a voluntary stabilisation fund within the societies? Now that funds are flowing in, would it not be a good thing if the Government were to exercise their influence on building societies with a view to eliminating or at least mitigating a future mortgage famine?
    Mr. Freeson: This issue has been the subject of discussions which have covered other aspects of the problems facing us. We shall be pursuing this aspect of policy.
    Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend realise that he and his colleagues are to be congratulated on the action they have taken? Is he aware that if there had not

    1609
    been a change of Government those buying houses today would be paying a 13 per cent. interest rate? Will he continue with this policy of giving hope to those struggling to buy their homes? Is it not a fact that while the Conservative Party talked about creating a property- owning democracy, what it did was to create a money-lenders' paradise.
    Mr. Freeson: I thank my hon. Friend for those observations. What we have been doing on a number of fronts is to take an immediate initiative to get out of the current situation, which we inherited. As to the future, there will be some careful medium- to long-term studies of a variety of policies. This is one such area. We shall be coming forward with substantive administrative policy proposals and legislation in due course to deal with the problems inherent in the situation.
    Mr. Walter Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the vast sums being loaned to the building societies at favourable rates of interest for the purpose of keeping down interest rates are being reinvested in the City at considerably increased rates of interest? Is this not a disgraceful misuse of public funds?
    Mr. Freeson: No. The object of the exercise is to maintain the level of funds which building societies have available for lending and to maintain their liquidity levels so that they can grant mortgages at a reasonable level and at an increased rate. The money was flowing out of building societies. That was why we carried out this exercise. The result has been that, far from there being a net outflow of funds, which would have threatened the supply of mortgages, there is now a net inflow and we can rely on mortgages being issued in future.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Are not the people who are taking money away from the building societies the local authorities and the Government, both of whom are offering a higher rate of interest to the saver?
    Mr. Freeson: The right hon. Lady has raised an important point about the structure of the borrowing and investing market. We have a situation which was created by her Government—I make no party point about that—which threatened building societies as far back as October last year, and it grew worse as the months went by. We have taken immediate steps
    1610
    to tackle the situation. With regard to longer-term reform, we shall come to that in due course.

    New and Expanded Towns
    Mr. Arthur Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is considering further financial support for new and expanded towns.
    Mr. John Silkin: My right hon. Friend is considering the problems of local authorities in this field—though without commitment at this stage.
    Mr. Jones: I know that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the burden which falls on ratepayers in those counties with town expansion schemes, such as Northampton shire, which has no fewer than four. Does he recognise the particular circumstances for Northampton shire and is he prepared to consider some special grant from central funds in recognition of these difficulties, in the second half of the current financial year?
    Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have a great deal of sympathy for new and expanded towns. I know of the difficulties that they are under. The trouble is that with things as they are in the present system the giving of funds to one authority must be done at the expense of another. That is the way it goes. Having said that, however, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am looking closely into the question whether any help can be given in the special circumstances of expanded towns.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if Government funds are available for local government purposes they are needed even more in the older towns in support of the rates, in connection with the housing programmes which the Government have urged us to carry out? I raise this point as a Member from a new town.
    Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend has clearly and eloquently put the other side of the equation which I was trying to suggest a moment ago. I think we shall have to get local authorities to see themselves what is the best and most reasonable way to answer the problem.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his first answer was the best? Its tone and approach gave much encouragement. In areas of

    1611
    new towns, such as Peterborough, where there is a doubling of the population of an old-established, traditional city, the influx of people from London has undermined the hospital and education services. Does he agree that the only way this can be remedied is by having a direct grant to take this into account, as distinct from the normal regional channels?
    Mr. Silkin: I am aware that all my answers, all the time, are always the best and are always reasonable. I am trying to put the facts as they seem to be to me. I understand the necessity of helping those towns which are taking in increases in population and which have greater services to deal with. I also understand the problems of those towns which are old and decaying, and which must be helped. The trouble is that all are to be helped from the same fund of money.

    Rates (Chippenham)
    Mr. Awdryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a visit to Chippenham in order to discuss the problems of the local ratepayers.
    Mr. Charles R. Morris: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit Chippenham; nevertheless, the problems of ratepayers in this type of area will receive full consideration in determining the 1975–76 rate support grant.
    Mr. Awdry: Does the Minister not understand that the vast majority of my constituents consider the present rating system unacceptable and grossly unfair? Will he give an assurance that the Government intend to have a major review of the whole system as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Morris: I appreciate the concern of ratepayers in Chippenham at the present level of rates, but the hon. Gentleman can help in this regard by explaining to the people of Chippenham that by increasing the domestic element of the rate support grant from 6p to 13p this Government have made the largest single contribution ever to assist the domestic ratepayer.
    With regard to a review of the rating system, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are considering the scope for the reform of the rating system generally.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the Minister recall that his hon. Friend the Minister of State, when speaking
    in the Adjournment debate on Monday night, said that he doubted
    "whether it would be legal or ultra vires for water authorities to refund charges properly demanded and collected under the collection of charges order".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June 1974; Vol. 874, c. 1381.]
    That order is Statutory Instrument No. 448. If what was said is so, would it not be a simple matter for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the statutory instrument and bring in a more satisfactory one, which either inserts in Article 9(2), after "hereditament", the words
    "in receipt of the service"
    or, alternatively, makes provision for a retrospective payment for such hereditaments when they have been identified?
    Mr. Morris: As the hon. Lady will observe, the Question on the Order Paper refers to a visit to Chippenham. In this context, if I may comment on the general point which she made, if we were to accept her thesis and solution we would leave the water authorities dry, financially.

    Local Government (Finance)
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish a White Paper on the reform of local government finance.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further consideration has been given to the appointment of a Royal Commission on the financing of local government expenditure.
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a White Paper on his proposals for the reform of the rating system in 1975–76.
    Mr. John Silkin: I cannot yet say what further studies of these matters the Government may undertake, or when the results will be published, but I am well aware of the extent of public dissatisfaction with the rating system in its present form. My right hon. Friend does not rule out the possibility of a more thoroughgoing long-term examination of local government finance.
    Mr. Durant: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a disappointing answer, in view of the statement made by the Secretary of State in his speech on 25th March in the House, when he implied that there was going to be a thoroughgoing rate review? Unless the Minister is made aware of feelings in the country the next strike will be a rates strike.
    Mr. Silkin: I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. I sometimes do not even myself listen to my replies, but in fact I said—if I may repeat the reply for the hon. Gentleman's benefit—that my right hon. Friend does not rule out the possibility of a more thoroughgoing long-term examination of local government finance—and that, I suspect, is what the hon. Gentleman was asking about.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that something must be done before next year because we now have a situation in which there are increases of rates of the order of 96 per cent., which some of my constituents have had to bear and which are completely intolerable in this type of economic climate?
    Mr. Silkin: Of course something must be done. One must do it with what weapons and tools are available, which take the form of the rate support grant. This situation has arisen through four factors: first, the greatest inflation in our history; second, the highest interest rates in our history; third, the reorganisation of local government; and, fourth, the reorganisation of water and sewerage services. During the time of the last Government all the opposition parties warned what would happen, and it has been our unfortunate lot to have inherited the chaos.
    Mr. Biffen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the size and style of the domestic residence is increasingly unrelated to the taxpaying capacity of its occupant? If that is his view, is it his hope that the studies which may be in prospect will bring about reforms which will take cognisance of that?
    Mr. Silkin: I said that my right hon. Friend would not rule out a study of the whole situation. The trouble is that there
    1614
    have been studies before—for example, there was the famous Green Paper not long ago, when the hon. Gentleman's party was in Government. It was, as my right hon. Friend has just said, rather a shambles. There seem to be so many possibilities that I agree that the case is rapidly being made out on the lines that we need to consider the whole system again.
    Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present crisis in the rating system and in local government finance is a direct result of the criminal lunacy of reorganising local government without at the same time reorganising its finances, and that this represented a triumph for Whitehall civil servants, aided and abetted by the Conservative Government, who have long wished to destroy local democracy? In his proposals for the future will he now consider scrapping the rating system and allowing local authorities to raise their money in any way they think fit, thereby abolishing all central Government grants to local authorities with the exception of a contribution to the provincial or regional equalization fund?
    Mr. Silkin: On the final point, 1 reiterate that my right hon. Friend has not ruled out a long-term study of the whole situation. On the first two points, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having read most of my speeches in Committee on the Local Government Bill. I commend to him every other speech I have made in the House.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I accept completely my right hon. Friend's statement about where responsibility for the situation which we have inherited should lie, but does he not agree that there is a wide consensus that we must give far more attention to the possibility of raising funds by means of income taxation as being preferable to and fairer than the rating system?
    Mr. Silkin: I should be very dim indeed if I were not aware that there was a feeling in the country to that effect.
    Mr. Gow: Is the Minister aware that his constant repetition of the statement that his right hon. Friend has not ruled out the possibility of a long-term inquiry

    1615
    is wholly unsatisfactory to the overwhelming majority of ratepayers? Will he impress on his right hon. Friend the absolute and immediate urgency of a full-scale inquiry into the whole system of local government finance?
    Mr. Silkin: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has his own ideas and is well aware of the situation without my informing him of it. However, I undertake to ensure that he is made aware of the feeling in the House.

FOOD AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS (PRICES)
The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mrs. Shirley Williams): As the House is aware, I have been concerned since my appointment to take action to reduce the rate of inflation. To this end, I have introduced subsidies on certain foodstuffs. The cuts that have been made in retailers' gross margin reference levels—which will in practice mean considerably greater falls in their net profits—are exerting considerable pressure on prices, both of food and other household goods.
The Prices Bill, which is currently before the House, includes powers which would enable me to regulate the prices of food and other items which are of particular significance in the household budgets of those with low incomes. It will be necessary to use these powers in some areas—in particular, setting maximum retail selling prices for subsidised foods. Beyond this obvious purpose, however, I have made it clear that I would prefer not to have to make widespread use of these statutory powers, provided that my objectives could be achieved by voluntary means.
I have explored with the Retail Consortium and other representative bodies the possibility of achieving my objectives by building on such existing trade practices as lower than average margins on frequently purchased items, and special promotions. Without radical change in the conditions under which they trade, retailers with a turnover of £250,000 or above who are required to reduce their gross margin reference level by 10 per cent. will now concentrate that reduction on a list of basic items agreed between us. I am circulating this list in the
1616
OFFICIAL REPORT. I have also asked them to extend their reductions by concentrating promotional cuts as far as possible on this agreed list, and by further adjusting margins between these basic items and some other goods.
The Retail Consortium, which represents a substantial majority of the retail trade, has agreed to recommend my proposition to its members. The voluntary groups have also put proposals to me designed to meet my objectives, and I am grateful for their initiative. The special position of the small trader was recognised in the exemption of those with a turnover of less than £250,000 from the 10 per cent. cut in the gross margin reference level, and so the scope for making reductions is less. But I have the assurance of bodies representing them that they will ask their members to make reductions on this list, though they will not be able to include them all.
It is only fair to add that it has been represented to me very strongly that the 10 per cent. cut, coupled with increasing costs, is biting very deeply into the net margins of retailers, to the extent that in some cases their net margins are already 25 per cent. below the reference level. This was the safety net for net margins which I had agreed with the Retail Consortium and which retailers are entitled to take into account in their response to the scheme. Nevertheless, it is agreed that the scheme should run until the end of March 1975—which is the currency of the powers in Clause 2 of the Prices Bill—subject to earlier review if special circumstances arise.
I would like to pay tribute to the retail trade for its co-operation at a particularly difficult time. It does mean the sacrifice of some flexibility in its operations, and it understandably feels this to be commercially disadvantageous. Its response to my initiative is thus a measure of its concern to play a part in the battle against inflation. I have informed the retail trade that, as long as this agreement is working satisfactorily, it will not be my intention to operate the powers of Clause 2 of the Prices Bill, except in relation to subsidised foodstuffs, since the objectives of this clause will have been met by the agreement instead.
Food manufacturers have indicated their general support for this scheme. In

1617
the case of many manufactured foodstuffs, it is the manufacturers who largely determine the level and extent of promotional activity, and they have undertaken, as far as possible, to concentrate this on basic items in the household budget. I am circulating this promotional list also in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I appreciate their co-operation.
I believe this voluntary agreement will make a low-budget shopping basket of basic goods more widely available. This should help in particular pensioners and other low-income families for whom inflation is an especially severe scourge.
Mr. Channon: Is the right hon. Lady aware that all right hon. and hon. Members will welcome any sensible agreement which does something to help solve the problem of inflation but that what she has put before the House today verges on the ridiculous? How can she say, for example, that she has been concerned since her appointment to take action to reduce the rate of inflation when she and her Government have presided over the greatest increase in the retail price index known since the taking of records began, nearly all of which is due directly to the actions announced in the Budget? It is pure hypocrisy for the right hon. Lady to pretend that the Government have been concerned to try to reduce the rate of inflation.
Will the right hon. Lady admit to the House, as she has told the Standing Committee on the Prices Bill, that what she has proposed this afternoon will have no effect whatsoever on the retail price index or on the general level of prices? Is it not a fact that some prices will be kept steady and that the prices of equally basic commodities will have to go up to compensate for it? Is it not a fact that many firms which are already promoting all the items in the right hon. Lady's list will continue to do what they have been doing for the past few months and that what she has announced will have no effect on the price of food or of other goods in the shops? Is it not also a fact that many firms whose profit margins are at, or nearly at, the level of the safety net which she has given them will soon be asking for increased prices?
If the right hon. Lady pretends that the package which she has announced today will bring down prices, all she is engaged
1618
on is a cynical political charade designed to fool the British people in the short term without having any regard to the long-term consequences.
Mrs. Williams: I find the hon. Gentleman's remarks extraordinary, because his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) sought to achieve the kind of voluntary agreement which I have put before the House, and said on 17th October 1973:
"We have, in fact, investigated the possibility of it"—
he was referring to a voluntary agreement—
"but we have not been able to secure sufficient agreement upon the scope and scale of that scheme to make it practicable"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th October 1973; Vol. 861, c. 331.]
Therefore, what I have announced today does exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman sincerely sought to do. The only difference is that he was not given by his colleagues the legislative support which my colleagues have given me.
I am making no claims that this voluntary agreement will reduce the retail price index. I am making the simple claim that it will assist the most hard-pressed families because we have asked for the promotions to be concentrated on the least expensive and most essential goods in the shopping basket. I make no claim beyond that. The purpose of the voluntary agreement—and the trade bears this out—is to attempt to hold down the prices of most essential foodstuffs. That is all I am claiming for it, and no more.
I say firmly in response to the hon. Gentleman's remarks that every month since the Government have been in office the rate of increase in the food index has fallen. It was 20·1 year on year in January, 19·1 year on year in February, 18·1 year on year in March and 17·8 year on year in April. We believe that this process will continue. Although I make no great claims to the House—and never have—about the effect that any Government can have on inflation, the facts indicate that the rate of increase in the food index is slowing down, and this is not unrelated to the actions that the Government have taken.
Finally, yes, the Budget did affect the April retail price index. Yes, one of the features of that increase in the retail price

1619
index was VAT and to some extent one nationalised industry's price. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made absolutely clear in his Budget Statement that steps had to be taken to put right the effects of some of the financial policies pursued by the previous administration, and the Budget and VAT were part of the painful process of correcting them.
Mr. Faulds: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, on this subject to spell out to the official Opposition spokesman the simple word c-o-b-b-l-e-r-s?
Mr. Speaker: I have no intention of being drawn into that territory.
Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is the right hon. Lady aware that when I inquired in a well-known chain store whether it would have any difficulty in operating the voluntary code, it was pointed out to me that the store had already been offering 44 typical shopping basket items at reduced prices for the last three weeks and that it would have no difficulty in replacing those items by the right hon. Lady's 14 items? If all she can do for the housewife is to reduce the number of items on offer, would it not be better if she did nothing at all?
Mrs. Williams: No, I do not think so. I regard any action that can be taken to modify the effect of inflation on the less well off as a crucial obligation on the Government. I am reporting what the trade itself is saying, in particular the voluntary groups, who regard their willingness to continue with the agreement until March 1975 as being, to use their own phrase, "a contribution towards the battle against inflation". That is not my phrase; it is the phrase used by the trade.
Mr. Madden: In view of the profits of large supermarket chains, particularly those reported yesterday of nearly £40 million made by Fine Fare, does my hon. Friend agree that these arrangements are long overdue? Will she tell us what arrangements she is making to monitor the agreement?
Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is now a 10 per cent. cut in gross reference margins across the board on profits. In terms of net profits
1620
the effect can often be considerably greater for individual firms.
In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, the agreement is a voluntary one, and that is why it can come into effect almost immediately. I am relying on the promise that the trade has made to me that the great bulk of the trade will honour the agreement. I shall of course also expect shoppers to make sure when they do their shopping that the agreement is carried out.
Mr. Hooson: Will the right hon. Lady accept that at least those who take a more objective view appreciate that she is not pretending that she can cut prices at a stroke? In view of the outburst by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), is the right hon. Lady surprised that the official Opposition did not vote against the Prices Bill but abstained? According to her statement she intends to introduce statutory maximum retail prices for subsidised foods. Is not that the start of retail price maintenance once again?
Mrs. Williams: The Opposition constantly attack with words but not with votes what I am trying to do on prices. If they meant what they said I would expect them to vote against the Bill, and I am suspicious of their reasons for not doing so.
We do not wish the maximum price to be the only price listed in the shop. We seek to indicate the price range, the upper end of which is the maximum price. We want shops to continue to sell well below the maximum price, as many of them are able to do.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Does the Minister remember the statement made by the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), and will she assure us that while she holds office she will not suggest to the housewives that if they cannot afford cod they should shop around and buy cheap caviar?
Mrs. Williams: I seem to remember some remarks that were made by the right hon. Gentleman on this subject—
Mr. Prior: Not those words.
Mrs. Williams: —but not those precise words. I have referred to the right hon.

1621
Gentleman as the Marie Antoinette of the Conservative Party, but he has also used abusive terms of me.
Mr. Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady accept that the people will naturally hope that this agreement will work out, but, if a voluntary agreement is good enough on the wages front, why does she need to have compulsory legislative powers on the prices front?
Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I try to learn from my predecessors. I have considerable respect for my predecessor, and I drew the conclusion that a voluntary agreement might be a little easier to achieve if there were some indication by the Government of their intention to bring it about. That intention in certain cases can be expressed only through legislation.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: Will my right hon. Friend say what items will be cut and, if the worst happens, what legislative powers she will take?
Mrs. Williams: The list of the promotional items suggested by the manufacturers and the list of permanent reduced margins agreed to by the Retail Consortium will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I am making copies available to the House this afternoon as soon as my statement is completed.
I should make clear again that the agreement will hold as long as it works, but that the powers in Clause 2 of the Prices Bill, if they are approved by the House and the other place, will be in operation should that agreement fail.
Mr. Silvester: What estimate has the right hon. Lady made of the number and value of promotions which will be available as a result of the agreement which would not have been available before?
Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman's question perhaps displays a misunderstanding of the purpose of the voluntary agreement. Its purpose is to concentrate the promotional budget on those items which are regarded as essential necessities of life rather than to spread it across a wide range of retail items some of which are of a luxury or semi-luxury type. I want to make no claims that cannot be substantiated. I am not saying that the promotional budget itself will be increased above what it normally is.
Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is a genuine welcome for the agreement on the Government benches, and that we find the begrudging attitude of the Opposition extremely mean? Will she take this opportunity to assure the House that if there is any shilly-shallying either by retailers or by manufacturers she will not hesitate to use her powers under Clause 2 to control the prices concerned?
Mrs. Williams: I can only repeat to my hon. Friend what I have already said. The currency of the agreement, which is intended to last until March 1975, is the same as the currency of the Bill. That is because it is seen by me to be an alternative to the Bill but not necessarily a replacement of it.
Mr. Sainsbury: I declare an interest in this subject, an interest of which hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware. Is the right hon. Lady aware that the term "promotional budget" is not one which is normally used by retailers, but is used by manufacturers and distributors? Therefore, to talk about a concentration of promotional budgets and special offers is not meaningful in the context of retailers. Is she further aware that to a large extent it would be normal practice for retailers to concentrate their special offers in those areas with the highest sales? It would be strange to make a special offer on something which had a small potential sale. Therefore, to a large extent she is asking retailers only to continue to do what they normally do. Is she further aware that by requiring special offers to be restricted to a given range she runs the risk of breaking down the connection between supply and demand, leading to the possibility of shortages and of goods disappearing from shelves? Was this not the reason why my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), when he was responsible for prices, did not proceed with this proposal when he look into its implications?
Mrs. Williams: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman did not hear clearly what I said, because there was a good deal of uproar at the time in the House. If he had heard what I said, he would have heard me clearly distinguish between the list of manufacturers' promotional items—the second list which is

1623
to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT—and the list of items which retailers will have on continuous offer. The hon. Gentleman's point is borne out by my statement. The promotional budget refers to the list which manufacturers have submitted and not to a list submitted by retailers.
On the second part of the question, there are hazards in anything one does, but there are greater hazards in doing nothing in a situation of rapid inflation in terms of food prices. I welcome the willingness in the trade to endeavor to do something which it agrees is difficult. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it has not been easy to get this voluntary agreement. There are difficulties but, in my judgment, this exercise is worth undertaking because the goal is a considerable one.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the right hon. Lady say a moment ago that she was proposing to make available to hon. Members the items which feature in her shopping basket. Is it not difficult for hon. Members to proceed to the next business relating to the Prices Bill unless they have copies of the complete statement—a statement which was fairly detailed, even if its substance was less than its length?
Mrs. Williams: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be able to help the House on this matter. I was referring to copies of the complete statement. I do not think even the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) would expect that statement to be available before it was made to the House.
Later—
Mr. Silvester: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just been to the Vote Office and I must tell the House that copies of the statement promised by the right hon. Lady are not yet available. Could we have some clarification on this point?
Mrs. Williams: I am sure that the copies of the statement will be available within a matter of minutes.
Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could we not adjourn the House until these papers are
1624
available? Since it is said that they will be available within a few minutes, is it not wrong to proceed with business until they are available?
Mr. Speaker: I am not willing to accept such a motion.
Following is the information:
Items Retailers will have on continuous offer
Bread—Standard 14oz. and 28oz. white and
brown wrapped.
Cheese—A low priced hard cheese.
Butter—Blended or other low priced butter.
Baby milk—Powdered.
Flour—White self-raising and plain, all brands.
Apples, Bananas, Oranges—One line.
Potatoes (main crop)—or One basic vegetable.
Beef—One cut.
Lamb (one cut)—or One weight range of chicken (up to 41bs.); or chicken portions.
Biscuits—One line of sweet, lower priced.
Electric bulbs—One standard line.
Matches—One line.
Toilet soap—One line.
Toothpaste and denture powder—Popular size,
one line.
List of Items on which Manufacturers will concentrate their promotional activity
Sausages (standard lines).
Cooking oil, cooking fat and lard.
Margarine.
Tea (cheaper lines).
Breakfast cereals (standard lines).
Fish fingers.
Frozen vegetables.
Instant coffee.
Baby/infant foods (packets, tins and jars).
Baked beans.
Soups (canned).

BILLS PRESENTED
  SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENT BILL
  Mrs. Secretary Castle, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Secretary Rees, Mr. Brian O'Malley, and Mr. Robert Brown, presented a Bill to amend the provisions of the Social Security Act 1973 as to the rate or amount of benefit and contributions; to alter the meaning of 'year' in certain provisions of that Act; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 57].
  RAILWAYS BILL
  Mr. Secretary Crosland, supported by Mr. Secretary Jenkins, Mr. Secretary Benn, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Fred Mulley, and Mr. Neil Carmichael, presented (under Standing Order No. 91 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to amend the law relating to the British Railways Board; to make provision for the performance by the Secretary of State of functions in relation to the Board under certain regulations of the Council of the European Communities relating to transport; to make provision with respect to certain pension schemes; to make provision for grants in connection with freight haulage facilities; to make provision with respect to the chairmen of Transport Consultative Committees; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 59].

  POLICING OF AIRPORTS BILL
  Mr. Secretary Jenkins, supported by Mr. Secretary Shore, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary Rees, Dr. Shirley Summer-skill, and Mr. S. Clinton Davis, presented a Bill to make provision for enabling the policing of any airport designated for that purpose to be undertaken by the police force for the area in which it is wholly or mainly situated; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 58].
  3.55 p.m.

WAYS AND MEANS

  PRICES
  The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): I beg to move,
  That any Act of the present Session to authorise the payment of food subsidies may make provision—

  (a) for requiring payments to be made to the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by persons who contravene provisions of that Act for preventing abuse in connection with such subsidies;

  (b) for the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums paid to the Secretary of State or that Minister in pursuance of any such requirement.

  This Ways and Means Resolution is necessary as a preliminary to amendments tabled by the Government in respect of enforcement provisions as an additional safeguard to public funds. I think it will be more convenient if I go into a detailed examination of this matter when we reach the relevant amendments.
  Question put and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  PRICES BILL
  As amended (in Standing Committee) considered.
New Clause 1

  EXEMPTION FOR SMALL TRADERS
  No order made under section 2, 4 or 5 of this Act (except an order relating exclusively to food subsidised under section 1 of this Act) shall apply to independently owned retail food shops having a turnover of less than £25,000 per annum.—[Mrs. Sally Oppenheim.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.57 p.m.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.
  I know that those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee recognise that we have drastically modified the amendment on this topic which we moved in Standing Committee in the hope that it may find favour with the Government in its present moderate form.
  A good many hon. Members will have read in today's Daily Mail an article indicating that the number of small shopkeepers by 1980 may well be reduce to 80,000. I am sure that nobody wishes to see this happen at all, let alone ahead of time, as a result of particularly difficult regulations which are being imposed on them as a result of the provisions of the Prices Bill.
  We all appreciate—and the point is brought out in the article to which I referred—that the world does not owe the small shopkeeper a living. Nevertheless, I hope it will be agreed that many small shops provide an extremely useful service to consumers, and in many ways a unique service. Comments were made in Committee about the variation in profit levels on turnover in regard to the nature of the shop involved. We believe that by reducing the amount involved, we shall reduce the variation, although there will be some exceptions.
  A great many small shops are run by pensioners who have sunk their life savings into the venture so that they may conclude their remaining years with
  1628
  some measure of independence by operating that small business. There is, of course, a need to protect consumers as widely as possible and in every way. In trying to exclude businesses with a turnover of up to £25,000, we in no way wish to operate against the interests of the consumer.
  There are many ways in which consumers are protected in their dealings with small shopkeepers—ways in which they are not protected perhaps in a supermarket, where the staff are more anonymous and cannot give the same service and attention as is given in the small shop. I am not criticising the service in the supermarket, but the attention there cannot be as great as that given in the small local shop. There is in a small business an element of personal service which helps to protect consumers. For example, they may return quite easily to exchange goods which they feel are not fresh or which they believe may be underweight. A small shopkeeper's business depends on local good will, and it is more than his business is worth to upset the consumer—and, if he does he, will soon go out of business.
  I recently spoke to a pensioner constituent who has been widowed and who himself is partially disabled. When his wife died he had to employ an assistant to run his small shop. He pointed out that if he had to display the price range notices required under Clause 5 he would have to ask for supplementary benefit in order to get someone to paint the signs for him. I am sure that this is not an anomaly which the Government would like to see as a result of this Bill. The turnover of this pensioner is about £10,000 a year, and I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the small profit that represents.
  4.0 p.m
  In Committee it was argued that it would be impossible to exclude small shopkeepers because of the problems of definition and also because they were not represented by anyone. I am sure that this House would not like to use the fact that persons or bodies may not be represented as an excuse for imposing upon them regulations, orders or any other measures which may be extremely onerous. In other words, this is not an excuse which is acceptable.

  1629
  Although it is a combination of circumstances which tends to drive small traders out of the retail business altogether, I am sure that the three provisions to which we refer in the clause could be the last straw for many of them. I am certain that the Government do not wish to contribute to their demise in any way. I hope that they will see their way to accepting this very much modified clause.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I do not wish to detain the House for very long because we had a fairly extensive debate on this matter in Committee. In fact, the Minister attempted to placate the Committee in some detail, and, in winding up the debate on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill", the right hon. Lady said that the Government would do all that they could to arrive at some sort of satisfactory exemption for the small retailer.
  I hope that the Minister's researches in the intervening weeks have led to a satisfactory solution. Whether the criterion be £25,000 or some other figure is not all that relevant. What is at stake is the future of the village shop or the corner shop up and down the land.
  In Committee there was a broad measure of agreement across party lines on this issue. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) in his place because he voted "with reluctance", as he put it, to sustain the Government when we pushed what was admittedly an unsatisfactory amendment merely because we felt that it was essential to have a safeguard.
  Mr. Dan Jones: That is perfectly true, but I never agreed that £25,000 per annum was necessarily related to a small shopkeeper.
  Mr. Cormack: At the time we were talking about £50,000. But these figures do not matter all that much. What matters is safeguarding the future of the small shop—the corner shop in a constituency such as the hon. Member for Burley's and the village shop in a constituency such as my own—often kept by elderly people, many of whom receive far less than the average national wage and provide an essential community service in the process.
  Although no one suggests that this measure in itself would put such traders
  1630
  out of business, it could, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) said, represent the last straw. I hope that the Government have come up with a satisfactory solution, though I should have thought that this was an acceptable clause.
  These shops must be safeguarded. The real dangers against which the Secretary of State is rightly concerned to protect people occur in the supermarkets much more than in the small shops, where there is a degree of personal knowledge, personal contact and friendship which is lacking even in the most efficient supermarkets with a vast range of attendants, and so on.
  As I say, I hope that this clause will be accepted. If it is not, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester will not withdraw it.
  Mr. Ted Graham: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) is right in saying that we trotted this course amicably in Committee. There was broad understanding and sympathy for the problems of small traders. I hope that the tone is not injected into this debate that one side of this House is for the small trader and that the other side is against him. The greatest blow to the small trader in the past decade was dealt 10 years ago by the previous Conservative administration with the abolition of resale price maintenance. It was the small trader who bore the brunt of that.
  We are told that the small trader is sturdy, independent and capable of earning a living. But apparently he also requires exclusions from a Bill which, if it is to be effective from the point of view of the consumer, needs to be all-embracing.
  The latest statistics indicate that, in 1973, 39 per cent. of the total sales of groceries were effected in independent stores. However, half of that was done in symbol or voluntary chain organisations, and it is difficult to know where they come in the semantics of what is "independent". If a small, sturdy grocer is part of a chain, he is giving up some of his independence. He is part of a larger co-operative organisation. If we exclude shops with turnovers of less than £25,000 a year, we must not forget that many of the larger organisations will have small units with turnovers of that kind.

  1631
  I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) apparently reads the Daily Mail. She referred to an interesting article which appeared in it quite recently. However, it was the headline which caught my eye. It ran:
  "How they are killing off the butcher, the baker and the corner shop taker."
  I read the article expecting to find a tirade against the provisions of this Bill. However, there was only one reference to it. The greater part of it dealt with the need to extend the hours of shopping. It made a plea for Sunday trading, for longer hours and for the small shopkeeper to be able to trade for 60 hours or more. All those matters are outside the provisions of the Bill. In my view, if a trader has to resort to working such long hours in a one-man shop, he should look seriously at the nature of his business.
  Mr. Cormack: But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that many small shops are open during what most people would consider unsocial hours simply because they provide this extra personal service.
  Mr. Graham: I do not want to be drawn into saying anything which denigrates the service of the small shopkeeper. But the greatest threat to the small shopkeeper is the big shopkeeper. It is not the Government. The greatest threat to the small shopkeeper is the natural competitive element to which the Opposition pay so much attention, and the competition comes from the big shopkeeper and from other small shopkeepers.
  Only this week in my own locality 1 noticed that my newsagent had spent a great deal of money improving his shop. The reason was that another newsagent about 200 yards away had done the same. The competition in the area may very well drive one of those shops out of existence, but it will not be the result of Government legislation.
  Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I am sure that we all agree that the greatest threat to the small shopkeeper is the big shopkeeper, but the matter that requires our attention is the manner in which the Government are stepping in to oblige the big shopkeeper to behave
  1632
  in a way that he would not otherwise do. It is a way which is bound to increase the threat to the existence of the small shopkeeper. Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to that?
  Mr. Graham: By all means. I should have thought that the greatest threat to the small shopkeeper was the need to conform to the legislation about a 10 per cent. reduction in gross margins. Every shopkeeper below not £50,000 but £250,000 turnover is exempt. Any group of traders would vote to opt out of that requirement if they had the choice, and that has to a large extent been allowed. Under the Bill, the Minister has the power in certain circumstances to exempt. She can deal with the difficulties of small shopkeepers.
  The day of the small shopkeeper could be numbered not because of Government legislation but because of changes in social habits. Most of us live in large towns in which areas have been obliterated and 30 small shops have been replaced with five. These shops cannot survive on a weekly trade of £500. They need much nearer £5,000.
  The small efficient shopkeeper may be irked by these provisions more than the large shopkeeper, but I cannot believe that the small man who wants to remain in existence will find the Bill irksome. I am on the side of consumers, like old-age pensioners and so on, who need a small shop as much as the shopper on the large estate. Therefore, I hope that the clause will be resisted.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I support the clause. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) uttered a truism when he said that the small shopkeeper's biggest enemy was the large shop. But orders made under the Bill will bear much more hardly on the small shop. I do not accept that the days of the small shop are numbered. In the United States, where the processes that he described took place long before they did here, and large supermarkets developed on the outskirts of cities, one of the notable developments of the last five years has been the springing back into existence of the small corner shop.
  Mr. Michael Latham: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that every large shop was once a small

  1633
  shop, that new small shops are coming up all the time, and that that is part of private enterprise?
  Mr. Hooson: I do not think that that statement is absolutely correct. My experience is that many shops are large from the start and are supported by large capital formation.
  In a sparse rural area like mine the small shop matters. People can choose between that and the supermarket, between cheapness and service. In almost every housing estate in my constituency there is pressure from the inhabitants for a corner shop, which they prefer to a supermarket. We may be on the verge of the process which is already obvious in the United States. Therefore, whether one agrees with the Bill or not, there is no need for the right hon. Lady to resist the clause.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I am in a dilemma whether to support the new clause or not. I believe that the figure is wrong. Instead of the turnover being £25,000 a year, it would be much better if it were £25,000 million. The Bill should, for better sense, apply to no shops, no retail outlets, at all. If my hon. Friend would accept a manuscript amendment to that effect, I would give the clause my wholehearted support.
  This is a mad clause in a crazy Bill, based on a total misunderstanding of how the retail system works. I was astonished that in her statement earlier today the Secretary of State should have said that we had made a mistake in causing the nationalised industries' prices to be held down and that the Government had to put the matter right. At least that can be put right from taxpayers' funds, but if one holds down grocers' prices, whether they are large or small shops, it is not so easy to put the damage right from taxpayers' subsidies. The results of this sort of ham-fisted control might be grossly to distort the pattern of retail distribution.
  Prices are controlled by competition, a fact to which the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) paid tribute when he said that the enemy of the small shop was the big shop. He went on for some time to say that what controlled the number of small shops and their viability was the force of competition. He
  1634
  is right. The retail distribution pattern in this country is a marvelous example of efficiency.
  Where there is a large population, supermarkets can provide goods at a very cheap margin because of the throughput of customers and the high turnover, which means that they can spread their overheads thinly over what they sell. But in a small village such as the one in which I live in my constituency, with a population of 280 and one small shop, the prices are between 5 and 10 per cent. higher on most standard goods. The shop could not survive on the lower prices, it could not pay the rates or taxes or justify the wages or the income of the proprietor unless its trading was spread over a much wider sale of goods than can be achieved in such a small community. But people patronize it because it costs them money to travel into the local town to shop. It is right that there should be a small shop in my village and it is wrong that there should be a small family shop between two supermarkets in a big town, because that is not economical.
  The point of trying to control prices of food in large or small shops beats me. I am referring now not to Clauses 4 and 5 but to Clause 2 and the power to regulate food prices. In her statement today the Secretary of State assured us that the voluntary agreement meant that firms with turnovers over £250,000 would follow the diktats of the bureaucracy. That does not interest me, because we are being asked to pass legislation which will be the law of the land. I see no reference in the Bill to £250,000 or £25,000 or any other level of turnover. The Government are asking us to give the bureaucracy power to fix the prices at which any of the specified foods can be sold in any shop, large or small. This to me is totally unacceptable. Therefore, after much consideration, I shall probably come down on the side of supporting the clause, in spite of the fact that I think it is woefully inadequate.
  I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) would be bolder. I wish that her clause contained the figure of £25,000 million, because, she knows as well as I do how the competitive system works in the retail industry. She knows that it is not only the small shops that are threatened by this Bill; the large shops also are threatened.

  1635
  The hon. Member for Edmonton said that the enemy of the small shop was the big shop. He was right in saying that before this Bill was brought to the House, but he will not be right if the Bill becomes law, because it will be the Government who will be the enemy of the big shops and of the small shops with this inflexible price control. I believe that it is undesirable to put small shopkeepers into a position in which, because of the competitive forces at work, the big shops will be able to increase their prices, which they will dare charge because of their competitive situation controlled by the prices in the supermarkets. The small shopkeepers will at the same time be subjected to swingeing increases in taxation. The rates of many shops in my constituency have increased by 60 or 70 per cent. in the last rate increase. They will be subject to every sort of impost, and they will effectively have their margins controlled by reference to the big shops in a competitive situation.
  This spells the demise of many small shops, not because of competition from the large shops but because of the ridiculous short-sighted short-term action of a Government bent on trying to maximise their short-term advantage at the expense of the long term, a Government who are determined to see nothing but the next election—and they will probably lose that.
  This country is in an economic mess, and it will not get out of that mess by mortgaging the short term or by doing silly things like introducing this Bill, by driving small shopkeepers out of business, by depressing the margins of the large shopkeepers and interfering with the price mechanism to the long-term detriment of everybody in this country.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I should like to refer to several points which concerned us in Committee. It was the additional services which the small shopkeeper provided for the community which we reckoned should have a part to play in assessing his liability for sanctions under this Bill. We recognised that it was the pensioner and the family with young children who are unable to move into the city centers where the
  1636
  small shopkeeper has a particularly strong role to play.
  When discussing the small shop against the large shop I would remind the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) that there is provision in the Bill for the display of prices, a range of prices, indicating subsidised foods, and a scale to which there is a top end and a bottom end. I suggest that it is verging on an unfair trading practice that the Government should take the power to force a small shopkeeper, whose costs require a certain selling-out price for the maintenance of a miserable margin, to advertise the fact that prices in other shops indicate that they have a smaller margin and a larger turnover.
  Mr. Graham: I accept that most people who patronise small shops recognise that because of the convenience and other factors they will invariably pay more than at the big shop. Why should the small shopkeeper be upset if his customers see in front of them the evidence of that which they already know?
  Mr. Shaw: Because he is obliged to disclose the range of prices of any given commodity, which at present is not available in shops. I accept that people understand that if they go into city centers they will have to pay different prices, but when they go to a small shop they see goods on display which represent reasonable value in relation to the circumstances of that shopkeeper. To advertise a range of prices is an indication of the fact that we are approaching the day when the small shopkeeper may lose a semblance of the credibility in the community which he serves, to say nothing of the advantages of credit which are offered by small shopkeepers.
  That is why we on this side of the House recognise that the Bill should include some provision which exempts the smaller trader. There can be argument about the scale which would be exempted, but it is the principle of wishing to exempt the lower end of the scale which demands some fresh provision in this legislation.
  On the general terms and conditions of trade, we recognise that competition between smaller and larger shopkeepers is becoming more intense. Reference has been made to rates and the costs of service. But it is incumbent upon us to

  1637
  protect the variety of outlet to be offered. Not only is there variety of convenience but variety of product to be considered. It is the small shopkeeper who provides the small weights and packages and the single item as opposed to bulk purchases, and that is the kind of item which the pensioner wishes to buy.
  We need some exceptional treatment for a sector of our retail trade which has been under increasing pressure, and the exemption that we are seeking in this clause is but a reasonable attempt to indicate that we in this House believe that we should protect a very important section of our community.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), I am not sure whether to enthuse over the new clause, but for a rather different reason. The purpose of the clause is to improve the working of the scheme, and I do not see any improvement in the working of the scheme. Any improvements which might reduce the chance of its being laughed out of court must be viewed with a certain amount of circumspection. Furthermore, it is important to recognise that if the clause were accepted its beneficial consequences would be very limited.
  The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State touched upon this point in the debate on the Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) (Amendment) Order, when she said:
  "… we are not unaware"—
  I am always thrilled to find that the right hon. Lady is not unaware—
  "that there will be some effect on the small trader as a result of competition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May 1974; Vol. 873, c. 1346.]
  This, of course, is the nub of the difficulty. Even if we exclude the small trader—the £25,000 a year man whom we are discussing in the clause—from the application of Clauses 2, 4 and 5 we shall not enable him to escape the impact of those clauses. He has to live, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) recognises, in an environment which is dominated by the large multiples which will be caught in the full vicious-ness of those clauses.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I depend very heavily on the services of a typical
  1638
  village store which serves the small community and is an essential element in convenience shopping, providing an enormous range of goods, the Under-Secretary of State will be amazed to hear, going beyond the list of goodies contained in his right hon. Friend's shopping basket, announced this afternoon. Of course, the prices which such a store charges are substantially higher than those I would have to pay in a supermarket in the local town. Nevertheless, there is a relationship between the two, and if the supermarket in the local town is obliged by the minions of the Secretary of State, beavering away at all the nonsenses that her Department perpetrates day in and day out, to act in a manner in which the dictates of competition would not oblige it to act, the impact is direct on the future of the sort of village store to which I have referred.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. James Dempsey: I was interested in the hon. Member's reference to the degree of competition that these small shopkeepers face in their towns. Does the hon. Member not agree that there are many small shops in areas throughout Scotland, and no doubt England and Wales, where there is virtually no competition?
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I do not think that I would agree. It is true that the store I am thinking of, which is invaluable to my family, serves a scattered community, the centre of which consists of about two houses, and it is the only shop in that community. But, of course, it is not out with the competition circle because of that. People have cars and could drive to the local supermarket five miles away. They could go into Dundee, for example, and find a wider range of supermarkets. It is nonsense to think that the small shopkeepers do not face competition. That competition will be rendered artificially acute by the malign activities of the Secretary of State and her Department under the Bill.
  If we persuade the Government to accept the amendment we should realise it will have only a limited nugatory effect for the small shopkeeper. One reason why, on balance, I should be inclined to support my hon. Friend's clause is that it is an intolerable addition of insult to

  1639
  injury to demand that the small shopkeeper should display a notice telling his customers that if they go to a supermarket down the road they will get cheaper prices. For that reason alone I find it in my heart to welcome the clause while recognising that the impact of its acceptance would be small, and bearing in mind that we should do nothing to render the proposal before us less absurd than it otherwise would have been.
  Mr. John Biffen: My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) were being a little less than chivalrous in giving such qualified support to the clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim). I think that the clause is admirable. Of course, it may not coincide with the degree of ideological purity which must be enshrined for my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus, but it is an attempt to introduce a degree of reality into the legislation.
  The direction from which I should like to approach the clause is to consider how all this legislation is to be enforced. The Secretary of State has engaged in a very transparent pre-election exercise to increase the maximum public expectation that there is being put into effect decisive Government action, with minimum commitment either to good law or to Government resources.
  Mr. Fred Silvester: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that at least 400 people might be obtained to enforce the law from the Labour Women's Conference at Swansea, since the Secretary of State said that it was her objective to mobilise these ladies and back them with the force of law.
  Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) underlines very effectively the argument I was making, but, of course, the proselytising activities will not be confined to 400 Labour women. I do not doubt that this very evening the Secretary of State will be interviewed on television; doubtless the subject will be carried in the "Today" programme tomorrow morning when she will explain that she hopes she will have the vigilant support of
  1640
  housewives all over the country to see that sausages and baked beans, fish fingers and instant coffee and
  "Lamb (one cut) or One weight range of chicken (up to 4 lbs.) or chicken portions"
  or electric bulbs or toilet soap are being priced consistent with the agreement which has been concluded with the Retail Consortium and which was announced earlier this afternoon. Hon. Members from both sides will begin to have in their postbags a gathering volume of correspondence complaining about prices in the shops. I had a letter which was complaining about rates which has as a postscript a message of generous character to the Secretary of State elaborating on the price of baked beans in the township of Wem.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to mislead the House. He realises that the list from which he was reading refers to only one brand of baked beans and not to all baked beans. It is a rotational list so that the items will not always be on offer.
  Mr. Graham: Would the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) care to say how his postbag on prices now compares with his postbag on prices six or nine months ago?
  Mr. Biffen: My postbag on prices, including the price of rates, is significantly higher today than it was six or nine months ago.
  As for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, of course I could not answer the letter and I did not add to the burdens of the Secretary of State by forwarding it. It seems to me, broadly speaking, that the competitive factors referred to by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) are likely to be as effective upon the price of baked beans as any other factors I can consider, but to give a proper and considered answer to that letter would require an elaboration of all the factors that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester has mentioned.
  What will happen? There will be a widespread assumption that there is an enforcing agency to put into effect the vigilance that will be mounted by the conference of Labour women or by any other housewife vigilantes. Under the Bill the Secretary of State may, by order,

  1641
  regulate the price of food and also, in Clause 2(1)(b),
  "require persons selling by retail food or other goods in relation to which an order under paragraph (a) above is in force to display such information with respect to the effect of the order as may be so specified."
  That is the point at which the enforcement begins to have reality, for in order that the orders shall be complied with there must be an agency, more than just housewives shopping around, which ensures that the shops are complying with what the law says, if it is the Minister's decision to issue the orders.
  The agency will not be the unpaid legions of Labour women or the 160 people referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum as the extension of public sector manpower. It will be the weights and measures inspectorate of local authorities. If the Bill means what it says, and if it is not amended in the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester seeks to amend it, we are opening up for ourselves the prospect of loading on to local authorities more and more activities which can be requited only by an increase in rates. It is all very well for us to deplore in our constituencies the never-ending rise in rates, when all too often in a thoughtless way we pass legislation placing upon local authorities an enforcement responsibility which they can discharge properly only by increasing their staff and subsequently increasing rates.
  There is an expectation that the Bill is to be enforced. The whole tenor of the Secretary of State's approach is that Labour is doing something—
  Mr. Dempsey: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Biffen: —ably supported by the hon. Member for Coat bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who I am sure will eventually rise to take part in the debate.
  Mr. John Gorst: The hon. Gentleman is one of four hon. Members on the Government benches.
  Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will doubtless tell us whether he wants the legislation to proceed without any order being made to regulate prices, without any order being made to require the display of prices. That is the question he must answer.
  If the Government's argument is "We know that we are taking powers to make
  1642
  orders, but we shall not make any, so the whole problem of the expenses to which you refer will not arise", let that be said and understood now, and let the hon. Gentleman make his contribution to the debate. But if orders are to be made, and if we are to save ourselves from an extraordinary extension of bureaucracy, there must be a cut-off point somewhere, and that point has been suggested in the amendment.
  Many of my hon. Friends have made valid cases about the impact the Bill will have on small shopkeepers. I shall probably carry with me even members of the Scottish National Party—and I begin to understand why the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) was so inept last night, because one must follow these proceedings with a degree of closeness—
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: If the hon. Gentleman would come to a point, I could follow what he is saying, but he has been waffling so much.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Biffen: I accept the correction. I invite the hon. Lady to support the proposition that if this part of the Bill goes through unamended in this way, and if the Secretary of State invokes the powers to regulate prices and require price lists to be published in every shop where the subsidised foods are being sold, an enforcement agency will be required to investigate from Harrods to the mobile shop in the Scots village, and the burden will fall upon the rates. [Interruption.] I am glad the hon. Lady understood the point I was making but was merely so entranced by it that she wanted it repeated.
  The amendment contains a point of real substance, because it touches on the practicablity of legislation. People living in the more remote parts of the United Kingdom, such as Scotland, often wonder whether we know what goes on in the real world once we get to Westminster. It is a view that has often been expressed to me by Scots.
  We have a responsibility to ask whether the Bill means what it says. If it does, it will involve us in an enormous extension of bureaucratic enforcement, with the burden falling on the local rates. If we believe that that is out of all

  1643
  proportion to any likely consequential benefit, we must try to limit that prospect. Such a limit is provided by the amendment, and, therefore, I strongly commend it to the House.
  Mr. Dempsey: I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, and I am at a loss to understand why the Opposition have become so hot and bothered about the provisions in question. In many respects they are not new. I have worked in one of the so-called small shops, and I recall seeing a list of prices hanging up in the shop when we had price control. We did not need an enforcement agency. If a customer challenged the price of anything one showed him the price in the book, and there was no need for any dispute. Only a fool would try to sell an article at a price in excess of what was shown to the customer on the list which was on public display in the shop.
  Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman has completely missed the point. In the shop in which he no doubt served with great distinction he did not have to put up a placard announcing that down the road certain articles were 7p cheaper.
  Mr. Dempsey: The hon. Gentleman sadly underestimates the prowess of the housewife. She knows perfectly well where goods are dearer and where they are cheaper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In addition, she is guided not merely by price but by quality, and she is influenced by service. That is what my fellow-Scot seems to underestimate when he refers to the small shopkeeper in competition with a monopoly, because a small shopkeeper can give a service which a monopoly cannot give.
  There is nothing I like better, for example, than to enter the small shop and have my cheddar cheese cut fresh rather than have it pre-packed. Many housewives would prefer their Belfast bacon, their boiled ham and their corned beef fresh rather than pre-packed and refrigerated. Small shopkeepers can offer that type of personal service and attract custom in a way which the monopoly cannot.
  In some ways it is surprising that the small shopkeepers congregate at the peripheries of our townships. It is often overlooked by Conservative hon. Members
  1644
  and some small shop proprietors that many small shopkeepers are keen on having a shop next to a supermarket. There is a shopkeeper in my constituency who is anxious to have one or two small shops next door or as near as possible to undertakings such as supermarkets or private monopolies because of the attraction that small shops have to people in the area. People are tempted to enter such shops, and thereby their sales increase.
  My experience and the experience of my wife leads me to believe that when overcharging takes place it normally happens in small shops. That is where protection is necessary. The small shopkeepers are often in an advantageous position as they have no competition on the peripheries of our townships. The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) talks about getting the car out, but he did not mention that it costs 10 bob a gallon to put petrol into the car so as to be able to purchase from supermarkets in the townships. Nor did he mention the high cost of bus fares over past years and the non-availability of bus services to reach town centers.
  To some extent such difficulties put small shopkeepers in a position in which they can afford to operate the policy of sometimes overcharging. I had a complaint only recently which involved a tin that had been labeled with four different prices within a short time. The complaint came from the customer of a small shopkeeper.
  We have heard about the pensioners and those on low or fixed incomes. They must pay for their goods on limited incomes. It is clear that pensioners and other consumers in a similar position are entitled to protection from being overcharged in smaller shops as they are in supermarkets. That must be so if we are to be consistent in our effort to protect the consumer. We are, of course, entitled to consider the consumer.
  I have heard a great deal of wailing about proprietors of small shops—for example, the one-man shop. Labour costs, which bear heavily on other types of shop, are not involved in the running of a one-man shop. I have heard many appeals on behalf of the proprietors of small shops, but what about the consumers? What about some protection

  1645
  and some consideration for the consumers? Surely those who pay the piper are entitled to call the tune. That is a good Scottish's, and it is worth while reminding the Opposition of it.
  It is clear that there are many small shopkeepers and that they continue to survive. Many give a first-class service and they make a fair profit. They get a decent standard of living from the small shop. I see no reason to suppose that that standard will in any way diminish by approving the Bill as it is presented.
  Mr. Michael Latham: I take diametrically the opposing attiude to that which the hon. Member for Coat bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has expressed about small shopkeepers and the burdens placed upon them. He referred to sole proprietors and said that they faced no labour costs. I suppose that that is true, but he did not mention that they have substantial rate overheads. The rates in my constituency have gone up by 80 per cent. and more. That has happened for reasons which it would not be appropriate to discuss at this stage.
  Mr. Dempsey: It is an income tax expense?
  Mr. Latham: The hon. Gentleman refers to income tax expense, but there are all sorts of overheads which bear upon small traders in various ways. The one thing from which the House cannot escape is that they have an important role to play within the community.
  The hon. Gentleman has said that people are overcharged in small shops. That is the impression that he gave. The answer is simple. If people do not like shopping with the small trader they can shop elsewhere. When overcharging takes place that is what happens, and that is what this debate is all about.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) moved the clause in a moderate way, and on the whole she carried me with her. My general sympathies are in accord with those of my hon. Friends the Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who made such a brilliant speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury wanted to add six noughts to the figure which is now in the
  1646
  clause. An amendment which I would have preferred to make would have been to put a full stop after "apply". I feel that the powers which are contained in Clauses 2, 4 and 5 are unacceptable. I do not want to see such orders being made. However, that is by the way and we are concerned with the clause as it stands.
  I shall support the clause with the reservation that I would have preferred to see it go further. I shall support it because of the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry. It represents an important easement for an important section of the community who perform a vital service in rural areas. They will have a vital and increasing role to perform.
  I interrupted the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and pointed out that large shopkeepers had once been small shopkeepers. He pulled me up by rightly suggesting that some had started large. That I concede. In my own industry, the building trade, by and large people start small. They sometimes get bigger and sometimes they get smaller. I see the Minister of State, Department of Industry smiling as I say that.
  I believe that we are creating many bureaucratic monoliths and that we shall regret making certain decisions at a later stage. If I am lucky enough to catch the eye of the Chair as the debate continues I shall want to make a few comments about monoliths which are likely to be created under the cheese subsidy provisions. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester will continue with her clause. I consider that it is reasonable but I wish that the figure had been higher.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gow: The Bill basically does two things. First, it authorises the expenditure of up to £700 million on subsidies, and, secondly, it confers upon the Secretary of State wide powers to control prices. It is with the second aspect that we are concerned and to which the clause relates. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), I should like to see the clause amended. I should like it to read "No order shall be made under this Bill." That would be the

  1647
  most sensible clause to introduce. To that extent I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not introduce such an amendment.
  The clause raises the general philosophy of whether it is possible by the Secretary of State making orders to have any long-term effect upon the prices in the shops. The hon. Member for Coat bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) made a valid point. He said that the consumer pays attention to quality, service and prices. I have never been able to understand the objection of hon. Members opposite and of some of my hon. Friends to the proposition that in the shops there are bound to be different prices. If some prices are higher, by the same token some are lower than others. The only sure way of obtaining the best value for the consumer is by maximising competition, and no amount of orders by the Secretary of State will get over that basic economic law.
  New Clause 1 goes to the heart of the whole philosophy of how one is to control inflation. We are entitled to consider how the Bill came to be introduced. It was introduced into the House on 3rd April, so the right hon. Lady gave birth to it only five weeks after it had been conceived.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Hon. Members opposite have said that they are supporting new Clause 1, yet they are advocating competition. Surely the whole purpose of new Clause 1 is to produce a barrier, to differentiate, and, therefore, to reduce the element of competition. I do not see how hon. Members opposite can possibly support new Clause 1 if they believe in competition. They cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Gow: The purpose of new Clause 1 is to exempt at least some traders from the operation of any order made by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Graham: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill carefully enough he will note that Clause 1(7)(b) gives the Secretary of State power to
  "… make different provision in relation to different circumstances ".
  Such circumstances could, in the light of experience, be those enjoyed—if that is the word—by traders in this position.
  1648
  Would it not be better for the Secretary of State to have these powers than to specify the exemptions proposed, later on other exemptions, and so on?
  Mr. Gow: I understand the point, but the effect of new Clause 1 is to restrict the discretion of the Secretary of State so that she would be able to make orders only in respect of those whose turnover was in excess of £25,000 per annum. To that limited extent I support new Clause 1, subject to the reservations I made at the beginning of my speech.
  I was coming to the philosophy behind the Bill, which is central to new Clause 1. I do not believe that hon. Members opposite really accept the proposition that it is possible in anything but the shortest term to control inflation by order of the Secretary of State. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how the right hon. Lady, who has given birth to the Bill, really believes it either. Who is the father of the Bill? It is not the Prime Minister. It is certainly not the Leader of the House. It is certainly not the Under-Secretary of State.
  Mr. Dan Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is not right for an hon. Member to discuss the entire Bill when we are considering new Clause 1.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George
  Thomas): We are getting towards the end of this debate—at least I hope so. It is rather wide, but I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) will now get away from parentage, because we are all embarrassed.
  Mr. Gow: I had almost concluded, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was going to say that, in so far as the Bill has a father, it has been fathered by a combination—the Secretary of State for Employment and, I suspect, the 38 members of the General Council of the TUC.
  Mr. Gorst: I want to make the shortest contribution in recommending this desperate, gloomy and defeatist new clause to the House.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Who is the father?
  Mr. Gorst: It has been conceived not as a measure to improve the Bill so much as a desperate attempt to give a lease

  1649
  of life—not a new lease of life—to small traders. Without it, many small traders must go to the wall, because there is no fair competition that will enable small traders to remain in existence once the Secretary of State gets her way and unleashes herself on the enormous number of inconsistencies and contradictions which will emerge as a result of the operation of these provisions.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): This debate is mainly about the problems of the small shopkeeper. I want to make it clear that the Government have no intention of driving the small shopkeeper into insolvency. They have no intention of sending him the same way as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and Rolls-Royce. The intention is to try to look after him as much as anyone else.
  The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) referred to an article in the Daily Mail. It contained only one sentence which had anything to do with prices policy. The great pity is that the Daily Mail got it wrong. It said:
  "Many thousands of small shops face a … threat—the new compulsory cut in profit margins …"
  It is a sign of the Government's genuine desire to look after the small shopkeepers that the cut in profit margins did not apply to those with a turnover of under £250,000 a year. Already, by an amendment to the Price Code, action has been taken with a view to giving a balance in favour of those in a small way of trade.
  Mr. Ridley: Please do not let the hon. Gentleman accuse me of defending the Price Code. But if the Government fix the margin of large retailers, it will have the effect of fixing retail prices of certain lines and altering the amounts which small shopkeepers can charge. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The effect of the cuts on the big stores will be marginal, but not so in the case of small shopkeepers, because their competitive position depends on certain factors—how far away they are from large shops, and so on—which dictate how much they can charge.
  Mr. Fraser: If I understand the burden of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, it is that lowering of prices in large shops and the competition between large shops and small shops will harm the small
  1650
  shops. It is inevitable that competition will have some effect upon trade as between different outlets, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) observed. The threat to the small shopkeeper is the large shopkeeper.
  What emerges clearly from the debate is that we are all aware that shoppers, housewives and consumers are concerned about the cost of living. We all know that from going on the doorsteps during our election campaigns. What is significant about today's contributions by both Conservatives and Liberals is that not one of them has had any constructive contribution to make towards bringing down the cost of living, except to talk about competition. I will come to that in a moment. I must make it clear that we are mindful of the needs of small shopkeepers We are equally mindful of the needs of the consumer. In using this legislation we intend to achieve a fair balance between these needs.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman complains that there have been no constructive suggestions from the Conservative Party about how we might make a contribution towards keeping down the cost of living. He must appreciate that many of us have, for a long time, urged not only upon this Government but upon the previous Government that the way to bring inflation under control is to tackle the real causes and not to tamper around with the symptoms. That carries the matter very much wider than the discussion we can have under the Bill, which is dealing totally with symptoms.
  Mr. Fraser: It carries the matter so much wider that I do not think that I will enter into it. We have to try to achieve a balance between the genuine interests of shopkeepers and the interests of the consumers. Acceptance of this clause would represent a considerable incursion upon the rights of consumers and the information given to them. A total of 25 per cent. of all food shops have an annual turnover of less than £25,000 per annum.
  If the clause were accepted, one in four of all food shops would be exempted from the provisions relating to price marking and the display of price notices. The Opposition concede that there ought to be price regulation under Clause 2 in

  1651
  respect of subsidised food, because there is no exemption there.
  Mr. Biffen: Is the Minister sure that that figure of one in four is a reliable statistic? Does it take into account the fact that there is the reference to the independently-owned retail food shops? I would have thought that a rather larger number of shops would have been excluded by this clause than has been suggested.
  Mr. Fraser: I do not have firm statistics about this. I would have thought that the area of the small food shops corresponded with that of the independent small food shops. I do not think that the word "independent" makes any difference.
  Mr. Gorst: Do we understand that the Minister is resting his case not on the number of shops involved but on the principle?
  Mr. Fraser: I am not resting my case because I have hardly had a chance to start it. Perhaps I can make a little progress.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman has rather suggested that that figure of one in four implies 25 per cent. of the total food turnover in the country. Surely the figure is much smaller than that. There may be one in four shops with a turnover of less than £25,000, but the percentage of the food turnover in the country which that 25 per cent. distributes is probably nearer 5 per cent.
  Mr. Fraser: I did not say what the hon. Gentleman implied. What he has said is pretty obvious. All I did was to make a short factual statement to the effect that about one in four food shops have a turnover of less than £25,000 per annum. It follows that if the clause were accepted about one in four food shops, although not 25 per cent. of food sales, would be exempt from the provisions dealing with price regulation and non-subsidised food, price marking and the display of price range notices. That is a fairly considerable incursion into the protection afforded for the consumer in the Bill.
  1652
  5.15 p.m.
  Outside large towns it is probable that a much larger proportion of food shops are small food shops with a turnover below £25,000. The distribution of small shops is not even throughout the country. There may be less densely populated areas where the lack of information in terms of price marking may work to the consumer's disadvantage, although I hope to show that the provisions concerning price and unit marking do not necessarily work to the disadvantage of the small trader but may well give him a competitive advantage over the supermarkets.
  In large towns—I know this from my own observations—many of the shops selling essential items of food which appear regularly in the household budget are small shops. The price range notices and price marking orders will not apply to thousands of food items. Two candidates may well be fruit and vegetables. It is fairly obvious to those of us who go shopping that a good many butchers' shops and greengrocers' shops in large towns are still independently operated and might be exempted if the clause were carried. In that event the rights and the protection afforded to the consumer would be reduced.
  Time and again the Government have been urged to bear in mind that small shops are used by the elderly, the infirm and those on low incomes. What is the argument? Is it that the elderly and infirm are to be denied information about prices?
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman also take the point that many of these shops are operated by the elderly and infirm who have very low incomes?
  Mr. Fraser: I ought to declare an interest which I used to have and another interest which I still have. As a solicitor I used to do a great deal of buying and selling of small shops. A large proportion of my clientele did not consist of the elderly or the infirm. My current interest, although it is not a financial one, is that I am president of my local chamber of commerce. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not take chambers of commerce lightly and sneer at them. They are collections of small shopkeepers who make representations to their Members of Parliament. I do not observe,

  1653
  when I go to their dinners or meetings, that they fall into either of the categories mentioned by the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Cormack Mr. Cormack rose—
  Mr. Fraser: I must try to finish one paragraph.
  It seems to be quite unfair that the provision of information about prices should be denied to those who are probably among the most vulnerable in our society.
  Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman talks about the elderly and infirm patronising these shops. Is he aware that such shops perform a service to these people, and if the shops are put out of business they will not be able to do so?
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman paints an extraordinary picture of the elderly, infirm shopkeeper serving the elderly, infirm customer. They are apparently supposed to operate on a basis of mutual ignorance. What he suggests is that when the elderly, infirm customer goes into the shop run by the elderly, infirm independent shopkeeper there should be as little information as possible in the shop about the price of the goods being sold. That is the logical conclusion to the hon. Gentleman's premise. I do not accept that premise. I am trying to demonstrate that there is a wide range of independent, small shopkeepers who do not suffer from the disadvantages which hon. Gentlemen have suggested They are a fairly representative range of intelligent and able people and it demeans their reputation too much to suggest that they are incapable of complying with some of the provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does not my hon. Friend agree that one effect of the new clause, particularly in cases of the village shop, which may be the only shop in the village, is that all the customers in the village, being faced with a monopoly position and having no choice, would be denied knowledge on prices and on what is available outside the village? The effect of the clause would be to deny to villagers in such a situation any information as to what was going on concerning prices.
  Mr. Fraser: There is always a danger in taking matters to their logical conclusion. If it is suggested that small shop-
  1654
  keepers do not display prices, that does them a disservice. I do not think that they behave in this peculiar manner or that they try to keep their customers in ignorance, and I do not believe that they are incapable of, or will be unduly burdened by, observing, for instance, provisions on price marking or unit pricing. Indeed, this may well work to their advantage. To give an example, one candidate for unit prices, if we are to have the powers in the Bill, would be vegetables. The man with his barrow in the market and the small greengrocer generally display on goods the prices per pound of potatoes, oranges or apples. However, it is often found in the competing supermarket that there are vegetables or fruit packed in trays, under polythene covers, with the prices stamped on them. I advise hon. Gentlemen who doubt my word to go into a supermarket, pick up one of these trays and ask for it to be weighed, and then work out the unit price of the three apples in a cardboard tray with the polythene cover, or whatever the particular item might be. It will often be the case that those goods when sold by the small independent shopkeeper will be rather less in price that those displayed in the supermarket.
  Therefore, it does not follow that price marking and the use of powers under Clause 4 would put the small shopkeeper at a grave disadvantage in relation to his other competitors.
  Mr. Timothy Sainsbury Mr. Timothy Sainsbury (Hove) rose—
  Mr. Fraser: The House will become impatient if I give way much more.
  The new clause proposes to exempt the small shopkeeper from, first, the power on price regulation, under Clause 2. I have made clear in Committee that there are advantages to the small trader in the exemption from the profit margin reductions that have already been made. I remind the House of the words of my right hon. Friend in making her statement this afternoon, when she said:
  "I have informed the retail trade that, as long as this agreement is working satisfactorily—"
  that is the agreement she announced—
  "it will not be my intention to operate the powers of Clause 2 of the Prices Bill, except in relation to subsidised foodstuffs …".
  The Opposition do not quarrel with the proposition that one ought to have price

  1655
  regulation powers for subsidised foodstuffs. On the basis of the statement by my right hon. Friend this afternoon there is little likelihood, as long as the voluntary arrangement works, that the regulation powers under Clause 2 will be used at all. That is a matter which my right hon. Friend dealt with in her statement and in the questions which were put to her, and so there is little risk there.
  The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) completely misunderstood what the matter was about. He made a speech as if the whole of the powers in Clauses 4 and 5 were price restriction powers, but, of course, they are not. They are, as the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce Gardyne) rightly observed, powers which relate to competition. I was extremely surprised at his remark—I hope I am recollecting it correctly—that these powers made competition unduly acute. That seems to be a strange allegation from an hon. Gentleman whose only answer to the consumer is that there ought to be more competition—
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: What I was saying, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see when he reads the report of my remarks, was that the Government were seeking to impose on the larger retailers a more severe pricing system than would result from the pressures from competition—in other words, adding an element of artificiality to the pressures of competition. I do not object to pressures of competition, but not when they are dictated and mucked around with by the right hon. Lady and her Department.
  Mr. Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman was addressing himself to price regulation matters and the operating of the code, I have already passed that point in my speech. I am now talking about Clauses 4 and 5, which enable the Secretary of State to require certain goods to be price marked—not to regulate prices, but to require price marking.
  I know that there is a division in the Opposition on this, but with regard to that part of the Opposition who believe in the operation of a free market—I understand that one of the indispensable elements of the operation of a free market
  1656
  is the maximum amount of information on prices—I would have thought that those Members would have rejoiced at the amount of information made available so that people could make a free and independent choice between one shop and another, assess for themselves the advantages of personal service and, for instance, of not having to pay a bus fare into town. People would have information about their prices, and this would help competition to operate more freely than at present.
  Mr. Ridley: I addressed my remarks to Clause 2, the price control clause. I agree with Clause 4; there is a lot of sense in it. Clause 5 deals with the notification of the general range of prices. If we take, for instance, the Isle of Lundy, where goods might have to be twice what they would be in a London supermarket because of transport and other expenses as well as there being a smaller turnover, would it help shoppers in Lundy to be told that bacon, biscuits or bread in London were half the price of what they were in Lundy? It is totally irrelevant and rather mischievous to try to suggest that this can be achieved. Does the hon. Gentleman get the point?
  Mr. Fraser: I get the point; it was dealt with in Committee, but we must now leave detailed discussion on it until later in the proceedings.
  My first argument for not accepting the clause is that it would remove the fair balance between the shopkeeper and the consumer. The second objection is a technical one. I do not like to go into technical matters, but I must point out some of the defects in the clause. There is a difficulty over definition. The Institute of Trading Standards Administration is strongly opposed to this kind of exemption, which would make enforcement of price provisions much more difficult.
  The phrase "independently owned" in the clause is not defined. There would be difficulties, I suspect, in distinguishing between the solely owned shop and the shop taken under a franchise, and in distinguishing between shops where the freehold was owned and shops held on lease or on licence. The weights and measures inspector would often have to investigate title before he could get on with the rest of his job—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend will be aware that probably one of the largest independently owned concerns until recently was the firm of Sainsbury, and that there are many similar, though not so large, independently owned concerns? There is one in my constituency which independently owns five shops. Where do we draw the line?
  Mr. Fraser: At the risk of being accused of doing a commercial for Sainsbury, I point out that its turnover is more than £25,000.
  5.30 p.m.
  The third difficulty is the definition of a food shop. Some hardware shops sell food as a second line. There are mixed trades, and it would be difficult to know exactly what was meant by a "food shop" for definition purposes.
  The next technical difficulty concerns turnover. The Price Code gave a very detailed basis for assessment of turnover, profits margin, and so on. It would be extremely difficult to mount a prosecution simply on the basis of the words "£25,000 per annum" without any reference period. It would be difficult to know until the end of the year whether the £25,000 turnover had been achieved. I hope that I am not denigrating the small trader, but it is not unknown—hon. Members who are accountants will know this—for accounts to be prepared some little time after the end of the financial year.
  I assure the House that my right hon. Friend has the needs and difficulties of small traders in mind. That is why under Clauses 2, 4 and 5 we can make different provisions in different circumstances. That is why my right hon. Friend will introduce Government amendments to those three clauses which provide for consultation. It is legitimate to talk about the difficulties of small shopkeepers in unit pricing all of his perhaps large range of goods. We have no intention of requiring by order comprehensive and across-the-board price markings or unit pricing. We intend to restrict the powers to a comparatively small number of goods for which it is shown there is a particular and important consumer need.
  The new provisions on consultation are evidence that we accept the need for consultation. We intend that the consultation should include representatives
  1658
  of the small shopkeepers as well as representatives of the multiple retailers. There is no single organisation which can speak for small shopkeepers, but we have written proposing discussions to the National Union of Small Shopkeepers and to the Retail Food Confederation and the Retail Consortium, both of which include representatives of small retailers. The symbol groups are represented in the CBI, which we have also consulted. In this way we shall seek to ensure that the problems of the small shopkeeper are fully taken into account.
  With that review of the difficulties of the new clause, and with the assurance that we shall keep the needs of the small shopkeepers in mind and will have adequate and full consultation with their representatives, I hope that the Opposition will see fit not to press the clause to a Division.
  Mr. Cormack: One of the difficulties is that there is no representative body for the small shopkeeper which can be consulted. How will the hon. Gentleman deal with that problem?
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: We have had an extremely wide-ranging debate on a narrow new clause. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friends who have highlighted what they thought to be the excessive moderation of the clause. The motivation for this moderation is realism, and I still cling to the idea that perhaps moderation and realism go hand in hand.
  However, we have probably been proved right in our moderate approach. In similar amendments in Committee we referred to a turnover of £50,000, and we were told that that would apply to nine out of 10 shops. We reduced it to £25,000, and have been told that that figure applies to 25 per cent. of the shops, which is a tremendous reduction which I should have thought would have commended itself to the Government as being extremely acceptable, particularly as the Under-Secretary of State admitted that it probably represented 5 per cent. of food sales.
  Mr. John Fraser: I did not admit that it was 5 per cent. I said that it might be less than 25 per cent. I did not give an estimate of the proportion of trade.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: I accept the judgment of my hon. Friend who said that

  1659
  it is likely to be 5 per cent. of food sales. We are therefore underlining the modesty of the new clause.
  The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), recreating the atmosphere in Standing Committee, said that resale price maintenance had harmed the small shopkeepers more than anything else.
  Mr. Graham: Its abolition had harmed them.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: Yes. In the next breath he said that he was on the side of the consumer. I hope that he did not mean to imply that the abolition of resale price maintenance was not in the interests of the consumer.
  Having expressed the hope that the Opposition were not trying to imply that they were the ones interested in the welfare of small shopkeepers whereas the Government were not, the hon. Gentleman went on to say that he was on the side of the consumer. I am on the side of the consumer, and the consumer wants to be able to use small shops. The consumer is extremely well served in them. They provide personal service and perhaps are less notable for consumer malpractices than the bigger chain stores. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the list of prosecutions for breaches of consumer legislation, he will find that the prosecution of small shopkeepers is rarer than the prosecution of larger stores.
  Mr. Graham: 1 accept the spirit in which the point is made, but is it not a regrettable fact that, faced with a choke between maintaining the number of small shops—and the only way in which that can be done is with one's feet, by going through the doors and being served- and going further a field, aided and abetted by the motor car, to perhaps bigger shops, most consumers choose the bigger shops?
  Mrs. Oppenheim: The consumer, aided and abetted by the motor car, would have to be able to afford the increased petrol prices imposed as a result of Government policy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) made the point extremely well when he said that the small shops have their own viability niche in society and that it would take a great deal in the way of consumer choice to undermine it but not
  1660
  much in the way of legislation of this sort to undermine it. He and the Minister referred to the article in the Daily Mail. I did not imply that the article was about this Bill. I merely said that it mentioned that there would be only 80,000 small shops by 1980. Obviously the writer of the article was largely misinformed on a number of items.
  If the Under-Secretary had bothered to inform himself, he would have known how dangerous Clauses 2, 4 and 5 are for the small shopkeeper. The hon. Gentleman said that the powers in the new clause would irk small shopkeepers. It is not the irksomeness of the clauses but the cost to the shopkeeper of the Government's measures which worries us. It was the cost of unit pricing which led to the small shopkeepers in the United States being exempted. The hon. Gentleman rather mischievously implied all sorts of motives, such as the desire to withhold information, even between friends. There is no question of that.
  First, the question is whether shopkeepers will be able to afford to provide the information and then whether they will be able to obtain it quickly enough in order to provide it in a way which is meaningful to the consumer. We do not believe that the information to be provided on the price range in shops is necessarily beneficial to consumers. We are not acting against the consumers' interests in wishing to exempt small shopkeepers from having to obey the legislation.
  The Under-Secretary of State repeated the claim made over and again in Standing Committee that the flexibility in the Bill gave the Government the opportunity to exempt the people we wish to exempt by the new clause. He says that our clause does not define them. If it is impossible to define them, how will they be exempted, even with the widest possible powers—unless the hon. Gentleman is thinking of tabling a new clause in another place? We shall be interested to hear whether that is so.
  The purpose of the amendment is to protect small traders. It is also to protect consumers, who benefit largely from the type of personal service that is given. As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) said, it is often almost akin to a social service. It is in the corner shop that it

  1661
  is often learnt that a pensioner who lives alone has not been seen for several days. Anyone who does not have the benefit of shopping in a corner shop in his own neighborhood may have observed from programmes such as "Coronation Street" that such shops are repositories of information, perhaps not about price ranges, but about practically everything else that goes on in the neighborhood.
  If it is only to the drafting of the clause that the Government object—apparently our definitions are not sufficiently precise—I ask them to give a positive assurance that they will table a new clause or an amendment in another place. If they are unable to give that assurance, nothing they have said in the debate has convinced us that the clause is not necessary, and I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to press it to a Division.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Graham Page(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you please check the time at which the doors were locked? Many of us were precluded from entering the door.
  Mr. John Pardoe: That is no excuse.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already made some inquiries because I saw that a large number of Members had failed to get to the Lobby in time. However, the mechanical device on which we depend indicated that it was time, and I understand that it was the usual time.
  Mr. Graham Page (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the mechanics
  were right, it means that none of us with rooms on the upper corridor can ever get into the Division Lobby. I came straight down from my room.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I used to have a room upstairs, but I may have moved more quickly than the right hon. Gentleman moves. However, unless the House feels strongly about the matter because so many Members were left out, I think the decision should stand. I went by the indicator, which said that it was the usual time.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I make it plain that we have no doubt whatever that you correctly interpreted what you describe as a "mechanical device". The doubt in our minds is whether, in view of the large number of Members locked out, the mechanical device is working correctly. I feel most strongly about this matter, because unless you, Sir, can check in some way whether the clocks are working correctly, surely it is common sense that the system cannot be correct since so many hon. Members were locked out of the Lobby.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall find out greater details about the clock. This House runs on common sense. If there is a sense of injustice, there is no difficulty in having the vote taken a second time.
  Mr. Dan Jones: If everybody plays the game.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Everybody does play the game in this place.
  The Committee having divided:
  Ayes 251, Noes 273.

  Division No. 37.]

  AYES

  [5.41 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Body, Richard

  Churchill, W. S.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Boscawen, Hon. Robert

  Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

  Ancram, M.

  Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)

  Clegg, Walter

  Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Cocksfoot, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Brittan, Leon

  Cope, John

  Baker, Kenneth

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Cormack, Patrick

  Banks, Robert

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Corrie, John

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Costain, A. P.

  Beith, A. J.

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Critchley, Julian

  Bell, Ronald

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Crouch, David

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Buck, Antony

  Crowder, F. P.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fare ham)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Benyon, W.

  Burden, F. A.

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Berry, Hon. Anthony

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Dixon, Piers

  Biffen, John

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Drayson, Burnaby

  du Cann. Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Durant, Tony

  Kimball, Marcus

  Renton, Rt.Hn.SirDavid(H't'gd'ns're)

  Eden. Rt. Hn. Sir John

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  King, Tom (Bridgewater)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Elliott, Sir William

  Kittson, Sir Timothy

  Rifklnd, Malcolm

  Emery, Peter

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Eyre. Reginald

  Knox, David

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Farr, John

  Lane, David

  Rodgers, Sir John (Seven oaks)

  Fell Anthony

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Fcnner, Mrs. Peggy

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

  Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton Cold field)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Shersby, Michael

  Freud, Clement

  Loveridge, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Fry, Peter

  Luce, Richard

  Sims, Roger

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Gardiner, George (Reigate&Banstead)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

  McCrlndle, R. A.

  Smith, Cyril (Rockdale)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Spence, John

  Gilmour.Rt.Hn.lanfCh'sh'SAmsh'm)

  MacGregor. John

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Macmillan, Rt Hn. M. (Farnham)

  Sproat, lain

  Good hart, Philip

  McNair Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Stan brook, Ivor

  Goodhew, Victor

  Madel, David

  Stanley, John

  Good lad, A.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Steel, David

  Gorst, John

  Marten, Neil

  Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Waver tree)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Maher, Carol

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Maude, Angus

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Stokes, John

  Gray, Hamish

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Straddling Thomas, John

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mayhew. Patrick (RoyalT' bridge Wells)

  Tap sell, Peter

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)

  Grist, Ian

  Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Gurden, Harold

  Mills, Peter

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Hall, Sir John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Moate, Roger

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net.H'dn S.)

  Hampson, Dr. Keith

  Money, Ernie

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Hannam, John

  Monro, Hector

  Trotter, Neville

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Tyler, Paul

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morgan, Geraint

  van Straubenzee, W. R-

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Viggers, Peter

  Hay hoe, Barney

  Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

  Waddington, David

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mudd, David

  Wainwrlght, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Henderson, Barry (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Neave, Airey

  Wakeham, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Newton, Tony (Braintree)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Hordern. Peter

  Nlcholls, Sir Harmar

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Howe, Rt.Hn. Sir Geoffrey(Surrey,E.)

  Nott, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walters, Dennis

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Pardoe, John

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)

  Winstanley, Dr. Michael

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pattle, Geoffrey

  Winterton, Nicholas

  James, David

  Perclval, Ian

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jenkin.Rt.Hn.P. (R'dgeW'std&W'fd)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Woodhouse, Hn. Chrlstonher

  Jessel, Toby

  Price, David (East Leigh)

  Worsley, Sir Marcus

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grin stead)

  Prior, Rt. Hn. James

  Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Younger, Hn. George

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Quenelle, Miss J. M.

  Joplin, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Redmond, Robert

  Mr. Marcus Fox and

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Mr. A. F. G. Hall-Davis

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Booth, Albert

  Cant, R. B.

  Allaun, Frank

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Carmichael, Neil

  Archer, Peter (Warley, West)

  Bottomed, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Carter, Ray

  Ashton, Joe

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Bradley, Tom

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Baggier, Gordon A. T.

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Cremation, Ivor

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Brown,Bob(Newcastle upon Tyne.W.)

  Cocks, Michael

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Bates, Alf

  Brown, Ronald (H'kney,S.& Sh'ditch)

  Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Buchan, Norman

  Concannon, J. D.

  Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow.Sprlngbrn)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Bishop, E. S.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey,WoodGreen)

  Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Callaghar, Rt.Hn. James (Cardiff, S.E.)

  Cox, Thomas

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Campbell, Ian

  Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)

  1664

  1665

  Craws haw, Richard

  Jackson, Colin

  Phipps, Dr. Colin

  Cronin, John

  Janner, Grevllle

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Prescott, John

  Cryer, G. R.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

  Cunningham,G.(Islington,S&F'sb'ry)

  Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whitehaven)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)

  Radice, Giles

  Dalyell, Tam

  John, Brynmor

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Johnson, James (K'stonuponHull,W.)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, Oan (Burnley)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds, VV.)

  Judd, Frank

  Rodgers, William (Teesside.St'ckton)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rooker, J. W.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Kelley, Richard

  Roper, John

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kerr, Russell

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dempsey, James

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Doig, Peter

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rowlands, Edward

  Dormand. J. D.

  Lambie, David

  Sedge more, Bryan

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lamborn, Harry

  Selby, Harry

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lamont, James

  Shaw, Arnold (Red bridge, Lyford, S.)

  Dunn James A.

  Latham, Arthur(CityofW'minsterP'ton)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Dennett, Jack

  Lawson, George (MotherwellSWIshaw)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter(S'pney&P'plar)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

  Lead bitter, Ted

  Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham.D'ford)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Sharks, Dulwich)

  Edge, Geoff

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

  Sillars, James

  Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silverman, Julius

  Ellis, John (Brlgg & Scunthorpe)

  Llpton, Marcus

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  English, Michael

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Snape, Peter

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Evans loan (Aberdare)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Evans, John (Newton)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth.Fulh'm)

  Ewing, Harry (St'llng.F'kirk&G'm'th)

  McElhone, Frank

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Faulds, Andrew

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Stott, Roger

  Ferny Hough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Strang, Gavin

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McLennan, Robert

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Flannery, Martin

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Swain, Thomas

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Madden, M. O. F.

  Taverne, Dick

  Ford, Ben

  Magee, Bryan

  Thomas, D. E. (Marionette)

  Forrester, John

  Mahon, Simon

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

  Mallalleu, J. P. W.

  Tierney, Sydney

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Tinn, James

  Freeson, Reginald

  Marquand, David

  Tomlinson, John

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Tomney, Frank

  Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

  Mayhew,Christopher (G'wh.W'wch.E)

  Torney, Tom

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Meacher, Michael

  Tuck, Raphael

  George, Bruce

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Urwln, T. W.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mendel son, John

  Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.

  Ginsburg, David

  Mikado, Ian

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Golding, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Lady wood)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)

  Walker, Harold (Don caster)

  Graham, Ted

  Milne, Edward

  Walker, Terry (Kingwood)

  Giant, George (Morpeth)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, lichen)

  Watkins, David

  Grant, John (Islington, C.)

  Molloy, William

  Weitzman, David

  Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Morris, Charles R. (Opens haw)

  Well beloved, James

  Hamilton, James (Bothell)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  White, James

  Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hamlin, William

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Whitlock, William

  Hardy, Peter

  Murray, Ronald King

  Wigley, Defied (Caernarvon)

  Harper, Joseph

  Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Williams, A. L. (Hovering, H'church)

  Hattersley, Roy

  O'Malley, Brian

  Williams,Rt.Hn. Shirley(H'f'd&st'ge)

  Hatton, Frank

  Or Bach, Maurice

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ovenden, John

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hooley, Frank

  Owen, Dr. David

  Wise, Mrs. Audrey

  Horam, John

  Padley, Walter

  Woodall, Alec

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Woof, Robert

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)

  Wriggles worth, Ian

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Young, David (Bolton, E.)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I.EdgeHill)

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

  Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Tebbit: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that from the result of the Division, and from your observations, it is clear that a large number of Members were locked out of the Lobby. Since it is an unusual occurrence in this House for such a large number to be locked out, there is a case in common sense for taking the Division again.
  Mr. Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could we at least have your assurance that if the clock is tried and found wanting we shall have an immediate recall of the Division?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the wisest thing to do is to take the course that when my inquiries are complete we can look at the matter again. In the meantime, since I have announced the result of the Division, I suggest that we let it stand. I shall let the House know if I find that we have in any way been let down by the clock. It has always hitherto worked normally, and there is no reason to believe that it should not work normally now.

Clause 1

  FOOD SUBSIDIES
  The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, after 'sale', and insert:
  ' and household flour, that is to say, flour not for the manufacture of any product for sale'.
  The purpose of the amendment is to enable my right hon. Friend to pay a subsidy on household flour. The amendment will add to the basic foodstuffs which we have already announced are to be subsidised under the powers contained in Clause 1.
  When the Government announced their intention to subsidise flour used in the commercial production of bread, hon. Members on both sides of the House made strong representations that it would be appropriate to consider the subsidisation of flour used by the housewife in baking. We have had wide representation from the public, and I think that this step will be generally welcomed.
  1668
  I am afraid that the terms of the amendment may seem rather complex for a simple matter of this kind, but we have to use these words to make it plain that in Amendment No. 1 we are not seeking power to subsidise flour used for the commercial production of products other than bread. It would be possible under Clause 1(2) to subsidise all flour if the Government thought this to be appropriate, but at this stage in the development of our policy of subsidies we are seeking to add to the number of key items which feature regularly in the shopping basket of most households.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Could the Minister explain what he means by "household flour"? What types of flour are included? Does it include oatmeal? He said that the amendment was drafted to exclude flour for commercial production, except for the commercial production of bread. Is that what he meant?
  Mr. Maclennan: I shall be coming to the question of the definition, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself.
  Household flour is an important item which accounts for some £40 million expenditure by the housewife. We have been concerned in recent months that the price of household flour has risen extremely sharply. To take one example, involving a particular type of flour, the information collected by the Department of Employment for purposes of the retail price index shows that in the four months up to April 1974 the average retail price of the 3-lb bag of self-raising flour increased by 4·9p—from 14·9p to 19·8p, an increase of about one-third.
  6.0 p.m.
  In introducing this amendment, I recognise that I am not giving the House the full details of the proposed subsidy, including the date on which we seek to implement it, the rate of the subsidy and the estimated cost to the Exchequer. I am afraid that this is not possible. Before the Government reach decisions on these matters, we are anxious to take account of price movements which seem likely to occur in the near future. We shall be considering the position in the light of any price notifications to the Price Commission, and we hope to be able to make an announcement to the House about this shortly.

  1669
  Meanwhile, in order to give some indication to the House of the possible magnitude of the cost and the effect of the subsidy on household flour, perhaps I might give one example. On the latest RPI survey day, which was in mid-April, the average retail price of ordinary self-raising flour was 20p for a 3 lb. bag. If we brought in a subsidy to reduce the price by 3p that would represent a cut of 15 per cent., and the cost to the Exchequer would be about £10 million in a full year. The effect of such a subsidy on the food index would be about 0·07 per cent., or about 0·02 per cent. on the retail price index as a whole. I emphasise that those are purely illustrative figures. The cost and effect of the subsidy would be smaller or greater depending on the movement of prices in the forthcoming week.
  Mr. Cormack: When does the hon. Gentleman expect to be able to give us the real figures?
  Mr. Maclennan: As I have said, they will be given shortly. I am afraid that I cannot be more precise, but the information will be given to the House at the earliest possible date.
  The benefit of the subsidy will be welcomed by the many housewives who have made representations to the Government about it. The benefit may be felt especially in those parts of the country where it is traditional to bake bread in the home. In consequence of this custom, some people in rural areas and in parts of the regions have not received the direct benefit of the bread subsidy to the same extent as other sections of the community.
  In reply to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who asked what precise flour we had in mind, we have been very conscious in bringing forward our subsidy programme of the special problems of the immigrant section of the community arising from the enormous increases in the price of rice, which forms a staple part of the diet of many immigrant communities. Because of the present supply problem, it looks as though it will be unlikely that we shall be able directly to intervene to subsidise rice, but we intend to use the power contained in this amendment to subsidise the special flour used in the production of the staple food of many immigrant
  1670
  communities known as chapati. On this too, we have received a number of representations from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that this effect of the amendment will commend itself to the House.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Our proceedings grow weirder and more wonderful with every moment that passes. I took a note of what the Minister said in his rather labored explanation of the amendment. He said that he did not really know how the amendment would work, what it entailed, what it would cost or when it would apply. In fact, he appeared to know nothing about it. He said that the Government were anxious to take account of expected price movements which might occur. I do not know whether he is the seventh son of a seventh son. Has he second sight? Does his Department intend to call in a resident soothsayer? If so, may we have details of the emoluments of this lady or gentleman?
  When the Government eventually manage to work out these remarkable details, bearing in mind that the hon. Gentleman referred to applications which might come before the Price Commission, I hope that there will not be a repetition of what happened in April with the Price Commission over the price of bread. It will be remembered that on that occasion the commission, obviously behaving in a manner calculated to please or to appease the Secretary of State, managed artificially to reduce the cost of the eventual bread price subsidy by abusing its powers to delay consideration of an application for a price increase in a most improper manner. I hope that we shall not have a repetition of that.
  I was fascinated by the Minister's explanation of the meaning of "household flour" in this concept. We are delighted to know that chapati will be all right. But what about oatmeal? The Minister represents the constituency of Caithness and Sutherland. How can he announce to us today that he is looking after the interests of the immigrant communities without saying a word about some of the staple and traditional fare of his constituents? This is a scandalous proposition, and I hope that it is one which the Scottish National Party, if it

  1671
  were represented here today—which, of course, it is not—would join me in denouncing.
  The real lesson to be drawn from this pathetic little amendment is that the more the Government embroil themselves in the nonsense of food subsidies, the deeper the anomalies gather around them. We shall not stop with the subsidisation of chapati. We shall be subsidizing an endless variety—
  Mr. Cormack: Popadams.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: As my hon. Friend says, we shall be subsidising popadams as well. What is more, 1 suppose that in order to foresee accurately the course of future price movements we shall have to have not a single soothsayer but one for each community, which should add substantially to the burden of operating this legislation.
  This is an absurd amendment. However, since it is attached to what from the start has been an absurd concept in the Bill, it is no more than we can expect.
  Mr. Cormack: I cannot add very much to what has been said so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). This is a bizarre Bill, and the amendment is a ridiculous piece of window-dressing which illustrates at a stroke what nonsense it is.
  I warn the Minister that beacons will be lit tonight in Caithness and Sutherland if the oatcakes have not been subsidised.
  The hon. Gentleman has told us with benign good humour that the Government have made a decision. He does not quite know what they have decided or when the decision will be implemented. Certainly he does not know what it will cost, any more than he knows the effect on the consumers. But the Government have made a decision, and they are reaching out to the immigrant communities.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus. Where do we stop? Quite legitimately, all the special-interest groups in the country whose doctors have put them on diets requiring them to eat special things will say "What about the things we have to eat? Subsidise them." This is a slippery slope.
  1672
  A total of £700 million is already committed under this most ridiculous of all Bills. I hope that many of my hon. Friends will join me in opposing its Third Reading. If we are to achieve the Nirvana for which the Minister seems destined, the cost will be £1,700 million before we know where we are. This is manifest nonsense. The hon. Gentleman should, as quickly as possible, give us the details of this latest piece of tomfoolery.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I am not sure why the amendment is necessary. The Minister has announced not a subsidy but an intention. Surely Clause 1 covers the point. I hope that the Minister will not claim that this will have any significant effect on the family budget. The consumption of flour is about 5·5 oz per person per week, and average family expenditure, according to the Ministry of Agriculture Food Facts, is l·65p per person per week. If, as the Minister implied, he reduced the price of flour 3p per 3-lb bag, that would bring in for what he is fond of calling the "typical family"—something I have never met—about 1p a week.
  The hon. Gentleman estimates that the expenditure will be about £10 million. I hope he will not say that this is an inexpensive measure in terms of the help that it will bring to the family budget. Considering the amendments to the Finance Bill which were refused which would have cost £8 million and brought real tax relief to pensioners on very small incomes, we are not impressed by the Government's choice of priorities. However, we do not intend to oppose the amendment because the powers are already in the Bill.
  Mr. Maclennan: I would emphasise that the figure I gave was simply an illustration. It would be misleading if the remarks of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) were taken to mean that that is what the subsidy will cost.
  As to why we have made this announcement now, we have information that there is a distinct possibility of further price increases before the Bill receives Royal Assent. We therefore felt it right to take this power now. I agree that the power to add to the items which are subsidised already exists, but an order

  1673
  would need to be introduced. The amendment will enable us to embark upon a scheme immediately without going through that procedure.
  With respect to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), it would be possible to subsidise oatmeal under the amendment. The precise coverage will depend on the proposals that we bring forward. The types of flour concerned are a matter for discussion and we must take account of possible price trends. If the hon. Member is advocating a subsidy of oatmeal, I will listen with peculiar respect in the light of his opposition to the whole principle of subsidy throughout these debates. However, that is probably not what he is arguing.
  The tone of the hon. Member for Gloucester was surprising in view of the large number of representations that we have received from her hon. Friends, other hon. Members and the public about the desirability of this step. On reflection, the hon. Lady may recognise its value.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

  POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO REGULATE PRICE OF FOOD AND CERTAIN OTHER GOODS
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'food of any description' and insert:
  'such subsidised food or fresh food as may be'.
  Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
  Mr. Maclennan: These amendments will limit the powers to regulate food prices, at stages before the retail stage, to subsidised and fresh foods. It was common ground in Committee that powers were needed to regulate the price of subsidised foods at all stages of distribution to ensure that the subsidy worked through to the consumer. The price code does not cover first-hand prices of fresh food, although distributors' margins are subject to control in the usual way. We therefore think that this
  1674
  power is essential to plug that gap in price control.
  Apart from their use in respect of subsidised foods, which we see as necessary, these powers will be essentially residual. The Government hope and expect to rely on the operation of the voluntary agreement with the trade to keep down the prices of key items. My right hon. Friend said in Committee that if an effective voluntary agreement could be achieved and maintained the Government would not need to use the enabling powers in Clause 2 save with regard to subsidies and by agreement with the trade.
  The food trade, through its representatives, the CBI and the Food and Drink Industries Council, made representations to my right hon. Friend against being singled out for price control at stages before the retail stage and expressed serious doubts about the possibility of a voluntary agreement being reached if they were to be so dealt with. My right hon. Friend expressed her willingness to consider an amendment of this nature if a suitable voluntary arrangement could be reached. Such an arrangement has been reached. These amendments are in fulfillment of that pledge, fairly and squarely meeting the trade's point.
  Mr. Paul Channon: I do not want to debate the voluntary agreement because the House has spent some time on it. We are grateful for these amendments, which go some way to meet the points we made in Committee, and I advise my hon. Friends to accept them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 3, in page 3, line 35, after 'retail', insert 'of such other food or'.
  No. 4, in page 3, line 40, at end insert:
  '(2) In subsection (1) above—
  "subsidised food" means food specified in or under subsection (2) of section 1 above, including bread and, if an order under paragraph (b) of that subsection describes the food to which it applies by reference to its use for the manufacture of any product, that product;
  "fresh food" means food produced in the course of agriculture, horticulture or fishing which has not been incorporated in any processed product and to which no process has been applied except—

  (a) cleaning, sterilising, breaking down of bulk supplies or packaging; and

  1675

  (b) in the case of any carcasses or parts of carcasses of livestock or poultry or of any product of fishing, chilling, freezing, curing, cutting up or boning and, in the case only of bacon and ham, cooking'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]

  Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 14, at end insert:
  '(d) an order under paragraph (a) of that subsection shall have regard to the principles enunciated in any code for the time being contained in an order under section 2 of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, to the extent that they enable persons to avoid selling at a loss or at a low margin of profit'.
  Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendment No. 24.
  Mr. Channon: We had a debate on a similar point in Committee, when the Under-Secretary of State for Employment said that further study would be given before Report to our point that it was monstrous that, under Clause 2, orders could be made which would actually compel people to sell at a loss or at a low margin of profit, below the rate that the Price Code would permit and below what the Government believed to be a reasonable margin. That still strikes me as being extremely unreasonable if the Government persist in it.
  I am therefore grateful to see Amendment No. 24, tabled recently, which I hope will go some way to meeting our points. I think it will be for the convenience of the House, before deciding whether to accept my amendment, to hear from the Government what would be the effect of Amendment No. 24.
  Mr. John Fraser Mr. John Fraser rose—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may speak to Amendment No. 24, but, of course, he will have formally to move it later on.
  Mr. Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I gave an assurance in Committee that I would consider this point. I will not go into the technical deficiency in the Opposition amendment, but perhaps I may reiterate that there are a number of protections available, even if the Bill were not further amended.
  The first protection is that the code protections against low profit or running into a loss-making situation still apply to individual enterprises. Although an
  1676
  enterprise might be restricted in the prices of certain goods, the general protection against low profits and against making a loss and which existed in the Price Code still obtains.
  Secondly, the range of goods which is likely to be dealt with under Clause 2 would be very much less than all the goods sold by an enterprise, which would, again, have the advantage of the code.
  The third protection, an additional protection arising out of my right hon. Friend's statement earlier today, is that I have informed the retail trade that so long as the agreement works satisfactorily it will not be my intention to operate the powers under Clause 2 except with regard to foodstuffs. There is a further assurance that there will be a restricted range of price regulation orders.
  There was the defect that the orders would be very difficult to draft if they had had to have regard to the Price Code. What we are proposing in Amendment No. 24 is that in determining whether and in what manner the powers are exercised by the Secretary of State she shall have regard to the circumstances of the food trade and the trade in other goods to which the clause applies and to the effect of the exercise of these powers on the profitability of those trades.
  I gave an assurance in Committee that it is not the intention of the Government to drive firms into loss-making situations. That amendment recognises that the Government accept the principle that their powers must be exercised with discretion and must avoid an unjustifiable impact on profits. The amendment will ensure that, in making orders under the clause, the Secretary of State will consider whether the making of a price regulation will give rise to loss making or to unacceptably low profits. As I say, it is not the intention of the Government to drive firms into loss-making situations, to create bankruptcy or to erode profits unduly. I hope that the duty on the Secretary of State, in making an order, to have regard to profitability will be an acceptable compromise.
  Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend the Member for Southern, West (Mr. Channon) is to be congratulated on having moved the amendment. I have no doubt that if this and other pressures had not been

  1677
  exercised on the Government it would have been unlikely that we would have seen Amendment No. 24 on the Paper.
  So far as it goes, I welcome that amendment, but the whole speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, it seems to me, reveals an almost culpable degree of innocence about the operation of the Price Commission. One only has to look at the experience of companies engaged in bread manufacture to realise that they have been obliged to carry the very unremunerative aspects of their business of bread manufacture in their other trading activities. One can do no better than turn to the latest published accounts of Spillers and the statement by the chairman, Mr. Vernon. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) has a very direct and practical working experience of these matters, and I would welcome at a later stage his brief endorsement of my words.
  These matters are not academic. First, bread is included as one of the subsidised items under Clause 1; and secondly, bread is a commodity which has been subject to political control ever since the establishment of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. There have been more reports from that board on bread than on any other single commodity. It is the fear of the business community, and a fear which is not born out of nightmare hallucinations but out of actual working experience, that where one gets a politicisation—to use an ugly word—of business activities one gets into enforced cross-subsidisation.
  It was a fair point by the Secretary of State for Industry that the steel industry had been obliged to operate in a non-economic fashion to the benefit, to some extent, of steel users. I think that anyone looking at that situation would agree that it was a valid comment to make on the way in which the steel industry has been subject to political pressures in recent years. I should like to think that the Secretary of State for Industry will draw the right conclusions from that situation, which is that one wants rather less political interference than more in business activities.
  Certainly my right hon. and hon. Friends are right to be apprehensive about the extent to which the Government, either by legislation or, even more
  1678
  disgracefully, by the kind of pressures that are exercised, so-called "voluntarily"—I put that word in inverted commas—with a statutory background, require certain activities to be carried on either at a very low rate of return or at an actual loss. There is already too much on the record of this kind of thing happening for us to be other than very apprehensive about how this policy will be put into effect.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I should declare an interest in the subject under discussion. I hope that, my having declared it now, it may stay declared and not need repeating if I should be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on another occasion during the debate.
  Having heard the Under-Secretary speak I am sure that anybody in the trade would be very reassured. However, what remains worrying to me is that I understand that he is not really supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment No. 6. Admittedly his words would seem to lead one to believe that he would find it easy to support. He referred to the code protections still applying. That is just what the amendment proposes. He referred to the range of goods covered as not being a very extensive range, but surely he is aware that for many shops the range of goods would be their entire range, and that, therefore, it would not be possible to cross-subsidise into other commodities if they were not there to be sold. I refer in particular to the specialist fresh food shops.
  The hon. Gentleman said that assurances had been given that if the voluntary agreement were working satisfactorily it would not be the intention of the Secretary of State to exercise her powers under the clause. I do not know who judges whether the voluntary agreement is working satisfactorily. I do not believe that this is subject to adjudication by some independent tribunal. It seems to be possible, following upon what my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) referred to as the politicisation of these matters, that the voluntary agreement might be held not to be working satisfactorily, for purely political reasons. In that case, as the clause stands, certain traders might find it impossible to trade other than at a loss. In those circumstances, I am surprised that the Under-Secretary is not

  1679
  able to recommend his colleagues to support the amendment.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I wish to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has said. I believe, particularly in the case of the bread industry, in which I have some interest, that firms are being put in a quite intolerable position. I do not see why any company should go on subsidising the consumer. It is not in the long-term interests of the consumer that bread should continue to be produced at a loss. In the present economic climate it is incredible that Governments should expect the industry to subsidise bread manufacture. Costs are rising at an alarming rate and I know of no bread-making company which is making money out of that activity.
  The same thing applies not only to bread. In agriculture beef is being produced at a loss, but why should it be? The extraordinary thing is that companies over which the Government have no such control, or upon which the Government cannot exercise such pressure, can virtually automatically put up their prices. They have to go through a procedure, but they get their increase just the same. Companies like Spillers and others are in an intolerable position, and I believe that we should support the amendment.
  Mr. Channon: Does the Under-Secretary propose to reply to some of the points raised by my hon. Friends before I ask leave to withdraw the amendment?
  Mr. John Fraser: I was not intending to say very much more. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) realised that I was offering the Government's amendment as an alternative to the Opposition's amendment. I have sought to give an assurance that under our amendment my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will need to have regard to profitability. I was explaining in my previous intervention that a number of other protections are available. If the hon. Member for Hove was suggesting incorporating the code protections in the order, I must explain that the purpose of the price regulation orders, which will be extremely limited
  1680
  in number, if indeed there are any, will be set out as clearly, concisely and simply as possible.
  If, under the terms of the Opposition's amendment, it was necessary for the order to have regard to the protective provisions of the Price Code, the order would have to be an extraordinarily detailed document which would have very little meaning either to the trader or to the consumer. It would, for instance, have to repeat the somewhat lengthy provisions of the code which are difficult to understand at first reading. Indeed, someone first observed that it was called a code because it had to be deciphered. That is the objection to the Opposition's amendment, and I hope that in putting forward an alternative to it which will require the Secretary of State to have regard to profitability we have met the Opposition's point. I gave no undertaking in Committee that we would move an amendment on Report to deal with this matter, but we have given it serious consideration and that is the reason for our alternative proposal.
  Mr. Channon: One of our difficulties is that the Government's amendment is a starred amendment and we have had no time to consider it. I hope, however, that my hon. Friends will agree that the Under-Secretary has gone some way to meet the points we raised in Committee. I am sure that our noble Friends in another place will want to look at the new provisions more carefully than we have been able to do, and unless my hon. Friends feel strongly on the issue I should like to withdraw my amendment and accept the Government amendment No. 24 when we come to it. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 16, leave out '31st March 1975' and insert '7th November 1974'.
  The amendment has a simple purpose and is extremely modest in its objectives. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to wonder whether I am starting to specialist in modest amendments. The point of the amendment is to limit the application of any orders under Clause 2 to November 1974 instead of the proposed date in the Bill of March 1975. The Price Code is due to be fundamentally redrafted

  1681
  this autumn and we therefore risk running into the situation in which Clause 2 will be applied to a completely redrafted Price Code. Application would then possibly be particularly difficult and anomalous. In that application of a different code, the whole meaning of Clause 2 might be changed. If a sale were to be made after November this year in relation to an entirely different code, which might involve unduly harsh conditions when combined with the requirements of Clause 2, that would amount to a sort of retrospective legislation that none of us would welcome.
  I consider this to be a reasonable point. Perhaps 7th November is not the precise date for the redrafting of the Price Code. If it is not, perhaps the Minister can indicate what the correct date is. It would be possible to table an amendment in another place to take account of the different date.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I hope we shall have some elucidation about the timing of the next stage of the monkey business which is described as the revised code. We have been told that the Minister and her hon. Friends are hard at work on it and that we shall see the results in the autumn. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) that it would be absurd that we should perpetuate Clause 2 for the application of the existing code if that code is to be superseded in the autumn.
  I cannot forbear recalling that if an amendment to the original legislation, which was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, had been accepted, the counter-inflation legislation would be coming to an end in the autumn in any case. The Minister will recall that the amendment was to limit the life of the legislation to one year instead of three, and I suspect that he even voted for it. It will be interesting to see how he justifies maintaining the operation of Clause 2 into 1975 when he, I suspect, and certainly the vast majority of his hon. Friends, voted for an amendment which would have brought the substantive legislation to an end in the course of this year. That is, to say the least, an anomalous position to adopt.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester fairly described her amend-
  1682
  ment as modest. I should have preferred an amendment which deleted the power which the Secretary of State is taking to sustain her powers under Clause 2 until 31st March 1976 by order. It seem incredible that we should be asked to give the Government authority to maintain those powers in relation to the existing code when we are told that we shall have a different code by the autumn—or is it that all the talk about having a new code in the autumn is pure window-dressing and the Government expect to soldier on with the present ramshackle affair into 1975 and even 1976? These are matters about which we need elucidation.
  Mr. Cormack: I hope that the elucidation for which my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has asked will be forthcoming. There is an overriding reason why the amendment should be accepted, though I should like the date to be 1st July rather than 7th November. We are in a pre-election situation. Therefore, it seems sensible to terminate the pernicious powers in question in November so that immediately after the October election the new Government, who will obviously be of a much more sensible persuasion, will have the decks cleared and will not have to bother with repealing these silly provisions. They are purely and simply window-dressing, an attempt to win the votes of the electorate, and 7th November should give time enough for that purpose. Therefore, let us terminate the provisions as soon as possible thereafter.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I first declare my interest in food manufacturing, in that I am involved with a company in the industry. The Government have laid great stress on the voluntary co-operation of the retail and manufacturing food trades. It seems to me pernicious that those trades run the risk of accepting under this clause the imposition of a Price Code which is in the process of being altered and which may be greatly changed. I am sure that if they were asked to co-operate voluntarily in such circumstances they would withdraw that co-operation. It is essential that we bring the dates and times into line so that the food manufacturing industry knows where it is.
  Mr. John Fraser: 1 do not believe that there is a close relationship between the Price Code and the clause. We have already made it clear that one of the main purposes of the clause is to have the power to regulate the price of those goods which will be subsidised. It would be irresponsible for a Government to introduce food subsidies and then not take power to ensure that the benefit of those subsidies was passed on to the general public. I do not think that there is any dispute between the two sides of the House that that power should exist.
  It would be ludicrous to introduce a measure which is likely to become law this month and then find that the powers of regulation which flow from subsidising certain foods expire on 7th November this year. That would be treating Parliament somewhat farcically. I do not want to be disrespectful, but it would be nonsensical to approve these powers now and have them lapse on 7th November.
  6.45 p.m.
  There is little relationship between the two matters. I understand the point that from time to time there may be a relationship between the price regulation and the code—for example, if the protections in the code against a loss-making situation were not as good or as bad as they are now.
  Conservative Members have asked for reassurance. The first thing I can to say to reassure them is that every order made under the clause is subject to debate in the House. Secondly, any new code presented to the House is subject to affirmative resolution. There is, first, the opportunity to debate the exercise of the regulation-making power under the clause, and secondly there is the opportunity to debate the code. Therefore, Parliament has adequate protection. To say that the power should be given but that it should expire on 7th November would be an unreasonable curtailment of the powers we seek in the Bill.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Minister says that the orders under the clause are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. My understanding of the clause is that only an order to extend the duration of the clause is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and that an order under its provisions is subject to the
  1684
  negative resolution procedure. That makes a substantial difference. Although the hon. Gentleman has been referring to the need for control over subsidised foods, which is one of the deleterious consequences of the attempt to subsidise food, the clause goes much wider and relates to articles
  "which appear to the Secretary of State to be necessities normally the subject of recurrent expenditure".
  Mr. John Fraser: I hope that I did not mislead the House. I think I made it clear which order required affirmative resolution and which required negative resolution. The point I am making is that I think there is adequate parliamentary control of the two processes. That must be a matter of judgment for the House.
  I should have thought that the Opposition would not want in a parliamentary or any other way to celebrate the anniversary of stage 3. That is something they might better forget, having regard to some of the problems we face as a result of it.
  I hope that the House will regard it as unreasonable to limit to November this power of a Bill which will become law in June or early July, when there are other opportunities to discuss matters which cause concern to the hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim).
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has dealt with the amendment. He showed that he understood its fundamental purpose, but he is not right in saying that the clause does not relate to the Price Code. If the Secretary of State's voluntary shopping basket were made statutory, it would be a means of focusing the cuts in gross profit margins under the amendment to the Price Code and certain items under the clause. Therefore, there is a relationship, and orders made under the clause in conjunction with an entirely new price code could be very different from those we have envisaged in our discussions of the clause so far. It is true that if we imposed the limitation of 7th November the order could be renewed by a further order, if Parliament wished.
  Perhaps the Minister can give an assurance that if, as we expect, there is a fundamental renegotiation of the price

  1685
  code, the House will be given an opportunity to debate it in the context of the clause, if necessary, and act accordingly.
  Mr. John Fraser: I recognise the relationship in the hon. Lady's mind between price regulation powers and the Price Code. But I hope that the House will find satisfactory the assurance I have given that Parliament will have to debate any new code, and that the matter can be left there.
  Amendment negative.
  The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mrs. Shirley
  Williams): I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 19, at end insert:
  '(4A) Before making an order under subsection (1)(a) above the Secretary of State shall consult, in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate having regard to the subject-matter and urgency of the order, with such organisations representative of interests substantially affected by the order as appear to him, having regard to those matters, to be appropriate'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 13, 15, 17 and 20.
  Mrs. Williams: This group of amendments satisfies the undertaking which was given in Committee, and which was repeated by me in the debate on the clause, regarding statutory consultation. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall that one of the difficulties about introducing this matter in the early stages of the Bill's passage through the House was that there was no agreement about what would constitute satisfactory bodies with which to consult.
  Prior to the introduction of the Bill my Department and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were engaged in discussion and consultation with literally dozens of organisations. It was made clear to the Committee—and it is fair to say that the Committee understood the difficulty—that we would have to get agreement with the trade on what it regarded as suitable bodies with which to consult. We have now received broad agreement within the trade that on general matters concerning both price orders and display-of-price orders it would be appropriate for the Government to consult the CBI and the Food and Drink Industries Council on manufacturing matters and the Retail Consortium and the CBI on
  1686
  retailing matters. We agreed to put forward an amendment to indicate that we regarded ourselves as bound to consult statutorily with those bodies that the trade considered to be representative.
  In addition, we shall consult any trade organisation that is specifically affected by an order as we made clear in Committee. We have done so, for example, on food subsidies. Further, it is our intention to write to all organisations representing interests that are affected by an order to enable them to ask for representation by delegation in addition to the bodies which we are statutorily committed to consult. That will enable such organisations to take steps to be included. We intend to give publicity to orders so as to enable non-affiliated bodies to keep in touch with developments and to express their views in written form.
  Amendment No. 13 basically takes a parallel power regarding the making of price marking orders. It covers unit pricing orders and other matters that are dealt with in Clause 4. We would feel ourselves bound to consult statutorily the bodies I have described, but if an order particularly affected an individual trade we would be willing to consult that body and to publicise the fact that we would do so.
  Mr. Michael Latham: The right hon. Lady said at the beginning of her remarks that she had consulted the trade and that it had been agreed that certain bodies should be treated as representative for the purposes of discussion. Will she tell the House whom she consulted in getting that agreement? Did her consultations go wider than the people who were delegated as representatives?
  Mrs. Williams: We have consulted widely and we understand that a number of the bodies which previously wished to talk to us separately—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not ask me to give him a list out of my head—are now prepared to be brought within the umbrella of other organisations. For example the Retail Food Confederation, while asking to be considered separately for certain purposes, regards itself as covered by the Retail Consortium for other purposes including general consultation. We have gone beyond talking to the bodies that are the beneficiaries of the amendment.

  1687
  I hope that Amendment No. 15 will be accepted. It substitutes for a reference to the Secretary of State a reference to the Department of Commerce. As the House will recognise, the Department of Commerce will have the same consultations in Northern Ireland with appropriate bodies as we shall have with appropriate bodies in this country. The House will know that for some matters industry in Northern Ireland is represented by different organisations from those that are representative in the rest of Great Britain.
  Amendment No. 17 makes it clear that a price range, as distinct from a method of displaying a range, would be a matter of consultation. That is one of those tongue-twisters that I had better take two sentences to explain. A price range is merely a matter of reporting facts. For example, the Price Commission's price ranges and the CBI's price ranges are statements of fact. However, it is right and proper that when a price range is proposed it should be subject to consultation. I hope the House will accept that this is an extension of our obligation to consult on any orders that involve price ranges although not on the facts encountered within the order.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 20 is to ensure that we do not have to repeat consultations that have already taken place. That is fundamental because the consultations that have already taken place are now bound up in the Bill—for example, the consultations that took place on subsidised goods. It would be a somewhat demeaning to go back and recommence such consultations because we now have a statutory requirement to consult bodies that have already been consulted exhaustively.
  This is a substantial group of amendments and I think it is fair to say that they meet the wishes of both sides of the House regarding statutory consultation. I hope that hon. Members will not feel it necessary to debate these amendments at great length as I believe that they meet the requirements of the House and of the Committee.
  Mr. Channon: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Lady for tabling these amendments. We tabled some amendments in Committee concerning consultation and we received certain assur-
  1688
  ances. We are grateful to the right hon. Lady for what she has said, and the amendments strike me as being extremely satisfactory. I advise my hon. Friends to accept them with alacrity and pleasure.
  Mr. Michael Latham: Before we accept the amendment, I wish to raise one or two short matters. I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee although I have endeavoured to read the Committee's proceedings. The orders which the right hon. Lady has power to make under Clause 2(1)(a) are very wide in extent. Are they to be made over a whole range of goods, and is it possible to make them in respect of one shop at one particular time? Can the right hon. Lady serve a notice on an individual shop? If so, in what circumstances would she envisage consultation taking place even with the expression:
  "having regard to the subject matter and urgency of the order"
  in Amendment No. 8? I am genuinely seeking the right hon. Lady's guidance.
  Mrs. Williams: It is not our intention to apply any order to one individual shop. It might be the case that we shall want to apply an order to a foodstuff—for example, a subsidised commodity. Such an order would apply to all shops which sold that foodstuff. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 24, in page 4, line 19, at end insert—
  '(4B) In determining whether and in what matter to exercise the powers conferred by subsection (1)(a) above the Secretary of State shall have regard to the circumstances of the food trade and the trade in other goods to which this section applies and to the effect of the exercise of those powers on the profitability of those trades'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Clause 3

  ADDITIONAL POWERS OF PRICE COMMISSION TO PREVENT OR RESTRICT PRICE INCREASES
  Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 33, leave out Clause 3.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following

  1689
  amendments: No. 11, in page 5, line 4, at end insert—
  '( ) No direction shall be given under this section unless the Secretary of State has first obtained from the Price Commission a report, which she shall publish, showing cause why a direction would not lead to the diversion of articles subject to the direction from the United Kingdom market to markets overseas',
  No. 12, in page 5, line 8, after 'implemented', insert:
  'so long as such implementation had not occurred earlier than three months prior to the Secretary of State's direction'.
  Mr. Channon: We had a debate on Clause 3 in Committee but I am still somewhat at a loss to know why it is necessary to have the clause in the Bill. The Committee was not satisfied by the reasons which were advanced by the Government. We had a tie on that occasion.
  The powers given to the Price Commission in Clause 3 are extremely wide. If there are exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State can direct that the powers shall be exercisable. That can only mean that people who act legally can in exceptional circumstances, and in spite of the fact that they were acting legally, find themselves penalised for something which they were entitled to do. We find that objectionable.
  7.0 p.m.
  In Committee the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) suggested that the clause should not apply if the implementation of a price rise had taken place earlier than three months prior to the Secretary of State's direction. It is surely a reasonable minimum requirement that if the Secretary of State and the Commission are to act in these unprecedented ways people who have done something should know that, after the expiry of three months, it is reasonable to assume that they will not exercise their power. Without this amendment, the commission will be able to prevent or restrict price increases which were perfectly legal within the code when implemented, because it will be able to say that exceptional circumstances apply. If the commission is to be able to take action on increases which have already been implemented, it should not be able to do so if implementation has been carried out more than three months earlier.
  1690
  I shall be interested to hear the reasons for the clause. Even if the Government convince us that it should be included in the Bill, why cannot they accept amendments relating to a time limit? I leave my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who is responsible for Amendment No. 11, to make his own rather special points, which he raised pungently during the debate on the code. We certainly need from the Government a clear explanation why they think it necessary to have Clause 3.
  In Committee the Under-Secretary of State said that he would bear this point in mind and consider it. Even if the clause must be in the Bill, the minimum that the Opposition can tolerate is acceptance of Amendment No. 12, which would impose a time limit of three months on the ability to push back something which was wholly legal. It is a reasonable request. But, even if these powers are to be used with the greatest discretion, I am not sure that such powers should be given to any Secretary of State or to any commission without the most careful scrutiny by the House.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: To me, Clause 3 is one of the most offensive in the Bill. I do not like retrospective legislation at any time, and Clause 3 is retrospective.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams Mrs. Shirley Williams indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Of course it is. The very wording of the clause is retrospective. If the right hon. Lady does not think it retrospective she does not understand the English language.
  I do not mind Amendment No. 12, which would limit the element of retrospection to three month, but I would prefer Amendment No. 5 which would delete Clause 3 altogether. As far as I know, no case has ever been made out for Clause 3. We have not been told how it is to be used or about its use.
  I have studied carefully what was said in Committee by the Under-Secretary of State, and it amounts to a long roll call of sweet nothings—except that the nothings are not particularly sweet. The Under-Secretary of State said in Committee:
  "The circumstances in which it will be invoked are those in which the Price Commission itself considers that the Price Code, in respect of a particular case, is adequate in

  1691
  some respects. It is intended to be employed in situations in which the problem is not so much the difficulty of applying the provisions of the code, but rather that the application of the code produces an anomalous result."
  Anomalous to whom? Anomalous I suppose, according to the superior wisdom of Sir Arthur Cockfield and his chums, and I have no confidence in them.
  The hon. Gentleman went on:
  "Plainly, it is impossible"—
  impossible except by him—
  "to predict precisely the sort of situation in which this might happen. If it were so possible, I might be able to accept the hon. Member's argument that the appropriate way of dealing with this would be by an amendment to the code itself."
  The nearest the hon. Gentleman got to a definition was:
  "Again if I may put it in a very generalised way, one set of circumstances might be that the effect of the proposed price increase would be exceptionally harsh upon a peculiarly vulnerable section of the community, although it would be conformable with the provisions of the code."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 21st May 1974; c. 374 and 402.]
  One's mind boggles at the implications. Let us assume that there is a by-election pending and the Department suddenly discovers a very high incidence of alcoholics in the constituency—a group who are peculiarly vulnerable to an increase in the price of whisky. So, retrospectively, the Price Commission is given a nod or a wink to ask for the activation of Clause 3 to reverse a price increase on whisky. This is the sort of proposition which is conjured up before us by the operation of Clause 3, and we should have none of it.
  Mr. Dan Jones: The hon. Gentleman has an alcoholic imagination.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That is a very constructive intervention which I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel strengthened to elaborate upon in a speech of his own.
  I hope that he will forgive me if I turn now to Amendment No. 11.
  Mr. Dan Jones: At last.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Amendment No.
  11 is a modest proposition and one which I would imagine that the right hon. Lady would be happy to accept. All it asks her to do is, before she accedes to a
  1692
  request, however motivated, from the Price Commission to make a direction under Clause 3, at least to assure herself that such a direction will not have the effect of diverting into export markets goods which are required for the domestic market.
  This is not entirely a fanciful proposition. It is my contention that the Price Commission, that worthy body, is contributing hundreds of millions of pounds a year to the balance of payments deficit. I am surprised that the commission, which is not slow to chant its own achievements in the popular journals, has not seen fit to draw attention to this achievement, which is perhaps rather more important than some of the other things to which it lays claim. I have no doubt, and there is no doubt in the minds of people in industry today, that the fact that the profit margin and price controls apply exclusively to the domestic market is having an effect of diverting goods which are required for the domestic market to export markets, whence they have to be purchased back, the sole consequence being an additional burden on the balance of payments in respect of all single and several transactions.
  Ministers have frequently appealed for evidence of this practice. I must say quite frankly that I am reluctant to provide evidence because I do not consider it to be anything other than the most proper and patriotic proceeding for companies to maximise their profitability through the export market to sustain future investment. I would not dream of facilitating either the right hon. Lady or the Price Commission in catching companies which are succeeding in evading the snares of the Price Commission by diverting goods to export markets in this way.
  Nevertheless we must contemplate the implications of what is going on. From time to time evidence has come to public notice. Perhaps I could refer to one or two of these occasions. There was the case of the warning issued by Shell Chemicals that it would divert supplies of polypropylene and polystyrene, urgently needed for the United Kingdom market, to overseas markets because the commission was treating its application for price increases in such a manner that it would be the height of irresponsibility for it to continue to sell these products to United Kingdom customers.

  1693
  I remember that the hon. Gentleman at Question Time the other day claimed that there was no supporting evidence for this. I do not know what sort of supporting evidence he wanted. I suppose that he will not be satisfied till he can see an enormous increase in the trade returns for United Kingdom exports of polypropylene and polystyrene and on the other side of the balance sheet a substantially higher figure for imports, once again hitting the balance of payments deficit.
  There is an instance which has been drawn to my attention—and I do not intend to give any evidence of any kind which would enable the right hon. Lady or the Price Commission to follow it up—of a company which traditionally supplies raw materials to a United Kingdom customer. It found that those raw materials were being made up into goods which were being exported. The end products were free from the malign attentions of the Price Commission but the raw materials were subject to price and profit margin control.
  Understandably the manufacturer felt that this was a mug's game. He has been able, I understand, to identify the overseas customer for the end product He has gone to that customer and said "Look, I will sell the raw material to you direct under a contract by which it is made up by my United Kingdom customer who sells you the end product." This was agreed and arranged. The consequence is that the United Kingdom customer for the raw materials has to pay the real market price for the product and not the price dictated by Sir Arthur Cockfield and the right hon. Lady.
  This is of no particular concern to that customer, because if he sells any of the end products in the United Kingdom market, since his raw material price is now an import price, it is an allowable cost and he can get his price increase from the Price Commission. If he sells overseas he is selling in a free market and can sell for the best possible price.
  The only sufferer in this circumstance is the balance of trade because the raw material, which is really for internal consumption, has had to be exported at one price and then imported at a higher price to amuse Sir Arthur Cockfield and his admirers. I do not know the precise
  1694
  cost of this manipulation to the balance of payments but I dare say that if it lasts for any length of time it will run into millions, possibly tens of millions, of pounds.
  7.15 p.m.
  The other day in the House I cited the example of a major manufacturing company which was seeking to obtain an essential chemical from its usual suppliers. It required four tons of this chemical and was eventually offered half a ton from its traditional United Kingdom suppliers. Eventually it was offered all that it needed from a Dutch concern at eight times the United Kingdom market price. When the goods were delivered they turned out to be of United Kingdom manufacture. The cost of that particular item to the balance of payments may well have run into £1 million or so.
  The steel industry is fairly notorious. There was a time last autumn when Dr. Monty Finniston was denouncing the steel stockholders for pushing out to overseas markets in the rest of the Community scarce supplies of steel which they had obtained from the British Steel Corporation. As I understand it, the stockholders were denouncing BSC for doing the same thing. Unfortunately no one could identify who was doing what. What was indisputable was that supplies of steel required for the home market were being exported and then imported again simply because of the distortions imposed by price control.
  I know that some steps have been taken, not before time, to reduce the discrepancies between the United Kingdom controlled price and free prices in other parts of the Community, but the aftermath of what has been going on is still with us. I was visiting an offshore service depot in Scotland the other day and was told that the main contractor had been waiting for months for a supply of steel. He eventually managed to track down what he required—again, I think, in Holland. When the steel was delivered it was found that it came from the British Steel Corporation. The process is still very much with us.
  Under Clause 3 the Price Commission has to go to the Secretary of State and say "Here is a particularly vulnerable

  1695
  group which will cause you electoral embarrassment if you do not retrospectively restrict the price increase which is perfectly in accord with the provisions of the code by which we are supposed to operate." It is a matter of pure speculation which commodities this sort of direction might affect. We might find the right hon. Lady becoming alarmed about distress signals coming from young married couples so that she would decide that furnishing would be a suitable commodity about which to make a dramatic intervention under Clause 3.
  In this context I draw the attention of the House to what happened last year under the more relaxed provisions of the Price Code then in operation. United Kingdom imports of miscellaneous furniture went up in volume terms by 67 per cent. while United Kingdom exports of miscellaneous furniture went up in volume terms by 21 per cent. I challenge the right hon. Lady to argue that there was nothing artificial about the scale of that stimulation of trade and that it had nothing to do with the effect of the antics of the Price Commission in artificially depressing the price at which furniture was allowed to be sold in the United Kingdom market.
  Unless the right hon. Lady is prepared to accept my amendment she will be reinforcing the activities of the Price Commission in this respect and she will be enabling it to say that it agrees that an increase in the price of furniture is justified under the terms of the code. But that increase would nevertheless be embarrassing to newly married. It might, for instance, be known that a by-election is due and that newly-married are a high proportion of floating voters. It would be pointed out in such circumstances that the right hon. Lady would slaughter the Price Commission if it were not to take action to stop the price increase. Therefore, the Price Commission would apply for an order and obtain a direction under Clause 3. These are not fanciful projections of the way the clause could be used further to exacerbate the appalling problem of our balance of payments deficit.
  I realise that Sir Arthur Cockfield and his chums get an enormous amount of job satisfaction, and, no doubt, the
  1696
  right hon. Lady also enjoys herself rushing from one end of the price dyke to the other sticking her finger in every available hole. I must confess that life would be rather duller if she and the Price Commission were not around.
  However, we must at least occasionally consider what I dare to call the broader national interest and I wonder how the Treasury enjoys the prospect of the right hon. Lady's acting under Clause 3 to add an additional £10 million or so per annum to the balance of payments deficit. The right hon. Lady ought to have a word with her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot believe that he can be thoroughly grateful for her activities and those of the Price Commission in shoveling out goods needed for the United Kingdom market and then reimporting them at higher prices. It is an odd way to assist in the balance of payments problem and I hope that the right hon. Lady will at least give us the modest assurance of accepting my amendment.
  The activity of the Price Commission in adding to our balance of payments deficit will continue, but at least we may have done something to avoid adding a further dimension to the problem if we can have this modest amendment accepted. I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to accept it—or, better still, let us sweep the clause away. It is a bad Bill, but this is a wholly indefensible clause. If the right hon. Lady really believes that it is not retrospective I hope that she will be able to give a clearer explanation of what the wording means than I have been able to get from subsection (1). No case has been made out for the clause, nor has an explanation been given as to how it would be used. Bad as the Bill is in general, it will be infinitely worse unless we delete the clause.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I intend to be brief, and I shall not follow the argument about the balance of payments deficit. I regard right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite as experts in creating balance of payments deficits. This was clearly shown by their record when in power.
  However, I am a little concerned about what the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said about goods coming into the country and thus adding

  1697
  to the balance of payments deficit. My right hon. and hon. Friends should seriously look at this point, although not in the way in which he proposed in his amendment. If the situation which the hon. Gentleman described exists, there is further scope for legislation by my right hon. and hon. Friends to ensure that prices and profits restrictions can also be applied as far as possible in this respect—
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has the hon. Gentleman contemplated what that means? Does he realise that the purposes of such legislation would be to reduce export prices which United Kingdom manufacturers were obtaining, therefore adding that factor to our balance of payments deficit and turning the terms of trade against ourselves?
  Mr. Roberts: I would not accept that point, but I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman closely. I am pointing out to my right hon. and hon. Friends who are involved in this matter that if there is validity in the hon. Gentleman's argument something should be done about the situation. I am sure that I am speaking for all hon. Members on the Government side when I say that we would be very worried if there was any question of removing Clause 3 from the Bill. Many of us feel that the powers of my right hon. Friend are already pretty limited in the Bill, and we would certainly not want to see any diminution of her powers.
  Although I congratulated my right hon. Friend earlier today on securing certain voluntary arrangements, many of us still have doubts as to what the future will bring in these terms, and we, at least, are concerned that the power to act should lie in her hands as far as possible.
  I noted that in the Counter-Inflation Act the Tory Government were prepared to override the code upwards—and no concern was then expressed about that. But now that there is a question of overriding the code downwards there is immediate concern from the Opposition. That is typical of their attitude to the Bill. They are prepared to bark in one direction, but are pretty quiet when the other side of the coin is involved.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack)
  1698
  is not here. He has said that there is an election gimmick involved here, and he has talked about window dressing for electoral purposes, but it is nothing of the sort. The people of this country are crying out for a Bill of this kind. I remind the Opposition that there is a prospect of an election this autumn, and I advise them that they are, by their attitude to the Bill, misreading the whole feeling of the electorate. The people have wanted action of this sort for a long time. They want all possible powers to be in the hands of my right hon. Friend
  The Opposition's attitude to the Bill, particularly on these amendments, clearly shows that they wish to diminish my right hon. Friend's powers to combat inflation. The period 1970–74 christened the Conservative Party as the party of inflation. The Opposition's attitude to the Bill strengthens the public's view that that is their general philosophy.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Liberal Members support Amendments Nos. 5 and 12, on both of which the Government were unable to muster a majority for their view in Standing Committee. Both were settled only after a tied vote, with the Chairman acting in accordance with the convention that he should vote to keep the Bill in the same condition as when it arrived in Committee. I hope that on this occasion we shall be backed with enough votes to teach the Government a lesson.
  One reason among many why the Government failed to muster a majority in Committee was the miserable paucity of the arguments which their spokesman adduced. The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), speaking for the Government, did not cite one factual example of the need for the special powers in Clause 3. In spite of all the work which the Price Commission had been doing since it was ill advisedly set up by the Conservative Government, the hon. Gentleman was not able to produce one case to suggest that the Price Code was inadequate.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman has made a most important statement Are we to understand—if so, it will be a joy to many of us to hear it—that

  1699
  the Liberal Party has abandoned its nonsensical belief in extreme forms of price and pay control?
  Mr. Wainwright: It must be well known in the House—although I had not the privilege of being a Member at the time—that there was strong Liberal criticism of the device of a Price Commission proposed by the Conservative Government, taking the whole matter outside the control of Parliament. However much we may be chastised by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), we continue to believe in a price and pay control policy but one conducted within Parliament and not farmed out to extra-parliamentary bodies with arbitrary and dictatorial powers.
  On Amendment No. 5, all that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland could do, in spite presumably of the possibility of obtaining ammunition from the Price Commission, was to express the hope that
  "Hon. Members will recognise the value of giving a flexible twist to the operation of the Price Commission.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 21st May 1974; c. 403.]
  We are opposed, as we were in Committee, to giving a flexible twist to a body outside the control of Parliament. The commission should not have been set up. It should have been aborted before birth. The last thing to do with a monstrous body of this kind, once conceived and born, is to give it a flexible twist.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is it a new dance?
  Mr. Wainwright: The hon. Member for Caithness and Southerland must speak for himself, unless his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wishes to intervene in his support.
  On Amendment No. 12, which the hon. Member for Southern, West (Mr. Channon) was good enough to acknowledge was tabled by myself in Committee and was supported by the Opposition, and again on which there was a tied vote, I am to this day at a loss to know why the Government opposed the amendment. In Committee the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland clearly understood the amendment's effect. He said:
  "its effect would be that the Secretary of State could give a direction in relation to a completed price increase only within a period
  1700
  of up to three months after its implementation."
  That was a precise and accurate interpretation of the amendment. He went on to say:
  "We certainly take the view that firms should not be left vulnerable to the procedures under Clause 3 for an indefinite period after implementing a price increase."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 21st May 1974; c. 387.]
  In Committee, therefore, the offer was made to the hon. Gentleman that, if he could give a reason why a period longer or shorter than three months would be more amenable for administrative purposes, he should give it and we would gladly give way on the period. In spite of his denunciation of the amendment, however, he was unwilling to suggest any time which would not be a straitjacket or any time which would not be too relaxed. I am puzzled about the real ground on which he felt that he must resist the amendment.
  I hope that unless much more direct and understandable arguments against both amendments are adduced by the Government the House will, in its wisdom, carry them.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am glad to be able to agree with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and with my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) about the merits, or perhaps the lack of merits, of the clause. Unfortunately I cannot entirely agree with them that we were not given examples of how the clause might be operated. In Committee the Under-Secretary of State said:
  "Again if I may put it in a very generalised way, one set of circumstances might be that the effect of the proposed price increase would be exceptionally harsh upon a peculiarly vulnerable section of the community, although it could be conformable with the provisions of the code."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee D, 21st May 1974; c. 402.]
  If that was meant to be an example of the circumstances in which the clause would operate, it was the most unfortunate example which could have been produced because it was a threat to any manufacturer, or indeed retailer, that if he was supplying something which was of particular importance to a vulnerable section of the community, those provisions of the code which allowed him to make a reasonable profit on his business might not apply and he might be

  1701
  required by the clause to operate without a profit. An example more designed to drive people out of the business of providing goods and services to vulnerable sections of the community could scarcely have been contrived. If the clause were to stand part and if the threat were not withdrawn there would be a great danger that a person whose products might be held to be of importance to a vulnerable section of the community might consider whether it was right for him to continue to provide those goods and services.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: The debate on the clause has been interesting. I had not intended to speak, but I should like to comment on the statements made by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). I do not know whether the same information has been percolating through to our two constitutencies, which are contiguous, but there may be a risk that by enforcing controls too tightly in respect of certain products which are capable of export shortages may appear which could be of disadvantage to industry generally and might lead to the closure of a factory of which I know.
  We are living in an age of resource limitation and shortage. If a black market situation affects some parts of the world and people are prepared to pay enormous sums for certain petro-chemical products, the basic supplies necessary for industry may go to other countries. The Government should pay particular attention to the implications of the matters brought to their attention by the hon. Member for South Angus. I do not necessarily support him in the amendment because I do not think that a report of that sort would necessarily add much to the position, but it is something to which the Price Commission and the Government should pay attention.
  What has been said by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) on the limitation of Clause 3 is apposite. I agree with the Government that at a time of hyper-inflation limitations may be necessary. There should, however, be some restriction on the limitations, otherwise it might be easier to come to arbitrary decisions. Not many people in the United Kingdom would be in favour of arbitrary decisions. In passing legislation it behoves the House to pay close attention to the freedom of the subject.
  1702
  On the question whether Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill, I await with interest the reply by the right hon. Lady. Not having had the advantage of being a member of the Committee, and not having heard the arguments put forward by the Under-Secretary of State, my support or otherwise for the clause will be determined by the arguments put forward by the right hon. Lady and the official Opposition.
  Mr. Michael Latham: The House should certainly not pass the clause. It is without doubt one of the most objectionable clauses I have ever seen. In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) said that this was a "Catch 22" clause—"If we cannot get you one way, by God we will get you another way, if necessary making up the rules as we go along."
  The only explanation for the exceptionally wide powers under Clause 3(1) was given by the Under-Secretary of State, when he said in Committee:
  "The circumstances in which it will be invoked are those in which the Price Commission itself considers that the price code in respect of a particular case is inadequate in some respects. It is intended to be employed in situations in which the problem is not so much the difficulty of applying the provisions of the code, but rather that the application of the code produces an anomalous result. Plainly, it is impossible to predict precisely the sort of situation in which this might happen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 21st May 1974; c. 374.]
  It is simply not good enough for Ministers to offer that as a reasons for bringing forward Draconian powers of this kind. If they are not satisfied with the price code, their duty is to redraft it so that it contains the provisions they want and to bring it back to the House. In spite of the parliamentary provisions which the right hon. Lady is proposing in a later amendment, I am far from satisfied that powers of this sort should ever appear on the statute book, and I hope that the House will resist them.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) still persisted in regarding Clause 3 as being a retrospective clause. Yet, his hon. and right hon. Friends in the course of long discussions in Committee to which he was not a party fully accepted that they were incorrect in believing that the clause had retrospective

  1703
  force. I begin, therefore, by reassuring the House, as did the right hon. Member for Southern, West (Mr. Channon) on 21st May in column 399 of the Committee proceedings, that the clause cannot be retrospective.
  The reason why it was believed in some quarters that the clause had retrospective powers, interestingly enough, relates to what may have been thought to be the defective drafting of the Counter-Inflation Act, which was the responsibility of the previous administration. Clause 3 relates directly to the powers under Section 6 of the Counter-Inflation Act, and, therefore, if there is any element of retrospection, it must have been there before the clause was drafted. We are satisfied that there is no element of retrospection, but if there were, or if there were believed to be, it would be due to defective drafting of the Counter-Inflation Act.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I thought that the right hon. Lady would explain why the clause was not retrospective, but she has not done so. My understanding of the operation of the clause is that a manufacturer obtains clearance for an increase in price under the provisions of the existing code, and the Price Commission comes to the right hon. Lady and says "That will cause a lot of trouble in that constituency where a by-election is pending. A Labour majority is very dicey. Do you not think that you had better impose a directive under Clause 3?".
  Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has mixed up several things. I was talking about retrospection at the time. Perhaps if he would be kind enough to read the Committee proceedings from column 397 to column 401 he will, like his right hon. and hon. Friends, be satisfied that the clause is not retrospective. It would be otiose for me to repeat the arguments all over again to the many members of the Committee who are present tonight.
  Subsection (4) reads:
  "This section does not apply to any increase implemented before the passing of this Act".
  That also helps to make the position absolutely clear.
  While I am fully aware that there are many honorable Members opposite who do not like Clause 3, none of them has repeated the many safeguards that exist to show that the clause is intended
  1704
  to be wholly exceptional. I will repeat them briefly.
  First, the Price Commission has to be satisfied that the circumstances are exceptional. Secondly, the Secretary of State has to agree with the Price Commission. Thirdly, there has to be consultations with the person or persons selling the goods or providing the service to which the price or charge relates. Fourthly, there has to be consultation with any other persons who appear to the Secretary of State to be concerned. Fifthly, there has to be the issue of a direction. Sixthly, full details of that direction have to be carried in the Gazette.
  No Government would go through so many hoops in circumstances that were not intended to be exceptional. I repeat that the circumstances envisaged are intended to be purely exceptional. Like Section 6 of the Counter-Inflation Act, which has not yet been used, it is intended —as the Government at the time made clear—to regard this as a procedure which would be used only in the most exceptional circumstances.
  I have been asked what sort of "exceptional circumstances" might be involved. Let me give two examples. One might be a situation—a situation which the CBI recognises might give some ground for the Government to seek powers under Clause 3—in which a firm deliberately chose to seek all possible loopholes in the code for the purpose of facilitating increases in charges or prices.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Why should it?
  Mrs. Williams: I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to argue his own case. The majority of us, including members of the Conservative Party who set up the Price Code, would not like to see the present situation made nonsense of. The argument appears to be between those who, in good faith, supported the concept of the Price Commission and the code, including most Conservatives, and those who dislike it on any terms, including the hon. Member for South Angus. I repeat that those who support the Price Commission would not like to see any organisation attempt to link together all the loopholes to make nonsense of the situation. There are circumstances of that kind which are exceptional but

  1705
  which would quickly bring the code and the commission into disrepute.
  Secondly, there are exceptional circumstances which could involve unpredictable movements in raw material costs. There were such movements not long ago which could not be catered for by a code based on a historical period of five years, from which any two years could be chosen in deciding what the profits reference margin should be. It is these exceptional circumstances—not the kind of circumstances which the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) had in mind, which I agree would involve a "Catch 22" situation—which the Government had in mind in Clause 3.
  Mr. Biffen: It is surely extremely dangerous if the code is to be treated as something which on the whole one can interpret as one goes along. There is no point in the right hon. Lady seeking to pick and choose between those Conservatives who viewed the commission favourably and those who did not or to imply that one could have recourse to courts of law where there was a conflict of interpretation. This is what is happening now between the GEC and the Price Commission. It is undesirable if any recourse to courts of law is to be under the shadow of a situation in which the rules of the commission can be altered by the Government during the process of time.
  Mrs. Williams: I know that I cannot reassure the hon. Gentleman completely on this matter, but I assure him that the phrase "exceptional circumstances" could be taken to a court of law. I also assure him that the power, which is parallel to the power possessed by the Conservative Government, could override the Price Code in certain exceptional circumstances, although in a different direction.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The right hon. Lady has advanced a remarkable proposition. She said that a company could string together loopholes to evade the operation of the code. It is a longstanding principle of British law that the subject is entitled to take all the opportunities which are open to him under the law. There is nothing in the least reprehensible about that.
  Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman and I must keep to our own opinions on that point.
  1706
  I should like now to deal with the points made on Amendment No. 11. I first reassure the hon. Member for South Angus—although he will not like this very much—that the contentment of industry and the good cheer of the economy will, as he wishes, long be sustained by the presence of Sir Arthur Cockfield and myself on the scene.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the possibility of the risk of trade distortion. Amendment No. 11, which has been tabled by the hon. Gentleman, attempts to deal with the risk of trade distortions in any particular case. I have enough respect for the hon. Gentleman to know that he believes that this provision would make the working of the Price Commission virtually impossible. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I have repeatedly asked the hon. Gentleman for evidence on this point, but so far we have received none. The hon. Gentleman uses an argument which is frequently adopted by many people who do not wish their propositions to be tested; namely, that they do not trust the testers enough to advance their side of the argument. I repeat that we have asked the hon. Gentleman for such evidence, but he has refused to give it. He believes that he cannot trust the probity and conscientiousness of either the Price Commission or me. My experience of the Price Commission is that it is a body of the utmost probity and rectitude, and that there would be no question of any firm or individual company being victimized if a case were made out that distortions of this kind were occurring.
  The hon. Member for South Angus referred to furniture, but there is no evidence that there have been increases in the imports and exports of furniture flowing from anything done by the Price Commission. There is evidence that the first cut in EEC tariffs has had its effect on the imports of furniture into this country, together with the amount of advertising in respect of imported furniture. I will concede that there have been reports in the newspapers suggesting that one or two chemical products and some semi-processed goods may have been sold abroad in certain circumstances because of Price Commission decisions. I repeat our willingness to investigate any such claim. We have received two or three

  1707
  such other cases from other hon. Gentlemen and are investigating them, and we shall take them into account in any revision of the Price Code. However, the hon. Member for South Angus should at least be willing to test the good will of the Price Commission and of my Department in this respect before he tables amendments on the basis of evidence which he is not prepared to reveal to the House or to anybody else.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: May I put the
  position to the right hon. Lady in the following way. One instance I gave without giving any details—and I confirm that I have no intention of giving any details—concerned a firm which found it necessary to supply a customer with raw material via the end-customer who made up the goods overseas. I am not prepared to divulge the details in this case. I was given them in confidence, and it would be a breach of confidence to reveal them. In any event, there appears to be a distinct possibility that in the circumstances the Price Commission will say that this is not a genuine export and, therefore, that the goods are subject to price control.
  8.0 p.m.
  My belief is that it is essential for firms to be able to make a good profit in order to finance necessary future investment and to sustain the economy that we need. I cannot see that that purpose would conceivably be served by putting the right hon. Lady and the Price Commission in the position of being able to say to this firm that it is not a genuine export and, therefore, that it is subject to the operation of price controls.
  Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman may have a perfectly fair point and one which is in the national interest. But the difficulty is that his attitude of totally distrusting the Price Commission and my Department, despite pledges that he has been given of our willingness to respect confidentiality, puts us in a position in which he continues to berate us but he does not allow us to put right the situation of which he complains. If that is not a "Catch 22" situation, I do not know what is.
  I appeal to the hon. Gentleman once again. I give the pledge that the confidentiality of the firm involved will not
  1708
  go beyond me and the Price Commission. But I ask the hon. Member for South Angus for the opportunity to investigate what he describes as a serious distortion of trade. Until he does, I must advise the House not to accept his amendment, because he has not shown it to be necessary.
  I come finally to Amendment No. 12. I see what the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) is getting at, but it is an amendment that we cannot accept in the terms in which it is expressed.
  The effect of Amendment No. 12 would be not to bind the Price Commission or the Government to act speedily but in practice to tempt the firm to act slowly by setting up a period of three months over the period by which implementation would have to be completed. The hon. Gentleman's original amendment and the Opposition amendment which is now in its place would put the greatest possible premium on a firm which indulged in delay.
  The Government cannot accept a situation in which it would be in the interests of that firm to delay at every step the procedures necessary to bring about the operation of the clause. Furthermore, I appeal to the hon. Member for Colne Valley to look at it from the point of view of his party, which has called upon me to insist upon full consultation. The way in which the amendment is phrased might make it impossible in any complicated case to indulge even in the consultation processes which we have now laid down as a safeguard.
  I repeat them. They are the satisfaction of the Price Commission, the requirement on the Secretary of State to be satisfied, the requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the firm or firms or individuals concerned, the requirement on the Secretary of State to consult any other interested bodies, and the requirement to publish in the Official Gazette. All these steps, which we genuinely intend to carry out, in these very exceptional cases might be jeopardised by the requirement of a three months' total limit in the case of any action involving complicated submissions by the firm.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Colne Valley will accept from me that what is his intention, which is that the Price Commission shall act separately, agrees with

  1709
  the Government's intention. I give him the assurance that it is our intention that the Price Commission shall act separately. However, the way in which that amendment is phrased would bring about the extreme difficulty of consulting adequately in any complicated case.
  Mr. Channon: I am sure that the House wishes to reach a decision on this matter. I do not think that the Opposition wish to waste time by dividing the
  House on more than one amendment. We have had an adequate explanation of the purpose of the clause. I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House on Amendment No. 5, which is the first of the group before us.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 264.

  Division No. 38.

  AYES

  8.4 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McCrlndle, R. A.

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton Coldfield)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Fry, Peter

  MacGregor, John

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  McLaren, Martin

  Ancram, M.

  Gardiner, George (Reigate&Banstead)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Atkins, Rt.Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)

  Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David

  Madel, David

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gilmour,Rl.Hn.Ian (Ch'sh'&Amsh'm)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Gllmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Marten, Neil

  Banks, Robert

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mather, Carol

  Bell, Ronald

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maude, Angus

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)

  Goodlad, A.

  Mawby, Ray

  Benyon, W.

  Gorst, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Biffen, John

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridge Wells)

  Biggs-Davison. John

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Boscawen, Hon. Robert

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove S R'dltch)

  Bowden. Andrew) Brighton, Kemptown)

  Gray, Hamish

  Mills, Peter

  Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N)

  Grieve, Percy

  Mi8campbell, Norman

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Brittan, Leon

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Moate, Roger

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Grist, Ian

  Money, Ernie

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hall, Sir John

  Monro, Hector

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hampson, Dr. Keith

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Buck, Antony

  Hannam,John

  Morgan, Geraint

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Burden, F. A.

  Harvle Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss

  Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mudd, David

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Channon, Paul

  Hawkins, Paul

  Newton, Tony (Braintree)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Churchill, W. S.

  Henderson,Barry (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Nott, John

  Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Clegg, Walter

  Hordern, Peter

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Cockcroft, John

  Howe, Rt.Hn. Sir Geoffrey(Surrey,E.)

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)

  Cope, John

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

  Percival, Ian

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Corrie, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Price, David (Eastieigh)

  Costain, A. P.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Critchiey, Julian

  James, David

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Crouch, David

  Jenkin, Rt.Hn.P. (R'dgeW'std&W'fd)

  Redmond Robert

  Crowder, F. P.

  Jessel, Toby

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal).

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstein)

  Rees-Davles W. R

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Renton.Rt. Hn. SirDavld(H't'gd'ns're)

  Dixon, Piers

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Renton. R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Joplin, Michae

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Durant, Tony

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Tom (Bridgewater)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lamont, Norman

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lane, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Emery, Peter

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Silvester, Fred

  Eyre, Reginald

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Sims, Roger

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Farr, John

  Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

  Smith, Cyril (Rockdale)

  Fell, Anthony

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Spence, John

  Fanner, Mrs. Peggy

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stamford)

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Loveridge, John

  Sproal lain

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

  Luce, Richard

  Stan brook, Ivor

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stanley, John

  Steel, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Winstanley, Dr. Michael

  Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Waver tree)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Straddling Thomas, J.

  Viggers, Peter

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Taylor, Edward M. (Gl'gow, C'cart)

  Waddington, David

  Worsley, Sir Marcus

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Young, Sir George (Ealing, Actor

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wakeham, John

  Younger, Hn. George

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net.H'dn S.)

  Wall, Patrick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Walters, Dennis

  Mr. Marcus Fox and

  Townsend, C. D.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant

  Trotter, Neville

  Wails, John

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Lee, John

  Allaun, Frank

  English, Michael

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Archer, Peter (Warley, West)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Ashton, Joe

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Ewing, Harry (St'ling.F'kirk&G'm'th)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Baggier. Gordon, A. T.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Loughlin, Charles

  Barrett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Ferny Hough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

  Fitch, Alan (Wlgan)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

  Bates, Alf

  Flannery, Martin

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  MacCormack, lain

  Bishop, E. S.

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Forrester, John

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Bcardman, H. (Leigh)

  Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

  McGuire, Michael

  Booth, Albert

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Freeson, Reginald

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bottomed, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McNamara, Kevin

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

  Madden, M. O. F.

  Bradley, Tom

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Magee, Bryan

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  George, Bruce

  Mahon, Simon

  Brown, Bob (NewcastleuponTyne, W.)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Ginsburg, David

  Marks, Kenneth

  Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &Sh'dilch)

  Golding, John

  Marquand, David

  Buchan, Norman

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Buchanan, Richard(G'gow,Springbrn)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh,W'wch,E)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey.WoodGreen)

  Grant, John (Islington, C.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wlch)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Campbell, Ian

  Hamilton, James (Both well)

  Mendeison, John

  Cant, R. B.

  Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Carmlchael, Neil

  Hamling, William

  Millan, Bruce

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hardy, Peter

  Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Harper, Joseph

  Milne, Edward

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  Cocks, Michael

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Molloy, William

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Charles R. (Opens haw)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hatton, Frank

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Moyle, Roland

  Concannon, J. D.

  Henderson,Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're,E)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hooley, Frank

  Murray, Ronald King

  Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

  Horam, John

  Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

  Cox, Thomas

  Huckfleld, Leslie

  Oakes, Gordon

  Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Ogden, Eric

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  AWT, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hughes. Roy (Newport)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Cryer, G. R.

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I.EdgeHIII)

  Ovenden, John

  Cunningham, G.(lst'ngt'n,SAF'sb'ry)

  Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

  Owen, Dr. David

  Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)

  Jackson, Colin

  Padley, Walter

  Dalyell, Tam

  Janner, Greville

  Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

  Parry, Robert

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  John, Brynmor

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Johnson, James(K'ston upon Hull.W)

  Pliipps, Dr. Colin

  Deakins, Eric

  Johnson, Walter (Darby, S.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, !:.)

  Prescott, John

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Radice, Giles

  Doig, Peter

  Judd, Frank

  Reid, George

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kerr, Russell

  Roberts, Gwiiym (Cannock)

  Dunn, James A.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

  Lamble, David

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lamont, James

  Rodgers, William (Teesslde, Stockton)

  Edge. Geoff

  Latham, Arthur(CltyofW'minsterP'ton)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)

  Lawson, George (Motherwell&Wlshaw)

  Roper, John

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

  Ledbetter, Ted

  Rose, Paul B.

  1712

  1713

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Stott, Roger

  Weitzman, David

  Rowlands, Edward

  Strang, Gavin

  Well beloved, James

  Sandelson, Neville

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  White, James

  Sedge more, Bryan

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Whitlock, William

  Selby, Harry

  Swain, Thomas

  Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

  Shaw, Arnold (Red bridge, lllord, S.)

  Taverne, Dick

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashlon-under-Lyne)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney&P'plar)

  Tinn, James

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

  Short, Rt. Kn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

  Tomlinson, John

  Williams,Rt.Hn. Shirley(H'f'd&St'ge)

  Silken, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham.D'ford)

  Tomney, Frank

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Sllkln,Rt.Hn.S.C.(S'hwark,Dulwich)

  Torney, Tom

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)

  Sillars, James

  Tuck, Raphael

  Wise, Mrs. Audrey

  Silverman, Julius

  Urwin, T. W.

  Woodall, Alec

  Skinner, Dennis

  Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.

  Wool, Robert

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Wainwrlght, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Wriggles worth, Ian

  Snape, Peter

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Lady wood)

  Young, David (Bolton, E.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Walker, Terry (Kingwood)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Stallard, A. W.

  Watkins, David

  Mr. Laurie Pavittand

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Watt, Hamish

  Mr. Tom Pendry.

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Amendment accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 2, at end insert:
  'and the Secretary of State shall, for the purposes of any consultation under paragraph (a) above, furnish to the person or persons there mentioned particulars of the grounds submitted to him by the Commission as justifying intervention under this section'.
  The amendment honours an undertaking given by the Government in Committee, to ensure that those firms whose price increases were at issue under Clause 3 would know the case they had to answer. It ensures that the firm will have at its disposal during the consultations which will be statutorily required the relevant details of the case so that it is fully equipped to put its own side. The Secretary of State is required for the purposes of the consultations which have to be undertaken to let the firm know the details of the Price Commission's reasons justifying the Secretary of State's intervention in exceptional circumstances.
  The Opposition moved a similar amendment in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment undertook to look at the matter closely. We think that this amendment is an improvement on that tabled by the Opposition, in that it safeguards commercially confidential information and thus protects the interests of the firm concerned, confining the statutory obligation to the giving of relevant information to the firm immediately concerned. This is a reasonable safeguard, and I hope that the amendment will be acceptable.
  Mr. Channon: I thank the Government for having put down this amendment, which substantially meets the point that
  1714
  we raised in Committee. I think it will be extremely satisfactory.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 3, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
  '(3) The power to give a direction under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and a statutory instrument containing a direction under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think it will be convenient to take sub-amendment (a) to Government Amendment No. 10, in the name of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), to leave out from 'by' to end and add:
  'order, and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of
  Parliament'.
  Mr. Maclennan: Once again this amendment deals with a point raised in Committee, to which I promised to give further consideration; namely, the question of parliamentary accountability under Clause 3.
  It will be recalled that the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) moved a somewhat similar amendment in Committee. The Government amendment provides that any direction given by the Secretary of State authorising the Price Commission to exercise its powers as if a price increase were not in accordance with the code shall be contained in a statutory instrument subject to negative resolution procedure.
  The amendment takes full account of the Opposition's understandable concern about parliamentary accountability, and

  1715
  we trust that it will be acceptable to the House. The amendment is drafted in slightly different terms from the Opposition amendment in Committee. It deletes the express requirement to publish the direction in the Gazette, as a statutory instrument would automatically be widely available.
  May I now deal with the amendment of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). His proposal would substitute affirmative for negative resolution procedure in the statutory instrument containing the direction. The hon. Member was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, and I take it that he may not appreciate that his hon. Friends proposed the negative procedure. We take the view that the Government Amendment No. 10 fully meets the undertaking which we gave in Committee, and I could not advise the House to modify the procedure still further in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I suggest to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) that if he desires to discuss his proposed sub-amendment to Government Amendment No. 10, it should be done on the substantive Government amendment rather than by moving his sub-amendment separately.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I bow to your wisdom in these matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker. 1 thought that where a sub-amendment to an amendment on the Order Paper was selected, it was the normal procedure for the sub-amendment to the amendment to be moved. However, I fully accept your ruling.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In fact, it can be, but it does not necessarily need to be moved separately. I was hoping that it would be for the convenience of the House to deal with the whole matter on the substantive Government amendment.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I take the point, and I am happy to accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Under-Secretary has correctly explained the difference of view between us. I am aware that the step that he has taken was in response to a request from my hon. Friends in Committee. As he says, 1 was not privileged to be on the
  1716
  Committee, and I am always anxious to try to improve on the golden work that is done elsewhere, where this is possible. I am sure that my hon. Friends were making a very modest and reasonable proposal, and I will advance a word or two to explain why my alternative suggestion is by no means immodest.
  We are giving in this clause a further extension to the already wide, sweeping and Draconian powers of this extra-parliamentary body, the Price Commission. When the Price Commission was originally set up, hon. Members opposite fiercely criticised my hon. Friends for the fact that the Price Commission was not effectively answerable to Parliament. It would be dishonest of me to pretend that there were not some of us then on the Government benches who shared some anxieties on this score. Therefore, I find it hard to understand how the present Government cannot miss an opportunity further to extend the activities and the powers of this extra-parliamentary body.
  I can only say that for my part I remain totally unconvinced by the right hon. Lady's statement—because it was not an explanation—that the powers in this Bill are not retrospective, in view of the fact that they are designed to enable the Government and the Price Commission to reverse a price increase which was perfectly legitimate under the code. I would, therefore, argue that the powers under Clause 3 are far-reaching.
  Of course, it is nice to know from the right hon. Lady that the powers are to be used only in exceptional circumstances. I wish that she would at some time explain how the courts will decide what can be classified as exceptional and what cannot. In any case, exceptional or not, I submit that these are far-reaching powers which need the fullest possible parliamentary scrutiny. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that the opportunities for praying against an order which is subject to the negative resolution procedure are very restricted, and there is no guarantee that an order under Clause 3 would ever be properly scrutinized by the House. It might be, but there is no guarantee. I believe that such orders should always be scrutinized, and the only way to ensure that is to make them subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

  1717
  8.30 p.m.
  The Minister might suggest that if we adopted the affirmative resolution procedure the Order Paper would be cluttered up with orders. There is a simple answer to that proposition. The Secretary of State spent some time telling us how wholly exceptional the orders would be under this clause. If that is so, there is no earthly reason why on the very rare occasons—once every two years, if, Heaven forefend, the legislation should last that long—the House should not be invited to give its judgment on an order under Clause 3 under the affirmative resolution procedure. Therefore, the argument that the House could not cope does not apply, and if the Government invoke that argument it proves that the Secretary of State was hardly being completely fair with the House when she said that the orders would be wholly exceptional.
  Will the Minister say what sort of information he expects the Government will be giving the House to enable it to judge the suitability or otherwise of an order under Clause 3? On Amendment No. 9 the Secretary of State told us how she would explain to people who were the subject of an order under the clause the charge sheet leveled against them by the Price Commission. As I understand it, there does not need to be a charge sheet. The Price Commission could simply say that the increase was perfectly bona fide, that there was ample justification for it, but that it would embarrass a small group of the Secretary of State's supporters in the country in a delicate political situation and that, therefore, it ought to be banned. That does not add up to a charge sheet; it is a simple political act. That is the sort of circumstance in which the Price Commission, if it wished to curry favour with the Secretary of State, could presumably operate.
  Nevertheless, the Secretary of State told us that those who were the subject of an order would be informed of the charges leveled against them. Will the House be informed of the charges upon which such an order will be based, whether under the negative or the affirmative resolution procedures, because if the House is not to receive that information, which will be given to the victims of the order, I do not see how the House can come to a
  1718
  clear decision? I hope that the Minister will make it clear just what information will be provided for the House.
  In view of everything that we have been told about the wholly exceptional nature of the proceedings under Clause 3, and given the Draconian nature of the powers under the clause, I believe there is an overriding case for these orders to be dealt with under the affirmative resolution procedure. We therefore need a clearer explanation than we have so far had from the Minister of why he proposes to resist my sub-amendment to his amendment.
  Mr. Maclennan: I do not want to weary the House by repeating at length the arguments with which the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) will be familiar, and which were canvassed in Committee, about the circumstances in which an affirmative procedure is appropriate and those in which a negative procedure is appropriate. I think that both sides of the House are agreed—it is reflected in practice—that this is a matter of difficult judgment. In the case with which we are dealing the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends accepted that the negative procedure was appropriate.
  The evidence that we have of the use of the affirmative procedure in recent years suggests that it is now the exception rather than the rule, although there are some fluctuations from year to year. In the most recent period for which figures are available it has been used in only about 20 per cent. of the cases in which we have introduced statutory instruments
  I appreciate that in making his suggestion the hon. Gentleman is simply seeking to underline the totality of his opposition to the clause and the importance he attaches to it. It would not be appropriate at this stage to reopen the arguments the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have already canvassed in respect of earlier amendments, or to seek to go further than my right hon. Friend did in describing the circumstances in which the clause would be invoked. She has made it abundantly clear that it is a highly exceptional procedure, which will be used very rarely.

  1719
  I think that the hon. Gentleman's first argument in favour of the affirmative procedure was that the clause had retrospective effect, and he reopened the question discussed on an earlier amendment. I do not want to go far beyond what my right hon. Friend said. I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to what I said on this point in Committee:
  "If, following a direction from the Secretary of State, the Price Commission sought to restrict a price increase by an order or notice under Section 6 of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, it would affect future and not past transactions. The Secretary of State … cannot by direction affect the validity of a transaction which has already occurred.
  There is a further and wider point, which is more persuasive. As a canon of statutory interpretation, if a Bill is to be construed retrospectively, it is a highly unusual situation, and if a power is to be construed as being capable of having retrospective effect, it is necessary that that should be explicit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 21st May 1974; c. 388–9.]
  I do not think that even the hon. Gentleman would claim that it was so in the Bill.
  I shall not weary the House by extending the debate on the amendment. I think that it has met with the broad approval and acceptance of the House.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

  PRICE MARKING
  Amendment made: No. 13, in page 5, line 31, at end insert:
  '(2A) Subsection (4A) of section 2 above shall apply to an order under this section as it applies to an order under subsection (l)(a) of that section'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 5, line 36 at end insert—
  '( ) No order shall be made in this section to require the indication of a price at point of sale where identical goods are liable to be offered or exposed for sale simultaneously at differing prices, according to the requirements of the Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 785)'.
  I shall not detain the House for long on this matter, although it is one on which we must have an answer. I have raised it before in the House, and failed to receive any answer from the right hon.
  1720
  Gentleman who was put up to reply to the debate. He had no departmental responsibility, and clearly did not know what the matter was about. Now we have the hon. Gentleman, who has departmental responsibility. I hope that he will be forewarned and forearmed.
  If a Bill such as this has an inoffensive clause, I suppose that Clause 4 comes nearest to it. Certainly, I have no quarrel with the notion that the customer should be enabled to know the true price of the goods he is purchasing. But such are the wonders of attempts to control inflation by passing laws against it that one invariably discovers that one complexity flies in the face of another. So it is on this occasion.
  We recently enacted the statutory instrument to which my amendment refers. One of its provisions is designed to prevent the practice of over-labeling the price of goods, which I know has caused great public resentment. We all remember the graphic appearances by the right hon. Lady on television, wearing her nails to the bone, pulling off over-labels on tins of various goodies which, rumor had it, she had bought in Fortnum and Mason's. People were upset to discover, having bought a tin of beans for 10p, that the label covered another stating 9p, which in turn covered yet another stating 6p.
  I had a nasty experience myself some months ago. I bought a book for, if I remember rightly, £1·50 and found that the label so marked was stuck over another which said 12s. 6d. My mathematics are rusty, but I did not think that worked out very well for me. This practice attracts resentment and it is not altogether surprising that the Government should seek to legislate against it, as they did in the statutory instrument.
  But within the weird, semi-submerged world of prices and incomes legislation it is no wonder that invariably when one takes such a simple step all sorts of complications arise. The complication in this case, with which the amendment is designed to deal, concerns the case of a supermarket. Let us say it has baked beans on sale which were put on the shelf last week at 9p. This week it receives a new consignment of baked beans from the supplier for sale at 10p, because even the Price Commission has been unable

  1721
  to deny that the affairs of the real world necessitate an increase in the price of baked beans.
  In the past, the existing tins of beans had an over-label stuck upon them to read 10p instead of 9p, so that all the tins of baked beans on the shelf were labeled 10p. Now, of course, under the statutory instrument that is not allowed. Therefore, we are bound to have some tins labeled 9p and others labeled 10p on the same shelf.
  For the convenience of the shopper, it is the habit of supermarket chains, as we all know, to put a price at the edge of the shelf on which the goods are placed so that the shopper does not have to pick up each tin and search for the label, which may be on the top or at the back. As I think we would all agree, on the rare occasions when we are sent out to do the messages the label invariably is in the last place one would think of looking. It is, therefore, a convenience that one can see on the edge of the shelf that the price of a tin of beans is 10p. Prior to the passage of the statutory instrument there was no difficulty about that.
  Following the passage of the statutory instrument, however, a very serious difficulty has arisen. If the supermarket chain is obliged to have on the same shelf, as it is by that legislation, two identical tins of beans, one at 10p and the other at 9p, whichever price it displays on the edge of the shelf it is liable to be in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act and, therefore, to prosecution. If the ticket on the edge of the shelf states that the price is 9p, it is in breach of the Act because some of the tins cost 10p and vice versa.
  8.45 p.m.
  I raised this matter when we were discussing the statutory instrument on 15th May. I drew the Government's attention to this dilemma, which had been drawn to my attention by a supermarket group in my area. For some obscure reason best known to the Government Whips, the Paymaster-General was put up to reply to the debate. His connection with the subject was somewhat tenuous and his knowledge did not appear to be very much greater. Indeed, he did not answer the point at all. His answer was as follows:
  "We have considered this point. We are of the opinion that Section 8 of the Counter-
  1722
  Inflation Act 1973 enables us to ensure that there should be no contradiction between these two pieces of legislation"—
  that is, the statutory instrument and the Trade Descriptions Act—
  "in this respect".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May 1974; Vol. 873, c. 1387.]
  What does Section 8 of the Counter-Inflation Act have to say on the matter? I quote from subsection (1):
  "The Minister may by order direct that—

  (a) any provision of any Act whether passed before this Act or later, which relates to prices, charges or to remuneration or other terms or conditions of employment, or …

  shall, while this Part of this Act is in force, have effect subject to such exceptions, modifications or adaptations as may be specified in the order."
  But we have not had such an order, as far as I am aware—no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong—and unless and until we have such an order either we face the situation that a supermarket chain is obliged to desist from the practice of edge-of-shelf pricing, a course which cannot be in the interests of its customers or the housewife, for whose well-being the right hon. Lady has so persistently agitated, or alternatively we face the prospect of prosecution under the Trade Descriptions Act.
  It is no good the Government telling us that the Counter-Inflation Act says that we can do these things, because unless and until the Government come along with an order dealing with the consequences of flouting the Act by indulging in edge-of-self pricing we cannot be satisfied. This is the point on which we have to be satisfied tonight. If we can be satisfied I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment, but we need an explanation, which we did not get from the Paymaster-General.
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman said that I would be familiar with the matter. Indeed, I had the benefit of listening to his earlier speech on the subject when the Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order was before the House. He has raised a point which may appear to have practical importance and, therefore, it is worthy of being considered tonight. It is the problem of the relationship between the reprising provisions of the code and the Trade Descriptions Act. Although it is

  1723
  an important matter, I am not sure that it arises directly from the Bill.
  Be that as it may, it is our view that if the difficulty to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention arises it is open to the shopkeeper to ensure that he complies with the reprising requirements of the code without at the same time committing an offence under section 11(2) of the Trade Descriptions Act. If a shopkeeper feels that it is necessary to display similar goods on his shelf at two different prices, he can display a notice which makes it clear that not all the goods are offered at the same price.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Where?
  Mr. Maclennan: On the shelf or on the wall.
  There is considerable flexibility in the reprising provision and in the specific exemptions from the scope of the code. The Price Commission was given discretion in paragraph 77(a) of the code to allow customary trade practices when they were not against the consumer interest. I understand that the commission will be in consultation with the trade about the matter and that it will be providing information on how it should be interpreted.
  The amendment is based upon the argument that any price-marking requirements under Clause 4 will exacerbate the problem of the shopkeeper in trying to observe the two provisions simultaneously. That is the nub of the hon. Gentleman's concern. He must recognise, however, that if there are to be similar goods on the shelf at different prices—and under the provision of paragraph 77(a) that is a possibility—it is all the more important that there should be a clear form of price marking so that the shopper knows the position. If we were to accept the amendment, no clear indication would be given.
  In these circumstances it is of even more importance that we should operate the provisions of Clause 4 in respect of price marking. The reprising provision makes it clear that marking is necessary not only as part of the general process of educating the shopping public about what is going on but in ensuring that the shopper knows what price he is paying for each item.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I must admit that the hon. Gentleman is succeeding in bemusing me. Am I to understand that the supermarket to which he refers is to have at the edge of the shelf a notice stating "10p but in some cases 9p"? If so, I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that we are talking about a very small space. I hope that it will be possible for shoppers to obtain spectacles under the National Health Service to enable them to read the notice.
  Further, the hon. Gentleman said that the Price Commission was empowered to observe and make allowance for customary trade practices. What does that mean? Does it mean that, because edge-of-shelf pricing is a customary trade practice, the practice of adjusting prices and over-labeling to avoid having two similar packages at different prices on the same shelf will continue to be permitted? Is that what he is saying?
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is laboring the point a little. He has raised a real difficulty about the prices shown on the shelves. My submission is that it is more important in that case that there should be clear price marking. If the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there will be confusion, I submit that his suggestion would make it even worse. In these circumstances, I must ask the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I think that will prove to be a hilarious reply when it is published. The Minister has confirmed what I suspected: that we are up against one of those insurmountable difficulties which constantly rear their heads when we try to indulge in such follies of legislation. He has confirmed my suspicion that this arrangement will help to bring the general proposition into contempt. For that reason alone I am delighted to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, which might otherwise have the effect of depriving us of that simple amusement. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 15, in page 5, line 37, leave out from '(4)' to 'shall' in line 39 and insert:
  'In the application of this section to Northern Ireland for any reference to the Secretary of State there shall be substituted a reference

  1725
  to the Department of Commerce for Northern Ireland and any order made by the Department under this section'.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

Clause 5

  PRICE RANGE NOTICES
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 6, line 1, leave out Clause 5.
  I am sure that this clause has been included in the Bill with the laudable intention of keeping consumers as well informed as is possible. This is an objective with which we on this side of the House absolutely concur. We are concerned because we think that, in addition to the confusion, already discussed in detail in Committee, which will arise from the display of maximum price notices and lists of statutory or voluntary promotional offers, these price range lists will not be practical or helpful in the form described.
  The mind boggles at some of the impracticalities involved. In the first place, how will medium and small-sized shops be able to keep pace with a whole range of prices and scores of items of fresh and processed foods, changing as they do from day to day and week to week? How will they be able to translate these quickly and put them on to wall lists? What will happen if they fall behind and consumers are doubly confused as a result? How are such price range lists to take account of variations in quality?
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Would the hon. Lady not admit that, in view of the inflation which prevailed under the last Government, shopkeepers have had a great deal of experience of changing prices upwards very quickly?
  Mrs. Oppenheim: I am sure that they have learned a great deal more since, because we have had the highest-ever recorded rise in the retail price index under this Government. No doubt their experience has been greatly increased.
  The problem for small shopkeepers is even greater. Are they to advertise on notices on their walls that goods which they sell can be obtained more cheaply elsewhere? What will it cost them to put these lists up? I mention this having in mind a small shopkeeper in my consti-
  1726
  tuency who is a pensioner. This ties in with what we were discussing earlier.
  We are not alone in our concern about these price range lists. The Grocer of 1st June had a headline
  "Shirley's Poster Plan comes Unstuck".
  The story said:
  "Grocery distributors were still reeling after a meeting called by the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, at which they were told of plans to make them post up notices in shop windows giving price ranges …".
  It was pointed out that about 19 different types of cheese were subsidised and most shops did not sell half of them. There were also enormous variations in the price of butter, depending on the make and brand.
  Other problems concerned the cost of publishing all the various posters, showing different prices every week or even more often, and how a voluntary chain, for example, would organise itself to get this ever-changing material to 4,000 retailers simultaneously. Other explanatory points made to the Minister of State included the difference between own-label and branded products, the possibility that traders would be accused of profiteering and the impossibility of organising price ranges for up to 80 grocery items on a regular basis—which would in any case be virtually meaningless to housewives. Of course they would be.
  Then there is the question of how this is to be enforced. How many extra staff would have to be taken on in the trading standards offices to enforce these extremely complicated regulations? It is impossible for consumers, shopping under pressure, to consult labyrinthine lists on walls about maximum prices, price ranges, statutory offers authorised by the Government, even if they have extremely determined powers of observation. They would have to shop not only with a heavy shopping basket and, as is so often the case, three noisy children but with a notebook and pencil, a pocket calculator and a pair of long-distance reading glasses.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. William Molloy: I am sure the hon. Lady will recall her right hon. Friend the Member for Lowest (Mr. Prior), when he was a Minister advocating—he forgot about the children and the perambulator and the heavy

  1727
  shopping basket—that people should shop around, traipse from shop to shop and so on. Would she not agree that under this clause the small trader will probably be enabled to be more exacting and discriminating about what sort of prices he will take from his wholesaler, which could make a general contribution to counteracting inflation?
  Mrs. Oppenheim: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that for several reasons the small trader cannot offer the lowest price in the range and, therefore, in most cases he will be advertising on his wall that the goods can be bought at a lower price elsewhere.
  Consumers are infuriated when they buy an article and then see it offered for sale somewhere else for several pence less. There may or may not be a good reason for that. If not, the consumer is right to be furious about it. The consumer always has the choice of being able to shop regularly in the shop which sells at the lowest price. People with night storage heaters must wish that they had that choice.
  The price range list will not tell consumers what they want to know. It will tell them that the goods are available at a lower price, but it will not tell them where, and it will not tell them why the shop in which they are shopping is charging a price higher than that which is charged somewhere else. It is not practicable for that information to be displayed on a list. The consumers may be completely misled about the shop, although there may be a perfectly feasible explanation for the dearer prices.
  My hon. Friends and I believe that the right place for the provision of this information is either through a telephone price advice bureau, so that consumers can jot down precisely the information they re-require and no other and can be told where prices are cheaper and why prices are dearer, or an authorised advice bureau, where, once again, the information can be presented clearly and simply and, where necessary, isolated. Contrary, possibly, to the good intentions of the Government, the clause will cause confusion to consumers rather than help them.
  I have a list of 80 items issued by the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection from which I will pick two or
  1728
  three price ranges. On the item "ham, not shoulder" the price variation is between 70p and 100p. That is an enormous variation, and one can imagine the fury of the consumer at having to pay 100p. There is obviously an explanation for that because it is an allowable variation. There is another item called "broiler, lean, frozen". I thought that "broiler" was an American expression, and I am horrified to see it. That can vary in price between 21p and 29p. Many consumers would think that that was a wide variation, and it would annoy them considerably. There would be no explanation for that.
  These lists will serve to confuse consumers, and they are considerably to the disadvantage of consumers, and we, therefore, have a duty to attempt to remove the clause from the Bill.
  Mr. Graham: The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) says that the shopper will be even more confused by the proposals than she is at present and that the provision of more information on prices is likely to be to the detriment of the shopper. The inference is that because the shopper is told that she can buy more cheaply elsewhere she will automatically go elsewhere and the shopkeeper will be disadvantaged.
  I accept that the small shopkeeper may be disadvantaged, but the picture that has been painted is that uniformity of prices is possible at the present time. An interesting exercise was carried out by a Sunday newspaper which investigated blanches of a large chain store in the Greater London area. The following variations in the price of the various stores in the chain were found on the same day. Ten Bill pads bought in one store cost 11p and in another store 17½ p. Harpic was 13p in one shop and in another 14p. Packets of Flash were 19½p and 26½p. Fairy Liquid was 22½p and 26½p. Starch was 12½p and 15p. No wonder shoppers go round the bend when they see variations like that.
  The newspaper gave the acceptable explanation that the variations were accounted for by promotional offers and end-of-line goods. The hon. Lady cannot pretend that merely providing information—not manipulating prices or directing the shopper where to go—will cause the confusion she suggests.
  Mr. Silvester: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the article which appeared in the Observer. Most of the items he quoted were special offers made for a limited period. Is he aware that under the Bill it will still be highly desirable for a manufacturer to promote an item and at the end of the promotional period to return to the original price? What change is the hon. Gentleman suggesting from the existing position?
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I was about to ask the hon. Gentleman in what way these price range notices would simplify the situation. All they would do would be to confirm what the consumers had already observed for themselves. The cases mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are not contravening any particular practice, for the reasons he gave. In other words, what was in the newspaper would be put on the wall, and I do not see how it would help the consumer.
  Mr. Graham: I think the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) and the hon. Member for Gloucester have really made the same point. They suggest that the present legislative provisions already relate to this kind of practice and that anything further would not do a great deal to alter the situation. I was trying to make the point that, by virtue of practices carried out in the trade, the shopper already faces difficulties when he or she seeks to shop to the best advantage. I am not envisaging a whole number of goods over which there would be a range of prices. First, we shall start with the subsidised commodities, and then we shall move slowly and seek to extend the range.
  A great many people are familiar with those shops where they can get goods at the bottom end of the scale and the shops where goods are sold at the top end of the scale. I am suggesting that we should maximise the aids available to the shopper. We believe that in a competitive way traders will respond to the fact that they are now under some obligation to make sure that shoppers are given as much information as possible.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: We are making heavy weather over very little. I have been associated with distribution for about 30 years, and it is accepted that people follow a pattern
  1730
  of shopping. Some people will patronise a small shop because of particular advantages, irrespective of the price of the goods in that shop. Some people will go to a particular shop, knowing full well that the prices are dearer there, just because they want to shop with an exclusive clientele. We know that there are bound to be variations in prices which apply shop by shop. However, if we take the Opposition's advice and delete this provision, we should pursue in some detail the suggestion that we should set up all types of bureau where information about prices can be obtained.
  Reference has been made to promotional features and to an article in the Sunday Press. It was accepted that promotional activities of this kind would be continued by traders. So we get to the position suggested by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim).
  For the purpose of graphical illustration, let me name a firm. Supposing Tesco decides to do the same as the firms referred to in the newspaper article about which we have heard. Let us suppose that it decides to do it next week and the week after, and it promotes a range of goods at different prices. Let us suppose, further, that I telephone the information bureau and ask as a shopper where I can buy a tin of baked beans and at what price. The person manning the information bureau and responsible for giving me the precise information will tell me that if I go to Tesco I can get a tin of baked beans at the lowest price, which is 6½p. But I shall also be told that I had better be careful because I shall have to go to branch A of Tesco, that if I go to branch B the price will be 7p, and that if I go to branch C it will be 10p.
  The difficulties in that kind of situation, on the basis of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Gloucester, are far greater than if we continued the present policy of putting the onus on the shopkeeper to display a range of prices of goods.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Lead bitter: I have a simple question which I wish to put to the Minister but which I shall try to answer myself as I go along. At the moment, I do not know the answer. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to help me, because I for one want to

  1731
  make the maximum possible contribution to help the consumer.
  The implementation of Clause 5 depends upon the passing of an order in the form of a statutory instrument, which presumably will have to be laid before this House and be subject either to the affirmative or to the negative procedure. The procedure to be adopted is of little consequence. But an order has to be made.
  What puzzles me is how my right hon. Friend can inform the whole of the retail trade, which runs into many thousands of units and consists of small and medium-sized shopkeepers and the multiples. All of them will have to be informed of the range of prices that they will have to display once they have been given notice. That will necessarily involve a certain period of time following the placing of the necessary order before this House.
  Past practice and experience shows that all other forms of information about retail prices have been supplied on the basis of a monthly calculation. To my knowledge, my right hon. Friend does not have the necessary machinery in her Department anyway. How can she inform the retail trade, through the procedure laid down in Clause 5, of the range of prices in such a way that will make sense after she has laid the order? The likelihood is that the prices will be out of date in any event.
  I commend my right hon. Friend for wanting to make a contribution to the effort to control prices. I am sure that there is no real division of opinion in this House about that. But I shall be interested to hear how it is proposed to give the trade information which is still valid and not out of date.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: The principle of the amendment was fully discussed in Committee but it might help if I say something about it again.
  There is at any time a considerable range of prices which varies from supermarket to corner shop, even for subsidised goods. The difficulty for any Government is to deal with a situation in which we no longer have resale price maintenance, which none of us wants back, and there are flexible pricing arrangements according to different shops.
  1732
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) said, people make a habit of shopping in particular shops, perhaps because of service or convenience, and are prepared to pay more. In the case of subsidised goods and certain others, however, one wants to ensure that maximum prices will be displayed by law and there will be a range to indicate to people that they are not always expected to pay the maximum price.
  It is the Government's intention that price ranges will be used, at least at first, in respect of subsidised goods. In any other instance we should wish to consult the trade. The maximum price of subsidised goods does not change rapidly. The price would be held until applications had been made to the Price Commission, considered by it for up to 28 days, approved and then offset by subsidy. I have made it clear that we do not subsidise goods except on the basis of cost increases approved by the Price Commission.
  Therefore, the apparently forceful point of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Lead bitter), in practice, certainly for subsidised goods but also for many others in respect of which the range changes slowly, is not crucial or important. For example, the price of subsidised milk was held for many months. The price has hardly changed for many years and it is expected that the present price will last for many months.
  Thus, in the most important sector—subsidised goods—there is no reason why the provisions in the Bill for consultation and negative procedure cannot be satisfied. The difficulty of course is that if one puts a maximum price for subsidised goods or those which are relatively stable in price in a shop which could sell well below that maximum price, the consumer is led to believe that that is the price. It would be nonsense for the Government to set a maximum price of 14½p a loaf in shops which could sell at 10½p, l1p or 12½p. That would be a force which drove prices up, not down.
  Therefore a price range—I do not understand why such exception should be taken to it—tells the consumer, as is a fact of modern shopping life, that prices vary from shop to shop. I appreciate that there are difficulties in asking the trade

  1733
  to do this widely, and that traders would often object, but I am determined that we shall make familiar to consumers the concept of price ranges so that they realise the degree of choice they have in the prices they pay. In particular, I believe this can best be done in respect of many goods by widely publicising such price ranges, as is already done by some of the most enterprising local newspapers and also through local radio stations and so on.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) said that she thought that one efficient way of doing this—and I agree with her—was through the telephone service, and we have already instituted a pilot telephone service for giving information about movements of prices in London, with the intention of spreading it throughout the country as soon as we have been able to iron out the initial problems. We are, therefore, already doing what the hon. Lady asked for. No Government have gone that far.
  We intend therefore to make information as widely available as possible to the consumer. We are already in the process of setting up well over 100 consumer advice centers, and we want those advice centers to be able to give consumers information about prices ranges. In an age when shopping is often complex and when it is not right to ask shoppers to shop around, the greatest possible information should be given to them, and I believe this can be done.
  Of course, this can be done sensibly through using the mass media, the town halls, advice centers and so on. For this purpose we need price ranges. The information is already available, as it has been for many years, to Government Departments. The Department of Employment alone collects information on the prices of 80 items of foodstuffs every month, and I think it is high time that this sort of information was made available to housewives and not kept locked up in Government Departments for the
  purposes of producing statistical tables. That is why Clause 5 is in the Bill—not because we intend to create the kind of wild jungle that the hon. Member for Gloucester talks about.
  It would be impossible to display price ranges for every single item in every possible shop, but to take the powers to display price ranges leaves wide open the choice of goods and the extent to which one can ask shops to comply. In respect of goods other than subsidised goods, we intend to consult the trade.
  Discussions that we have had with consumer organisations, at least one of which made a very detailed study of the position and of the use of price ranges, in a country which has had some success in the battle against inflation—namely. West Germany—have persuaded us that the use of price ranges has been an important weapon against inflation and it is the intention of the Government to make available to our consumers all the weapons that we can find which have been so very successful in other countries. I commend Clause 5 to the House.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I do not think the right hon. Lady's answer has been very satisfactory. If it had been intended to restrict the display of these price range lists only to subsidised items she could have done that under Clause 2. Because she wants to extend it beyond that, she needs Clause 5. We do not want to keep the information locked up in Departments. We are merely saying that to display these complicated ranges in shops in addition to other information is not the best way of helping consumers. Indeed, it will often deceive them. It will make them shop around more than ever as they go searching for the lower end of the price range, which they may never even find.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 217, Noes 271.

  Division No. 39.]

  AYES

  [9.29 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Bell, Ronald

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)

  Brittan, Leon

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Benyon, W.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Biffen, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Blggs-Davison, John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Atkins, Rt.Hn.Humphrey (Spelthorne)

  Boscawen, Hon. Robert

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Banks, Robert

  Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)

  Burden, F. A.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Percival, Ian

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Channon, Paul

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hunt, John

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Churchill, W. S.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)

  James, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jenkin, Rt.Hn.P. (R'dgeW'std&W'fd)

  Redmond, Robert

  Clegg, Walter

  Jessel, Toby

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Cockcroft, John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Renton,Rt. Hn. SirDavid(H't'gd'ns're)

  Cope, John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Renton R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

  Cordle, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Corrie, John

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Costain, A. P.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Roberts Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)

  Crouch, David

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Roberts Wyn (Conway)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Lamont, Norman

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Lane, David

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dixon, Piers

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

  Shaw. Giles (Pudsey)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Durant, Tony

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Shersby, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stamford)

  Silvester, Fred

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Sims, Roger

  Elliott, Sir William

  Loveridge, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Emery, Peter

  Luce, Richard

  Smith, Cyril (Rockdale)

  Eyre. Reginald

  MacArthur, Ian

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

  Farr, John

  MacGregor, John

  Sproat, lain

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McLaren, Martin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)

  Stanley, John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  McNalr-WiIson, Michael (Newbury)

  Steel, David

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

  Madel, David

  Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Waver tree)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchln)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Marten, Neil

  Stokes, John

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton Coldfleld)

  Mather, Carol

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Maude, Angus

  Tapsell, Peter

  Gardiner, George (Reigate&Banstead)

  Mawby, Ray

  Taylor, Edward M. (Gl'gow, C'cart)

  Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David

  Mayhew,Patrick(RoyalT' bridgeWells)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Gilmour,Rt.Hn.lan(Ch'sh'&Amsh'm)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'dltch)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mills, Peter

  Townsend C. D.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Trotter, Neville

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Goodlad, A.

  Moate, Roger

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Gorst, John

  Money, Ernie

  Viggers, Peter

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Monro, Hector

  Waddington, David

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Wakeham, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Gray, Hamish

  Morgan, Geraint

  Wall, Patrick

  Grieve, Percy

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Walters, Dennis

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Grist, Ian

  Mudd, David

  Wells, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Winstanley, Dr. Michael

  Gurden, Harold

  Newton, Tony (Braintree)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hall, Sir John

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nott, John

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Hampson, Dr. Keith

  Onslow, Cranley

  Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

  Hannam John

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Younger, Hn. George

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)

  Mr. Michael Joplin and

  Henderson. Barry (Dunbartonshire's.)

  Pattie Geoffrey

  Mr. Marcus Fox.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Boothroyd. Miss Betty

  Carter, Ray

  Allaun, Frank

  Bottomed, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Archer, Peter (Wally, Wert)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradley, Tom

  Cremation, Ivor

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Cocks, Michael

  Atkinson, Norman

  Brown,Bob(NewcastleuponTyne,W)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Bagier, Gordon, A. T.

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Brown, Ronald (H kney, S. & Sh'ditch)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

  Buchan, Norman

  Conlan, Bernard

  Bates, Alf

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow.Springbrn)

  Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwo

  Butler,Mrs.Joyce(H'gey,WoodGreen)

  Cox, Thomas

  Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport,

  Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wich)

  Cralgen, J. M. (Ggow, Maryhlll)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Campbell, Ian

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cant, R. B.

  Cronin, John

  Booth, A'bart

  Carmichael, Nell

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  1736

  1737

  Cryer, G. R.

  Jay. Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Prescott. John

  Cunningham,G.(lsl'ngt'n,S&F'sb'ry)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Price, Christopher (Lewlsham, W.)

  Cunningham,Dr.JohnA.(Whiteh'v'n-)

  Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  John, Brynmor

  Radice, Giles

  Davidson, Arthur

  Johnson, James(K'ston upon Hull,W)

  Reid, George

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Davies, Denzll (Llanelli)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

  Judd, Frank

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Kelley, Richard

  Rooker, J. W.

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kerr, Russell

  Roper, John

  Dempsey, James

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rose, Paul B.

  Doig, Peter

  Kinnock, Nell

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lambie, David

  Rowlands, Edward

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sedge more, Bryan

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lamont, James

  Selby, Harry

  Dunn, James A.

  Latham, Arthur(CityofW'minsterP ton)

  Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, llford, S.j

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lawson. George (Motherwell&Wlshaw)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney&P'plar)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

  Lead bitter, Ted

  Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lee, John

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham,D'ford)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Silkin,Rt.Hn.S.C.(S'hwark,Dulwlch)

  Edge, Geoff

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Sillars, James

  Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

  Silverman, Julius

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  English, Michael

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Snape, Peter

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Evans, John (Newton)

  McElhone, Frank

  Stallard, A. W.

  Ewing, Harry (Stling.F'kirk&G'm'th)

  MacFarquhar. Roderick

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Faulds, Andrew

  McGuire, Michael

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stone house, Rt. Hn. John

  Flannery, Martin

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Stott, Roger

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Strang, Gavin

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Madden, M. O. F.

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Ford, Ben

  Magee, Bryan

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Forrester, John

  Mahon, Simon

  Swain, Thomas

  Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekln)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Tierney, Sydney

  Freeson, Reginald

  Marquand, David

  Tinn, James

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Tomlinson, John

  Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

  Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh.W'wch.E)

  Tomney, Frank

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Meacher, Michael

  Torney, Tom

  George, Bruce

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Tuck, Raphael

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mendelson, John

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ginsburg, David

  Mikardo, Ian

  Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.

  Golding, John

  Mlllan, Bruce

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)

  Graham, Ted

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Molloy, William

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Grant, John (Islington, C.)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Watkins, David

  Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightslde)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  watt, Hamish

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Moyle, Roland

  Weitzman, David

  Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Well beloved, James

  Hamling, William

  Murray, Ronald King

  White, James

  Hardy, Peter

  Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

  Whitehead Phillip

  Harper, Joseph

  Oakes, Gordon

  Whitlock William

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Ogden, Eric

  Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hattersley, Roy

  O'Malley, Brian

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hatton, Frank

  Orbach, Maurice

  Williams, Alan Lee(Hvrng, Hchurch)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ovenden, John

  Williams,Rt.Hn. Shirley(H'f'd&St'ge)

  Henderson,Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're.E)

  Owen, Dr. David

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Hooley, Frank

  Padley, Walter

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)

  Horam, John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Woodall, Alec

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Park. George (Coventry, N.E.)

  Woof, Robert

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Wrlgglesworth, Ian

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

  Parry, Robert

  Young, David (Bolton, E.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I.EdgeHill)

  Pendry, Tom

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

  Phipps, Dr. Colin

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Jackson Colin

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

  Janner, Greville

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With regard to the points of order that were raised during the Division on new Clause 1, I
  1738
  undertook to make inquiries and check whether the proper allotment of time had been allowed for each stage of the Division. I have now made inquiries and I am satisfied, having checked the timing

  1739
  from two independent sources, that the proper allotment of time was allowed.
  Amendment made: No. 17, in page 6, line 18, at end insert—
  '(4) Subsection (4A) of section 2 above shall apply to an order under this section as it applies to an order under subsection (1)(a) of that section except that consultation shall not be required as to the prices to be included in any order as constituting a range of prices applicable to goods of any description'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]

Clause 8

  FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
  Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 7, line 3, leave out 'by virtue of an order under section 1(7) above' and insert:
  'or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by virtue of an order under section 1(7) above or paragraph 1A of the Schedule to this Act'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendments No. 21, 22 and 23.
  Mr. Maclennan: I must apologise to the House for introducing this substantial provision at a late stage. Large sums of public money are at stake, and it is the Government's duty to see that the Bill contains adequate safeguards in respect of the money which is paid out in subsidy.
  The purpose of the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 21, is to extend the existing enforcement provision so that the Secretary of State or the Minister concerned may prescribe by order the:
  "… conditions to be observed by any person who claims or receives subsidy payments …".
  The amendment also extends the provision to the recipient of the goods or subsequent trade purchasers of subsidised goods. Once such an order has been made the recipient of the subsidy will have to give written notice of the condition to any purchaser. The second purchaser will have to give similar notice if he sells to a subsequent purchaser, and so on. Breach of the conditions or failure to give the required notice will constitute an offence. In addition, the Minister concerned is empowered to require the refund of a sum not exceeding the amount of subsidy diverted from its proper use.
  1740
  The difficulty arises in particular when a subsidised product may pass through the hands of several people who are not in a direct contractual relationship with the Minister. We propose to strengthen the enforcement provisions not because there is any evidence of leakage of the subsidy but because the sums involved are very large and because the price relativities in respect of milk, in particular, have widened as a result of the introduction of the subsidy. For example, milk for liquid consumption is now 16·6p per gallon compared with 21·7p per gallon for milk for manufactured products.
  These proposals will ensure that public funds are not misdirected, and I hope that they will be acceptable to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

  SHORT TITLE AND INTERPRETATION
  Amendment made: No. 20 in page 7, line 11, at end insert—
  '(4) No provision of the Act requiring consultation by the Secretary of State for any purpose shall be construed as requiring further consultation where the Secretary of State is satisfied that there has been sufficient consultation for that purpose before the passing of this Act'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]

Schedule

  ENFORCEMENT
  Amendments made: No. 21, in page 8, line 8, at end insert—
  '1A.—(1) The Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may, by an order made for the purposes of this paragraph in respect of subsidy payments of any description, prescribe conditions to be observed by any person—

  (a) who claims or receives subsidy payments of that description; or

  (b) to whom any food is sold otherwise than by retail, being food in respect of which subsidy payments of that description have been or can be made, and to whom notice of the conditions has been given under this paragraph.

  (2) A person who has sold food otherwise than by retail shall not be entitled in respect of that food to any subsidy payments of a description to which an order under this paragraph applies unless he has given the purchaser notice of the conditions required to be observed by him under this paragraph; and if a person sells otherwise than by retail food in respect of which he has claimed

  1741
  or received subsidy payments of any such description, or in relation to which he has himself received a notice under this paragraph, he shall give a like notice to the purchaser.
  (3) Any notice under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be in writing and given not later than the time when the goods are delivered pursuant to the sale.
  (4) If any person knowingly contravenes a condition required to be observed by him under this paragraph or fails to give any notice which he is required to give under sub-paragraph (2) above he shall be—

  (a) guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400; and

  (b) liable to pay to the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on demand, a sum not exceeding the subsidy payments made in respect of the food to which the contravention relates.

  (5) The power to make an order under this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and includes power to vary or revoke a previous order; and a statutory instrument containing an order under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (6) This paragraph is without prejudice to the matters that may be included in a scheme under section 1 of this Act and to the imposition of any condition, as a matter of contract, on persons who claim or receive subsidy payments.
  (7) In this paragraph "subsidy payments" means any payment under a scheme under section 1 of this Act and any allowance made by a Board as defined in Article 2(1) of the Order mentioned in subsection (3) of that section in respect of milk supplied by it in the year there mentioned'.
  No. 22, in page 8, line 20, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
  '(b) whether any condition required to be observed under paragraph 1A above has been contravened.'.
  No. 23, in page 11, line 17, leave out 'there mentioned' and insert:
  'mentioned in paragraph 1A(7) above'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]
  9.45 p.m.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: 1 beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have elucidation of the situation regarding this debate? It will not have escaped your notice that, while the larger part of the Bill relates to the departmental responsibility of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, Clause 6 relates exclusively to the responsibilities
  1742
  of the Department of Employment. But no representative of the Department of Employment is present.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The hon. Gentleman has already said enough to indicate that that is not a point of order. The Government will choose the spokesmen they wish to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I fully appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order, however, for a representative of the Department of Employment—1 see that one is belatedly coming into the Chamber to join us—to intervene in the debate to deal with matters in Clause 6 directly connected with his departmental responsibility?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the Minister
  made an effort to catch my eye, he would probably be successful.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will not have escaped your notice that in the last two Divisions a considerable number of Members from the various Opposition parties were missing. It seems to me that in this kind of situation, in which the Government are achieving such massive majorities, it would be best for the Third Reading of the Bill to be given formally and we could then take one or two measures associated with it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mrs. Williams: I shall speak very briefly. I simply want to say that we commend the Bill to the House. We believe that it has been considerably improved in Committee and on Report. We believe that it will have an effect in reducing prices. It enables us to bring forward food subsidies which have already saved 5p in the pound. We believe that the further powers with regard to display and price ranges are important in informing the consumer.
  9.50 p.m.
  Mr. Channon: I would like to say a little on the matter while dealing with Third Reading, and I believe that I am entitled to do so. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members who are not interested in the debate will leave the Chamber—
  Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is being deliberately offensive. There are hon. Members on this side who were in the Chamber for far longer during the debate than he was.
  Mr. Channon: I am not trying to be offensive to any hon. Member of the House. I am merely telling the House—[Interruption.] I am not apologising. I intend to say a few things about the Bill, and I am sure that those hon. Members who are interested will remain and no doubt those who are not will go.
  I do not wish to oppose Third Reading but I hope that the House and, certainly, the country realise how ineffective the Government's actions in this respect will be. We have heard a great many words about the Government's action on prices, yet we have seen little action. [Interruption.] This is strictly related to the Third Reading of the Bill—
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I noted that through the Committee stage and again in the debate today there has been considerable criticism of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to say something which he has not said at any previous stage; namely, what the Opposition did in the past about inflation. This Bill, however limited, tries to do something. We hope to hear in the short time which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is to take the Opposition's views about inflation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). If he goes beyond the content of the Bill he will be in trouble.
  Mr. Channon: I seem to be in trouble whatever I do. I shall, naturally, follow your ruling very carefully Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope within the confines imposed to be allowed to say a few words. We have to face the fact that the total action by the Government since they came into office has had the effect not of reducing prices but of putting them up. The total effect of the Government's actions have been, in a number of sectors, to put up the retail price index, as we saw on the day we rose for the Whitsun Recess. There has been the largest rise in the retail price index since records have
  1744
  been kept. That was after the Government had been in office for about three months. The May rise in the retail price index was a record. So much for the Government's protestations that they are taking effective action on prices.
  Why did the retail price index go up? The total effect of the Government's action put up the index. The announcements in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget on 26th March had the direct effect of putting up the retail price index by an amount never seen since records have been kept. What will this Bill do against that sort of background of prices shooting up as a direct result of the Government's action? What can the Bill do to help in these circumstances?
  I feel I can carry both sides of the House with me on at least one matter. Both sides share the same aim in that we want to do something effective to contain inflation, if ways can be found to do that. [Interruption.] At least the retail price index did not go up by the same amount when we were in office. The retail price index in May went up in one month more than in any single month since 1947 when records began. [Interruption.] I am attempting to treat the House seriously. The index went up because of the direct effect of the announcements in the Budget speech. That is the precise reason, and anyone who challenges it has merely to look at the retail price index and the make-up of it to see that that is exactly true and that it was the reason why the index went up. Both sides of the House share the same aim. We wish to contain inflation. We all want to protect the less-well-off during a time of severe inflation.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Some more than others.
  Mr. Channon: I think it is common ground between both sides—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Speak for yourself."] I am trying to speak for myself but not finding it at all easy. I am doing my best and I shall go on trying to speak for myself. However, the Government take the view that indiscriminate food subsidies are a good way of helping those who are worse off. Such subsidies, which account for a good deal of the Bill, are an inefficient way of helping those who are worse off. They are expensive for the taxpayer and their cost-effectiveness is extremely low.

  1745
  Food subsidies give the same help to rich and poor alike.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: No, they do not.
  Mr. Channon: They help rich and poor alike. For example they help overseas visitors, they help those who eat out in hotels and restaurants. They are open-ended in cost. If the Government use the powers that they have taken in this measure, the food subsidy bill will be running at the rate of £700 million this year. Inflation will be at just under 20 per cent. What does that mean for next year? Does it mean that there will be food subsidies of the order of £1,000 million?
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Why not?
  Mr. Channon: That is interesting. Is it the policy of the Government to have a food subsidy of £1,000 million a year?
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The rich taxpayers will pay it.
  Mr. Channon: Exactly. Am I right in understanding it to be the policy of the Government that food subsidies should go up to £1,000 million, with inflation running at 20 per cent. a year and with the cost being met by increased taxation? We shall be grateful to have confirmation of that from the Government Front Bench as opposed to the Government back benches. If that is what they propose, I am surprised that the powers will run out so quickly. Why not have power to keep them on for longer? We are, to use a famous phrase, entitled to an answer.
  What is to be the Government's policy at the conclusion of this period? Do they propose, with inflation running at this high rate, to carry on food subsidies in ever-increasing amounts, paid for by ever-increasing taxation? Is that the prospect they put before the British people? Even Sir Stafford Cripps found it impossible in the late 1940s to go on with indiscriminate food subsidies at that rate. I believe there are signs that food subsidies are in danger of leading to shortages in the shops. There is already said to be a shortage of liquid milk which will lead to a shortage of cheese.
  Mr. Thomas Swain: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Dairy Council has announced that there is no possibility of a shortage of
  1746
  liquid milk or cheese in the next two years?
  Mr. Channon: I have not seen that announcement. If it is true, it is encouraging. The information I have is that there are already shortages of milk and there are indications that in the autumn of this year there is likely to be a shortage of cheese.
  This policy leads to unfair competition. There are situations in which the small shopkeepers have been penalised. There are all sorts of unintended side effects from the operation of indiscriminate food subsidies. This can be only a temporary expedient. The long-term plan of any British Government should be to make sure that there will be a plentiful supply of food for our people. It is essential for any Government to help farmers to produce more of our food than they do at present.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Prices Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Mr. Channon: I am sure that that would be the greatest boon to the consumer in the long run. That might not be wholly relevant to the Bill, and I do not ask for an answer tonight. Many of the measures in the Bill are short-term palliatives, not long-term solutions to the problems caused for the consumer and the food producer as a result of the Government's actions.
  Some 25,000 tons of foreign cheese is being subsidised this year, a fact which will no doubt please hon. Members. The cost of subsidising that foreign cheese will be of the order of £2 million. Some English cheeses are not subsidised.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the point consistently made in Committee was that the subsidy went not to any manufacturer of foreign cheese but directly to the British housewife? That is what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are opposing.
  Mr. Channon: I have merely said that 25,000 tons of foreign cheese will be subsidised at a cost to the taxpayer of over

  1747
  £2 million when there is much English cheese that will not be subsidised. If hon. Members think that that is a satisfactory situation, they are entitled to their views.
  I estimate that the cheese subsidy saves the average person between 1p and 2p per week. The average saving achieved by the butter subsidy is less than 2p per person per week and by the bread subsidy about 5p per person per week. The 1p that the Government put on the milk subsidy will save just over 5p per week per person, and the 1p which the Conservative Government put on will also save 5p per week per person.
  There are many price increases in the pipeline—for example, electricity price increases—and they more than wipe out the gain from these subsidies. Government spokesmen have admitted that more than three quarters of the benefit will go to households with incomes of above £30 a week and only one-quarter to households with incomes below £30 a week. More than £500 million of the £700 million will go to households with incomes above £30 a week, and £168 million will go to households with incomes below £30 a week. It is the classic situation of the subsidy not being effective in helping those who are worst off—which is presumably the intention of a subsidy.
  I concede that this has to be paid for out of taxation. Taxation has had to go up massively to pay for the food subsidies. Direct taxation on a single person earning as little as £19 a week has been increased—
  Mr. David Weitzman: If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about it, why did not the Opposition vote in their proper strength in Committee?
  Mr. Channon: We had a sensible and satisfactory series of votes. If we lacked in quantity we made up for it in quality.
  Childless married couples with an income of £34·50 a week have to pay extra tax. Indirect taxation has also had to go up. Indirect taxes have been increased on cigarettes, wines, spirits, petrol, rail fares, electricity, coal and postal charges. The Government have increased the cost of the items which figure highest in the expenditure of those
  1748
  with low incomes. For example, pensioners spend a great deal on electricity and tobacco, the cost of which has not been reduced by the Government. Some items that the Government have subsidised appear comparatively low in the requirements of those on low incomes and pensioners.
  The retail price index, which is directly relevant to the Bill, increased last month alone by 1·75 points as a result of three taxes imposed by the Government in the Budget. The retail price index has gone up faster than ever before since it was first started in 1947.
  Against that, the Government claim that there have been savings as a result of the food subsidies and the rent freeze. The Government may prevent the index from going even higher, but they do not bring it down. Their actions have put up the retail price index. On 20th May the Secretary of State gave an optimistic forecast about curing inflation, as did the Minister of State of few days earlier when he said that Labour was taming inflation, yet only a week later there was the highest increase ever recorded in the retail price index.
  As I have shown, the subsidies introduced in Clause 1 are wholly ineffective. They do not help the people they are designed to help. They are indiscriminate and expensive. They may fool the consumer, but they do not benefit the people they are intended to benefit.
  In Clause 2 the Government have also taken wide-ranging powers. The right hon. Lady gave examples of the use she will make of them. She has her voluntary agreement, but it will achieve very little.
  Mr. J. Grimond: As the hon. Gentleman is making such a devastating attack on the Government, will he not vote against the Third Reading of the Bill?
  Mr. Channon: It would be wrong to vote against Third Reading. We did not vote against Second Reading, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman voted against Second Reading. There may be some marginal benefits in the Bill and I do not wish to oppose it on Third Reading.
  The Bill will achieve little and the voluntary agreement will achieve little.

  1749
  The Bill is designed to confuse and muddle. It will have no effect on prices or upon items which have been promoted in the shops for many months past. We are told that the Bill will help the consumer, but I believe that it will achieve very little for the consumer.
  The Bill is one more example of the charade by which the Government are trying to fool the public in the hope of an early General Election. It is not worth spending any more time on it. It is designed to be a charade under a smokescreen of words and precious little action.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am disappointed in the speech made by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). He gave the impression at the beginning of his remarks that he would tell the House what the Conservatives were prepared to do about inflation, but
  1 heard not a single word on that topic later in his remarks.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Disappointment is a common experience.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: We are now
  embarking on the Third Reading of what is conspicuously a hybrid Bill which involves fully separate and distinct Departments. I refer to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, the Department of Employment and the Department of Prices and Consumer Affairs.
  This kind of debate customarily places the House in a difficult position when hon. Members have to make up their minds on the last stages of a Bill. The view of the Liberal Party is that if the Bill had consisted of only Clauses 2 and 4 we would have wished it a fair wind.
  I would remind the House that Clause 2 enables the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection to achieve her voluntary agreement in regard to the price of basic household items, on which we would like to congratulate her, and Clause 4 provides for a sensible system of unit pricing and price marking which is overdue in a civilized country. However, the expensive part of the Bill, which touches the taxpayer's pocket, provides for a prodigal series of subsidies, many
  1750
  of them on commodities which are already running short. We have it on the authority of the Milk Marketing Board that milk and milk products are already running dangerously short in some parts of the country, and the housewife's choice in milk products is already very severely restricted in many parts of the country.
  It has already been shown—I shall not repeat the figures tonight—that these extremely expensive subsidies for the most part benefit people who would never claim to be in any great need. I wish to spend a few moments dealing with the myth propagated throughout discussions on this measure that the subsidies are being paid for almost exclusively by the higher income group. They are being paid for out of the general fund of steeply increased taxation on all fronts, from sharp increases in the range of VAT, from excise taxes on tobacco and drink, and out of the iniquitously low threshold at which PAYE begins, even after the recent Budget.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does that profound statement on VAT mean that the Liberal Party has come to a view which has been held on the Labour Benches for a long time—namely, that taxes such as VAT perpetuated by the Common Market are highly undesirable?
  Mr. Wainwright: That does not enter into the matter. If purchase tax were still in force, I would say that the subsidies would have to be paid for out of purchase tax, which would affect people on low incomes.
  No shred of evidence has been produced during all our discussions that these subsidies are in any way a scientific attempt to relieve those in real need, and there are many people in that category. The subsidies do not measure up to meeting the social effect which an extension of family allowances would have had. No arguments have been produced at any stage to suggest that they do.
  The worst part of the story about the subsidies is that at the end of March next year there will be an appalling day of reckoning when suddenly those in charge of affairs of State, whoever they may be, will find that they will have to reconcile the British public and the trade unions and others to a massive number

  1751
  of accumulated soaring prices—a situation which has been cosmetically disguised at vast expense for a relatively short period of time. Again we have had no word from the Government during any stage of the Bill to indicate how that situation will be faced. I can only suppose that they hope that someone else will be in their place by then and that they will not have to face it.
  The other objectionable feature of the Bill is the power which has been smuggled in by Clause 6 to abolish the Pay Board. Here again, the time since Second Reading has done nothing to show that the social compact is in any way a satisfactory or watertight replacement for a statutory system of controlling prices and incomes. This gratuitous, well-advertised provision to give special power to abolish the Pay Board is a flight of unreality, and it is interesting that we have not heard from the Government when they intend to invoke that power.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest. He said earlier that it was the considered view of the Liberal Party that
  1752
  the Price Commission as at present constituted was a monstrosity which should be removed. Now he is saying that the Pay Board should be retained.
  Mr. Wainwright: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening he would have known that I was simply objecting to this power. At no time have I endorsed the forms which the Pay Board and the Price Commission take. But there is no merit in a power to abolish the Pay Board without a power to put in its place a more democratic body which is more under the control of this House. We Liberals would like to see a means for the statutory control of incomes under the control of this House and not farmed out to some convenient extra-parliamentary body.
  In view of the massive cost of the subsidies for a very poor return and in view of this power to abolish the Pay Board while putting nothing effective in its place, we Liberals intend to vote against the Bill, always provided that those who believe in talk rather than in action and in speeches rather than in voting do not detain us until such a late hour that it would be unrealistic for us to remain here.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. Cormack: I am delighted to be able to assure the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) that there will be at least one Tory in the Division Lobby voting against the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be overcome by fatigue. This is an important Bill and it is important that hon. Members should have an opportunity to speak about it. It is equally important that speeches should not be curtailed. Therefore, I trust that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends will have the apparent strength, resilience and vigour of their hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and stay until the Division is finally called.
  I am extremely disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who made a very good analysis of the deficiencies of the Bill, does not intend to lead his troops into the Division Lobby against it. I believe the Bill to be the most expensive piece of window-dressing with which Parliament has been confronted for many years.
  As hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will know, I have maintained a reasonably consistent posture. With my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), I have voted against all the subsidy clauses and provisions.
  I welcome part of the Bill. Unit pricing is dear to my heart and I am delighted to see it included in this measure. I congratulate the Secretary of State on bringing it forward because this part of the Bill is extremely sensible. It is a small but effective weapon for the housewife in the battle against inflation. Therefore, it grieves me considerably to vote against a Bill containing that provision. My other convictions will not allow me to support it, however, because I believe that it is a prodigal waste of resources.
  I question neither the integrity nor the good intentions of the Secretary of State. Of course the right hon. Lady wants to do all she can in the battle against inflation. We all do, just as we want to help the old and the needy. But this is not the right way to do it. It is costly and wrong. The Bill provides for an
  1754
  expenditure of £700 million. What will the bill be next year? If inflation increases, who knows what it will be? If it decreases, we shall still face a large bill next year—I suggest in excess of £700 million if the same sort of provisions are brought forward.
  I do not question the right hon. Lady's honour. But she is bringing the Bill forward in the belief—I believe, the mistaken belief—that she will have these responsibilities for some time. Therefore her intention is to commit the British taxpayer to an ever-increasing bill. There are many more effective ways of disposing of £700 million, although I should be out of order in listing them. At this time in our fortunes it might be best to save that money entirely, but if we are to spend it there are certain categories of the needy who deserve special mention. Think what we could do with the money. It represents £100 for every old-age pensioner.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member himself invited me to intervene when he said that I would pull him up if he started to say how the £700 million could be spent. If he would confine himself to the Bill, it would be a great help.
  Mr. Cormack: I was tempted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by the prospect of the pleasure of seeing you on your feet, because your interventions are always charming and to the point. I shall try to relate my remarks to the Bill. With your tolerance and vision, you will agree that it is important to compare expenditure of that size with other ways in which it might help the needy. We could talk about old-age pensioners, the disabled and single-parent families. Food subsidies of £700 million are not the best help for them.
  In my constituency, as in yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, many such people need help but instead will get subsidies to the tune of a few paltry pence a month on their cheese. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West said, much of this cheese is continental—Havarti and all the other types we spoke about in Committee.
  Mr. Biffen: Do not forget Elbo.
  Mr. Cormack: Indeed not. My hon. Friend has developed a taste for that variety. The fact that Blue Stilton is not included—I wonder whether Red Windsor might be—should concern us all.
  The ordinary pensioner and the person on a small fixed income will get some benefit from the Bill but it will be minor and will be paid for from taxation. This taxation will not come from the small category of the wealthy. The Chancellor said in his Budget speech, in effect, that we cannot get much more by taxing the wealthy, even though we are to have a wealth tax.
  Single people earning £19 a week are paying tax, and the hon. Member for Colne Valley was quite correct to draw attention to that matter. Young married couples in my constituency who are struggling with a mortgage and struggling to bring up their children are paying tax. Questions which I put down to the Chancellor a few weeks ago brought out the startling information that most of those families—in fact, all of them earning over £45 a week—are suffering as a result of the policies of the present Government.
  We all know how many increased charges our constituents are having to bear. One does not need to speak at length about rates or night storage heaters to illustrate that the Bill is window-dressing. The Government are not helping people as they could with £700 million at their disposal. If they have that money at their disposal, there are many more effective ways in which people could be assisted.
  It is absolutely essential that the Bill should be voted down, but I fear that it will not be voted down, because there will not be enough Members in the Lobby with myself and a few of my hon. Friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I believe that Parliament—
  Mr. John Ellis: Answer!
  Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun: Answer!
  Mr. Cormack: The hon. Lady and the hon Gentleman know the answer as well as I do. I believe that this is a retrograde step and it is wrong that
  1756
  Parliament should give it even a pseudo seal of approval.
  There are many other things about the Bill that I do not like. The hon. Member for Colne Valley talked about the Pay Board. All I would say about that is that we either have both or we have neither. The Secretary of State said at the Box this afternoon that she is working for a voluntary agreement. I congratulate her. We hope it will work. We hope it will bring benefits to many people. I doubt that it will, but the right hon. Lady certainly has our good wishes. She says, "We are working for a voluntary agreement and I am backing it up with the power of the law." At the same time the Government, because they are forced to do so by their paymasters in the unions, are determined to abolish the apparatus of the Pay Board. It should be neither or both. To have a voluntary approach on one side and compulsion on the other, particularly when it is so organise, seems to me to be essentially politically dishonest. For that reason alone, I hope many hon. Members will be persuaded to think twice before going into the Lobby in support of the Bill.
  Think of the massive bureaucracy that will be needed to enforce the Bill. One does not need to do more than refer to the statement which the right hon. Lady made this afternoon and to consider certain items on which manufacturers will concentrate their promotional activity. It is not the sphere of government to go poking into every High Street shop trying to influence people's taste and distort the market. [HON. MEMBERS: "Distort?"] Hon. Members may scoff, but what is inherently so much better about fish fingers than other forms of protein? What is so much better about instant coffee than tea bags, which incidentally I do not see on the list? Margarine is on the list but some other forms of fat are not. And so we can go on.
  Then we have the items which will be on continuous offer, such as matches—one line—and toilet soap, again one line. Surely that is a distortion of the market. It is all nonsense. When bureaucracy starts spreading its tentacles in this way—
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Tea is on the list, as are butter and margarine.
  Mr. Cormack: I sec that tea is on the list. Tea bags are not.
  This is bureaucracy gone mad. It does not need a particularly good imagination to perceive all sorts of distortion and nonsense flowing from it. I therefore suggest that in passing a measure of this nature, while Labour may feel entitled to be pleased with themselves and light-hearted about it, we are taking a very retrograde step.
  I suggest that we would be serving the interests of the nation far better by concentrating our endeavors and resources on saving the nation's wealth and not squandering it in this way. We should either save the £700 million completely or devote it to much better uses. We could bring before the House a sensible and a small Bill, such as could be translated from Clause 4—which ought to commend itself to at least certain hon. Members on the Government side of the House—and forget this specious, bureaucratic, interfering nonsense. I hope we shall have a goodly representation from the Opposition benches in the Division Lobby with us tonight.
  10.31 p.m.
  Mr. Silvester: In making her statement earlier today, the right hon Lady the Secretary of State, in answer to a question, said "It is very important to appeal to be doing something. It is better to do something than nothing." That is a questionable doctrine when one is considering passing a law which will have wide ramifications for the public in all its forms.
  It is not true that it is necessarily a good thing to do something, as is done in the Bill, if it will give rise to long-term problems for minimal short-term gains. It is not a good thing to do something if one leads people to expect a benefit which will not accrue or if one pretends to deliver something which one is not delivering. It is fair, therefore, that we should consider now whether the Bill will deliver the advantages which the right hon. Lady pretends that she will deliver.
  As it stands, the Bill is condemned on at least three counts. It is quite clear that it will cause some shortages and distortions. I should like to refer the House to The Grocer of this week and to some comments on cheese. It states that it is
  1758
  clear already that supplies of Cheddar are "acutely short." The Grocer also says that the demand for Edam—one of those cheeses which is being subsidised, and the demand for which in the previous week was described as "astronomical"—is now at an all-time high because the cheese is being subsidised and because Holland can supply it.
  The right hon. Lady will remember that in Committee she went to great lengths to say that cheese was not price-elastic. We are already creating substantial distortions of the cheese trade—and not to the advantage of the British cheese producer. The Bill stands condemned on that basis.
  We have had much discussion this evening about the small shopkeeper. No matter how we look at this matter, those who argue that the Bill is placing upon the small shopkeeper very substantial burdens, which we would rather not place upon him if we could possibly avoid doing so, have had the best of the case. As time passes the Bill will be shown to have placed serious burdens upon the small shopkeeper.
  Third, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) rightly pointed out, the Bill stands condemned also because the time will come for these subsidies to go and the housewife will then have to face a bill of very substantial proportions and a shock of great magnitude.
  Let us measure the disadvantages of the Bill against what the right hon. Lady says are the supposed advantages, of which I list four taken from the debate in Committee and on the Floor of the House. They are, first, that the Bill will help to steady or reduce the cost of living; second, that it will help the old and the poor; third, that it will divert substantial promotional sums from the less widely used goods to the more common foods; and fourth, that it will provide useful information to help the housewife in the hunt for better value for money.
  Let us take each of those in turn. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has pointed out, in relation to the first of those supposed advantages—that the Bill will help to steady or reduce the cost of living—that

  1759
  looking at the Bill in isolation is deliberately seeking to mislead the public. We have to take the effect of the Bill in conjunction with all the other effects of the Government's policy. By the Government's own figures and by their mouths, on every occasion, they are forced to admit that the combined effect of Government policy has been to increase the cost of living. To that extent the Bill is therefore at best a palliative and it is not having the effect which is claimed for it of holding steady or reducing the cost of living.
  The second point is that it will help the old and the poor. We have produced many figures on this point. The salient conclusion remains. The vast bulk of the money voted under the Bill will go to people who do not fall into the categories named by the Secretary of State. In fact, £144 million will go to people with incomes of over £50 a week. Only £48 million will go to the old-age pensioners. More than three-quarters of the funds will go to people whose income is over £30 a week.
  If Labour Members pursue, as the Secretary of State has pursued with no credit to herself, the argument that the Government are getting money from the rich through taxation to pay for all this, they are taking a dangerous risk. It is dangerous to seek to divide up the general income from taxation and allot it from one quarter to another. That is the argument about which the motorist has protested over the years in connection with the road fund licence. Hon. Members who wish to spend vast sums on the social services should think about this. It is not the same thing as clawback in the family allowances. We are dealing here with a totally different principle.
  The third point put forward in defence of what the Government are doing is that it will divert substantial sums from the promotion of less widely used goods to more commonly used items. The money for this proposal is coming in the first place from the 10 per cent. cut in the retail margin. The Secretary of State admitted in reply to a Question of mine that at this moment the 10 per cent. is already down to somewhere between 6 per cent. and 8 per cent., and all the evidence is that the money the right hon.
  1760
  Lady says is available is dwindling still further because of the enormous pressures on retailers' margins. The money she speaks of is turning increasingly into fool's gold; it is increasingly illusory.
  To a large extent the bargain that the Secretary of State has struck with the voluntary groups involves only the small shopkeepers who are not included in the 10 per cent. cut in margin and whose resources for making these promotions will be even more slender.
  The other source of the reduction is the money devoted by manufacturers to promotions. There were 671 promotions in 1973 which involved price cutting. Probably less than one-third involved the goods that the Secretary of State has included in her list. She has come to an agreement with the manufacturers, and I have no doubt that they will be as helpful as they can be. But what is the manufacturer to do when he is asked to transfer his promotional funds from goods which he has already included in his budget to those goods on the right hon. Lady's list? It may be possible if he makes both soup and baked beans and can transfer funds from one to the other, but what does he do if he finds that his competitor is still fighting the battle among the unlisted brands and he has to keep up? These funds will not be made available to be diverted in this way.
  This may be a technical point, but the one conclusion arising from all this is that the money available to the Secretary of State from the 10 per cent. cut and the promotional funds is largely diminishing, and where they are not diminishing they are already allocated. There is no extra money available for these promotions. The right hon. Lady said this afternoon that this was all very well but that all she was doing was transferring from less desirable goods to more desirable goods. Who is she to say what are the desirable goods? Most hon. Members here would probably say that among the most undesirable goods were what are generally called convenience foods, the packaged goods for which people tend to pay a premium because they are more convenient than fresh goods.
  The National Food Survey has shown that the proportion of food expenditure by the lower income groups is higher on convenience foods, which are excluded

  1761
  from the list, than on fresh foods. The people making their purchases have made that decision—not the right hon. Lady or her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. She is saying that she knows better which goods should be promoted and which should not. I doubt it. There is no evidence to suggest that substantial moneys will be diverted to goods which people will find of greater benefit.
  The last argument in favour of the Bill is that it will provide useful information to help the housewife in her hunt for best value for money. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) made the point clear. He was unable to indicate, despite his support for having this range of prices in the shops, any way in which the lists will end the confusion that he claims now exists in the housewife's mind about prices. The Bill adds yet another element to the confusion and does not solve the housewife's problem. In a few months we shall regard the price lists as tatty and dog-eared mementoes of a former age which we do not quite understand.
  The whole thing seems so unnecessary. I tabled a series of Questions in which I sought to discover the benefit of the subsidies for various people. I was told that for a couple who are pensioners it is 33p a week and for a household of three or more children it is 74p a week. I was told later that the same benefit could be given in the old-age pension at a cost of £75 million and that slightly more benefit could be given to the large family at a cost of £39 million, making a total of £114 million compared with £380 million.
  The Bill does not deliver what it claims to deliver, and it is unnecessary. The right hon. Lady is clearly the front woman for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I suspect that later she will be the front woman for the Secretary of State for Industry as well. She provides a beneficent appearance, a benign facade, smiling at the electorate.
  Having examined the Bill, I feel that its value disappears before our eyes. I would compare the right hon. Lady with the Cheshire Cat in "Alice in Wonderland", which gradually disappeared as one looked at it until the only thing left was the smile.
  10.44 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Latham: At this stage it is appropriate to discuss only what is in the Bill. I want to address myself to something which is now in the Bill but was not there on Second Reading, and which therefore has never been discussed in principle in the House. I refer to the word "cheese", which now appears in Clause 1(2)(a).
  I take up the whole question of the cheese subsidy for two important reasons. First, I have been pursuing the Secretary of State with Questions on the matter, and therefore it is only right that I should state my views on it in the House. Secondly, it is an important constituency point for me.
  I am completely opposed to cheese subsidies in principle. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said in Committee:
  "I have never disguised the fact that I take a fundamentalist point of view on food subsidies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 2nd May 1974; c. 20.]
  So do I. That represents my view exactly. Taking that point of view, and being opposed to subsidies on food I do not need to hide from what the right hon. Lady said in Committee. The Committee had been discussing the subsidisation of some cheeses of which nobody had ever heard—for example, Elbo, Tybo, Samsoe, Danbo, Havarti, and St. Paulin. The right hon. Lady said that we must subsidise them. She said that if we do not do so we shall be in breach of EEC and GATT regulations. That argument does not impress me.
  I am against the subsidisation of any cheeses irrespective of from where they come. I genuinely believe that the £2·4 million which the right hon. Lady is proposing to allocate this year for the subsidisation of these peculiar foreign cheeses is a waste of money. In an answer to me on 9th May the right hon. Lady said that the subsidy would be £2·4 million. That is 8 per cent. of the total cheese subsidy. If we did not waste the £2·4 million in that way it could well be used for health centers in my constituency.
  The House has had remarkably little and remarkably inadequate information on the cheese subsidy. As a result of Questions which I have been asking the right hon. Lady over the past few weeks

  1763
  it appears that she does not even know how much of the cheese is imported. In answer to a Question from me on 9th May the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
  "Imports of these"—
  that is foreign cheeses—
  "cheeses are not separately distinguished in Her Majesty's Customs Overseas Trade Statistics."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May 1974; Vol. 873, c. 233.]
  The Government do not know how much is involved. They do not know the tonnage that is imported and they do not know the tonnage of consumption. I asked specifically what the estimated tonnage of consumption of these cheeses would be in 1974–75. The right hon. Lady's Under-Secretary of State said that separate estimates are not available. So there again, the Government do not know how much is involved.
  Nor do they know the consumption pattern of the cheeses which they are proposing to subsidise. The Under-Secretary of State, in answer to me, said that in estimating the cost of the cheese subsidy it was assumed that relative levels of consumption would remain unchanged. When I asked how the right hon. Lady calculated her 1973 import figures and if she would give consumption figures in tons, using the same calculations, for each of the last 10 years, the Under-Secretary of State said that the information could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.
  We do not have that information and nor do we know whether the figures which she has given, such as they are—and they are not very many—are even accurate. When I asked the Under-Secretary of State on what basis, in the light of the unavailability of the cost of the cheese subsidy, it was calculated that the cost of imported cheese subsidy would be £2·4 million in 1974–75 he replied:
  "The calculation was made by apportioning imports under the appropriate United Kingdom Customs tariff heading on the basis of country of origin, and applying the subsidy of £105 per ton to the estimated overall imports of the varieties in question."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May 1974; Vol. 873, c. 543.]
  That was his reply despite the fact that he had already admitted that he did not know what the overall imports were.
  Let us not worry any more about these peculiar cheeses, except to note in
  1764
  passing that we have now discovered that the first six of the list of imported cheeses are "normally", to quote the Minister of State for Agriculture, produced in Denmark, which will be of interest to the House, and that St. Paulin is "normally" produced in France. Let us leave them all, except to remember that the right hon. Lady does not know what her subsidies on those cheeses will save individuals in any one week. She admitted that to me on 9th May. A sum of £59,790 has so far been paid out in subsidies to importers of these cheeses, plus Gouda and Edam. Sixteen people have drawn subsidies out of 39 payments so far made. That means that half the payments are going to importers of foreign cheeses.
  Let us turn to two exquisite examples of the new bureaucracy. I refer first to administration, and secondly to the cheese subsidy, with particular reference to Stilton. On the subject of administration, let us start at the top. Let us start with the Prime Minister—
  Mr. Cormack: A big cheese!
  Mr. Latham: Perhaps I ought to not comment on that. The Prime Minister told me in a Written Answer on 10th June that the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection had responsibility for general policy on this matter, and the Minister of Agriculture undertook the administration of subsidy on an agency basis. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady slips him a few bob while he is doing it! The fact that one Minister has responsibility for policy and another for administration seems to me to be the form of bureaucracy which one remembers over the selective employment tax, where the same sort of thing occurred.
  The new arrangements also mean that there are now four officials—one principal, one higher executive officer, one executive officer and one clerical officer—working full time on cheese subsidies in the Milk and Milk Products Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, at an annual cost of £24,000 a year—which is not included in the £30 million so far allocated. This is despite the fact that the right hon. Lady already has a Department of 258, excluding her satellite boards such as the Price Commission. In view of the weight of bureaucracy that is to come, I was not surprised to

  1765
  see that one of her 258 staff is described as "paper keeper". He will certainly be busy. With 37 manufacturers and 35 importers already identified as eligible for subsidy, I expect to see the four officials whom I mentioned earlier increasingly reinforced.
  I wish to say a word about the extraordinary situation regarding Stilton. Here I must declare a major constituency interest. As the House will know, Stilton is made only in Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Most of the Stilton is made in my constituency in Melton. Just over 4,070 tons of Stilton were produced last year and the figure rises steadily because my constituents have been stepping up production of this splendid cheese, with a good record in exports. Of that figure 80 per cent. was blue Stilton and only 20 percent. white Stilton. The House should realise that the production processes of blue and white Stilton are identical, except that white Stilton is sold one month after it is made, whereas blue Stilton is kept three to four months longer and is spiked to allow it to mature and become blue. Despite the fact that these processes are identical, white Stilton is now to be subsidised but blue Stilton is not—much to the indignation of my producer constituents.
  I need hardly add that the right hon. Lady has shown in her Parliamentary answers to me that she has no idea of the benefit to the average family of the subsidy on white Stilton. It may be an instance of the derision with which the decision has been received in Leicestershire if I say that as of 10th June, while five manufacturers of white Stilton had registered for subsidy, not one had actually made a claim.
  So what does all this rigmarole amount to? It appears that the Government are spending £30 million, perhaps, to advantage the average family by 4p or 5¼p. This was what the Minister in Committee laughingly called a "not inconsiderable amount." He should tell that to my constituents, whose rates have been nearly doubled this year.
  The scheme is a bureaucratic nonsense and the right hon. Lady knows it. Soon the country will realise what a waste of money it is.
  10.55 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The explanation of my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) about the wonders of the right hon. Lady's pursuit of hard pressed cheese is worthy of much wider dissemination. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will contemplate putting his speech into a pamphlet and persuading the right hon. Lady's Department to print it and circulate it throughout Whitehall and far beyond. It would be hard to imagine a more conclusive or more perfectly argued demolition of the entire nonsense of food subsidies than that which my hon. Friend produced.
  I hope he will take care to keep us informed on these matters. It will obviously be a subject of continuing concern to the House to know, for instance, how the hard pressed cheese department within the right hon. Lady's Department is faring, what the growth date of employment in it is, how its budget is expanding and how many paper keepers have to be recruited. I hope my hon. Friend will make sure that the House is informed about these matters which will obviously concern us more and more the longer this legislation survives.
  I understand from the remarks of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) that he will deprive us of a vote if we speak too long. The attitude of the Liberal Party reminds me of the attitude of a "Lady Bountiful" I heard performing not long ago at a function not far from my constituency when it was announced that the "Lady Bountiful" had consented to present the prizes at the end of the function. She interrupted at that point to say in a loud voice, "Provided that it does not go on too long." That seems to be the attitude of the Liberal Party—hardly a robust one. With that in view I shall try to encapsulate my remarks, although there are a number of matters on which further light must be thrown before we can conclude our examination of this measure.
  I deal first with the statement made by the right hon. Lady this afternoon. It is the right hon. Lady's contention that this statement will save her the painful duty of activating Clause 2. I have examined with interest the shopping basket she has produced. I must say that anyone who subsisted on it would

  1767
  need urgent medical attention before long. A diet of sausages, margarine, fish fingers, breakfast cereals, instant coffee and baked beans would not be altogether good for the digestion. I should be riveted to know precisely how the items which the retailers, we are told, will have on continuous offer have been selected.
  For example, toothpaste, denture powder and toilet soap apparently figure prominently in the right hon. Lady's imagination, but not shaving soap. It is godly in the eyes of the Department to wash and clean one's teeth, but not, apparently, to shave. We are advised that electric bulbs and matches are to feature, so at least the grateful British public will be able to light their homes and see the rather frugal and curious diet which the right hon. Lady has chosen for them.
  However, the more serious point I want to make about the statement made by the right hon. Lady this afternoon is—
  Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is surely an abuse of the rules of the House. Surely, in a Third Reading speech one must stick to the Bill under consideration, and not deal with a statement which was made to the House earlier today?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has made a point. The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) should relate his comments to the Bill itself rather than to the statement, and it seems that he is beginning to drift a little.
  Mr. Biffen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does not Clause 2 of the Bill prescribe that there are items that the Secretary of State may select as being household necessities? Surely, what my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has been doing has been to advert to those items which the right hon. Lady has selected and which she has announced to the House as being the subject of a voluntary arrangement which is backed up by powers which exist in Clause 2? Therefore, surely my hon. Friend is perfectly in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. What the hon. Mem-
  1768
  ber for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) says about Clause 2 is perfectly true, but it is really a question of generalities and we should not drift too far from the principle into details.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I entirely accept your ruling Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My proposition is that the right hon. Lady has gone out of her way to tell us that the use she will make of Clause 2 is entirely dependent on the application of this bit of paper which she threw before us this afternoon. Therefore, it seems to me that the contents of that bit of paper are extremely relevant to our consideration of the relevant clauses of the Bill.
  I had intended to make only one further point about the announcement made to the House this afternoon. The point is strictly germane to our consideration of the Bill on Third Reading. The right hon. Lady made clear that it was her concept that the back-up powers contained in the Bill had made it possible for her to obtain the agreement which she announced with a flourish of trumpets this afternoon, and which might not otherwise have been forthcoming.
  I wish to put a proposition which I admit can be argued either way. I have always believed that if one has to choose between statutory control imposed with the full rigor and the full certainty of the law, and subject to the control of Parliament, that is on balance a lesser evil—not much less, for it is still a large evil—than a voluntary agreement which the Government expect the various constituent bodies involved to impose upon their members without statutory authority.
  I view the statement made by the right hon. Lady this afternoon with considerable distaste. The retail consortium is a mug ever to have agreed to the arrangement which was anounced and I am sure that it will live to regret it. We have been told that the retail consortium has agreed to recommend the right hon. Lady's proposition to its members, but what happens if the members tell it to go to hell, as I hope they will?
  The right hon. Lady told us that she has the assurance of bodies representing the small traders that they will ask their members to make reductions on the list to which she referred. I hope that those

  1769
  representative bodies will be told by the small traders to mind their own business. If the consequence is that the right hon. Lady has to come before the House and invoke the powers contained in Clause 2, that will be infinitely preferable. I do not approve of this arm-twisting procedure, although it has become all too common under Governments of varying colors in recent years We should get away from it as soon as we can.
  Food subsidies have been well covered. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton totally demolished the whole proposition in his intervention, and the hon. Member for Colne Valley also exposed some of the follies of this proceeding.
  I should like to say a word about the proposition often stated in interventions from a seated position from the Government side of the House that food subsidies are all right because they are paid for by the rich out of taxation. A recent Parliamentary answer showed that this year, for the first time, the tax threshold had fallen below 50 per cent. of average earnings. In the years immediately after the war the tax threshold was above average earnings. It is now down to below 50 per cent. That proves conclusively that food subsidies are paid for in the main by those who receive them. All we are doing is taking money from people through taxation and giving it back to them provided that they spend it on one form of food and not on another.
  We learnt today that the Government have in mind to subsidise chapati but not to subsidise oatmeal. I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will be able to explain that to his constituents this weekend. What will the Race Relations Board say? Provided that the average family spends its money on chapati it will get back that portion of its taxation bill that goes towards the cost of the food subsidies. If, instead, it spends its money on oatmeal it will not. What is the merit of chapati and the demerit of oatmeal? The answer is that it is just the usual exercise in window-dressing by the right hon. Lady for which not the rich but the generality have to pay the price.
  Clause 6, which provides for the abolition of the Pay Board, has been rather neglected. I shall miss the Pay Board. I have had many hours of innocent en-
  1770
  joyment pursuing the activities of Sir Frank Figures and his happy little band and finding out some of the weirder antics in which they are engaged. It will be sad to see them go. We need to know a little more about the Government's intentions.
  We need to know tonight precisely when the Government will act. I was interested to read in The Scotsman newspaper recently of a meeting between the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) on a problem that has arisen in the case of a firm in Aberdeenshire—A.F. Engineering—which has attracted the ire of the Pay Board for a reason I have not been able to fathom—
  Mr. Douglas Henderson: Because it is is in East Aberdeenshire.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It is not unique. There are plenty of firms in Angus which have suffered from the ministrations of the Pay Board, but the Pay Board has not been quite so Draconian as it has with the firm in East Aberdeenshire.
  The hon. Member saw the Secretary of State for Employment, apparently, and the Secretary of State is reported to have told him that the Government intend to abolish the Pay Board in about five weeks' time. That would take us up to about the middle of July. The Minister nods his head. We know that the Secretary of State for Employment cannot wait to get rid of the Pay Board, but what about the Chancellor? We do not get the impression that that is his view. We know that there is great conflict going on in the Government about these matters. Which way will it be resolved? Is the Chancellor to allow the Pay Board to go into oblivion next month? If the Minister can give us an unequivocal assurance, a solemn pledge, not a lightly given promise, on behalf of the Government tonight that the Pay Board will be abolished before the House rises for the Summer Recess, that will be interesting and helpful.
  Perhaps the Minister will go one step further and give a solemn pledge that, if the Government are still in office come the autumn, we shall not have a wage freeze introduced by legislation at that

  1771
  point. It would be helpful for consideration of Clause 6 to have these solemn assurances.
  Supposing the Pay Board is to be abolished, we need to know what is to happen then to some of the debris, the bric-à-brac, which it leaves behind it. It has outstanding at present quite a substantial number of orders requiring various concerns to reverse wage settlements which they have already made and which the board believes to be in contravention of the Pay Code and phase three: a wide range, from a firm called Tool Power Engineering, where the Pay Board has trundled out its great machinery of intervention to halt a wage increase for six men. One wonders what was the cost of that operation and what are the related sums involved. At the other end of the scale we have 125,000—
  Mr. Skinner: It is your Pay Board.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I never voted for the blessed thing. We have 125,000 employees of the Co-op whose fate currently hangs in the balance. We need to know what will happen to the orders imposed if it is abolished.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East was quoted in The Scotsman after his visit to the Secretary of State for employment:
  "He added that Mr. Foot had made it clear the restrictions would cease to operate from that date"
  —that is the date the Pay Board is abolished. Is that the case? Are we to understand that every order the Pay Board has issued will lapse at once when the Pay Board is wound up? If so, what is the justice of saying in those cases where the Pay Board has been able to enforce orders on the day before it is wound up that the unfortunate victims will be penalised, but that if the Pay Board has not been able to enforce orders, the victims will be able to escape?
  Mr. Douglas Henderson: Just to correct that quotation in The Scotsman, What I in fact said was that existing restrictions would end and there would be greater freedom.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for clearing that up because it is not what was given in
  1772
  The Scotsman, but we need a clear explanation from the Minister of State about what is to happen.
  We have to consider the future of the orders against the background of a situation where the Secretary of State has exercised discretionary powers to override the Pay Board in the case of a 23 per cent. increase for Coal Board solicitors—horny-handed sons of toil—and more than 20 per cent. for Glasgow firemen. These people have been put through by him invariably because he realised that the Pay Board was quite incapable of enforcing its orders in these instances in any case. But we need to know what is to happen to the companies which have had orders imposed upon them and now face an intolerable position thanks to the board's intervention.
  Alas, the Price Commission will continue with us. We have had several de-bales today about the manner in which the Bill is extending its role. Hon. Members opposite have been reminded of the way in which, when in Opposition, they consistently denounced the extra-parliamentary role of the commission and are now seeking further and substantially to increase its operations by this Bill.
  We have established—the right hon. Lady could not deny it—that the commission is contributing on a rapidly expanding scale to the balance of payments deficit. From time to time, it seems to be on the verge of removing from the shops altogether some of the cheapest foodstuffs which we understood it was the Government's intention above all to safeguard through the Bill. The commission had a narrow escape the other day from getting blended butter, the cheapest form, removed from the shops altogether. I suppose that someone in the right hon. Lady's Department woke up and told Sir Arthur Caulfield to behave himself. But it was a narrow squeak and no doubt there will be many more before we finish.
  We watch as the commission achieves the elimination of one product after another from the home market. I imagine that, after a period when the construction industry in Scotland was deprived of cement thanks to an industrial dispute, it is likely that we shall be deprived of cement altogether, thanks to the intervention of the commission making it impossible for the more costive cement plants to continue functioning.

  1773
  One must protest about the manner in which the commission handles correspondence. A number of the powers in Clauses 2, 3 and 5 will involve masses of retailers and distributors in a further need for urgent answers from the commission. It is my information that such answers simply are not available. I have reported to the right hon. Lady the case of a firm which waited for nine months to get an answer from the commission on the application of the code, and as a result was almost put into the impossible position of being unable to publish its accounts within the period prescribed by law. This is intolerable. We all recognise that, with the extra burdens which the Government are laying on the commission, if it is to deal adequately with its correspondence it will have to recruit extra staff.
  Mr. Richard Buchanan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In my experience in the House I have always been taught that a Third Reading debate is very narrowly confined. The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) is making what amounts to a Second Reading speech and has been out of order from the beginning.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In fact, the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) is in order on this clause.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was saying that the powers contained in the Bill are bound to lead to more need for urgent responses to correspondence, and we are simply not getting them at present from the Price Commission.
  I find it quite intolerable that the Price Commission should shield behind the provisions in Schedule 4 of the counter-inflation legislation, which is designed to protect the confidentiality of information for the benefit of those who are the victims of the Price Commission, and refuse to divulge information which is needed by hon. Members and which relates to operation by the Price Commission of its powers. This is an intolerable situation, and, the sooner that the Price Commission is persuaded that it must deal with correspondence expeditiously and effectively, the better.
  1774
  This is a Bill with virtually no redeeming features. If we knew for certain that the Pay Board was to be abolished under Clause 6, it would have perhaps one. Apart from that, it has none.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends have decided, for reasons which I understand, not to oppose the Third Reading. There are precedents for the Bill. Those of us who take a jaundiced view of those precedents will perhaps feel freer to exercise our views upon it in the Division Lobby. I have no doubt that in time it will be destroyed in the way that we have seen happen to all these attempts to deal with inflation by passing laws against it. It will only be destroyed, ultimately, by public ridicule. The sooner that happens, the better.
  11.23 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I wish to refer mainly to Clause 6, which contains the power to abolish the Pay Board.
  It seems to be my fate this evening to be called immediately after the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). Perhaps that is because the hon. Gentleman has spoken so frequently during the course of the day.
  For those of us who live in Scotland, the operations of pay boards in the 1960s and 1970s have given cause for concern for a number of reasons. The first is that many wage negotiations in Scotland have customarily taken place several months behind those conducted for the same industries in other parts of the United Kingdom. This has been a matter of practice in industry. It is not one which I support, and I know that a great many professional bodies and trade unions have been concerned about delays which have occurred in the past.
  One effect is that, whenever there is a freeze on wages, the wages of those in one sector of industry in most of the United Kingdom are increased, yet the wages of those employed in the same industry in Scotland are caught by the freeze. This has happened during the existence of the present Pay Board, and, the sooner that the Pay Board goes, the better will those engaged in industry in Scotland be able to negotiate directly to get fair wages for the jobs that they do.
  Once institutional controls of this kind are set up, all sorts of anomalies arise,

  1775
  and further regulations and orders designed to correct them often give rise to even more anomalies.
  The position described by the hon. Member for South Angus on the east coast of Scotland has been causing a great deal of concern. There, the phenomenal economic activity induced by the oil industry has led to intense competition for labour. Since the new industries are not caught under Pay Board regulations, they can obtain labour, while the activities of existing firms are curtailed. The Pay Board prevents many firms from increasing wages as they would like to, in order to retain staff. In a case taken up by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), the Pay Board had ordered one such firm to reduce wages by £4 a week.
  The closing stages of the Bill's progress have been interesting for a new Member. I support it in most details and in principle. But the official Opposition have failed to test the Bill as I understood an opposition should. The majorities in Divisions show no real attempt by them to carry out their duty. It is hardly surprising that, as this Parliament has worn on, once narrow majorities have become increasingly large, reflecting the lowering of morale in the Conservative Party. It is not for me to dictate their policy, but my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) has referred to their activities as huffing and puffing but not bringing the House down.
  Mr. Douglas Henderson: It is particularly significant that not one Scottish Conservative is present tonight—
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne:
  I beg your pardon?
  Mr. Henderson: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. His earlier remarks had led me to believe that he had joined the Liberal Party or formed a party of his own. But the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), for example, who huffed and puffed because some of my colleagues were not present in a Committee in which a Bill worth £6 million was discussed—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In his enthusiasm, the hon. Member is getting wide of the debate.
  Mr. Swain: He thinks he is watching the World Cup.
  Mr. Wilson: This is not the day on which we are interested in that. There will be a great deal of tension around television sets in Scotland tomorrow night, but it will be after the House has risen, so there need not be any comments about non-attendance.
  Food subsidies by themselves will not provide a final solution to the grave problem of inflation which is threatening the United Kingdom and many other countries. Many factors which cause inflation are outwith the control of any United Kingdom Government. I could go on to argue—but I should not be allowed to—that that would not be true of a government of Scotland.
  I commend the Bill as a start. There is strong feeling among those who pay large sums for food that this will be a brake on the rate of inflation. Although of marginal importance, it should be welcomed for that reason. Although I concede many of the arguments that some of my hon. Friends have made during the passage of the Bill regarding the limited effects of food subsidies, in Scotland we have, I am sorry to say, a large degree of poverty in many parts of our community. I think that some of the proposals concerning food subsidies will help people in that category.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I shall not detain the House long as it is only right that I should be brief both in stature and in what I have to say. [Interruption.] When the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) gets to know me better, he will recognise that if he listens quietly he may learn something.
  If I may proceed on my lordly way, I think that the Bill might well be termed a basket Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] A basket of a Bill, a basket Bill. It is a Bill about baskets, about shopping baskets. [Interruption.] Some of us carry a lot of weight, some of us carry less.
  We started this afternoon with the great announcement of the voluntary agreement. It was only right that one of my predecessors on this side visualized what a voluntary agreement might have been, with the right hon. Lady ladling Clause 2

  1777
  in her handbag to try to force an unwilling trade to agree to certain proposals. It is the contents of the Bill which caused us in Committee and cause us now such grave misgivings but for the fact that there appears on the one hand to be an unwillingness by the Government to implement its clauses and equally a feeling that it is a matter of simply having them available to arrange a tidy voluntary agreement to allow the operation to proceed.
  It is on the assumptions of the Bill that I want to spend a couple of minutes. I assume it has been introduced because the Government believe that the Price Code legislation is ineffective, that the Bill could achieve a slowing-down in the rate of price increases, particularly for food, and that, above all, machinery could be developed through the Bill which would enable this to be achieved without damaging either the supply, the manufacture or the distribution of food and that these aims together would benefit the consumer.
  I suggest that during the debate those assumptions have been largely shown to be false. First, there can be little doubt that the Price Code in its implementation is having an extremely severe effect on those involved in carrying out its strictures. All manufacturing industry, particularly food manufacturing, has to go through an extremely tight procedure before any costs are admitted and prices can be increased.
  It must be remembered that the food manufacturing industry, in which hon. Members will know that I have some interest, is in a difficult position because it is a large employer of labour. It is a large employer of female labour and, fair enough, the food manufacturing industry, with others, is having to move towards equal pay. It is involved not so much in extremely heavy plant and equipment. Its capital is often involved in large stocks of raw materials, many of them imported. Therefore, the room to manoeuvre that an industry of this kind has in relation to the Price Code and its application is very slight. When hon. Members are reminded the 50 per cent. of every labour cost increase in manufacture has to be absorbed, they will understand how deeply this bites into the margins of food manufacturers and of all manufacturers.
  It must be conceded that the Price Code is having a major effect. Obviously
  1778
  there is always room in any organisation for improvement in productivity, but the more it succeeds from year to year the less room there is. Certainly there is much less room for manoeuvre at the top of the industry where the most efficient companies are located. It can be seen, therefore, that as a result of the operation of the Price Code the returns are substantially less in food manufacturing than in other industries as a whole.
  The second assumption on which the Bill is based is that it will reduce the rate of price increases. We have had it amply demonstrated that this is a matter of taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. It must be conceded that such is the rate of inflation in costs, whether of imported products or our own indigenous costs, that it is not possible to remove the basic incidence of increased costs. All that one can do is to disguise it. Certainly food subsidies are a form of disguise in its application in shops, but it is far from disguised in its application to pay packets. This is the form of disguise which the Government, for their own purposes, are willing to adopt. Concerning that, I do not believe that we can claim that the Bill will have as one of its effects a reduction in the rate of food price increases. It will certainly cause some element of the increases in food prices to be transferred to a tax element; but the consequences upon the consumer, as has been fully pointed out, is much the same. People will be paying for it one way or the other. That cannot be over-stressed.
  We have seen that the food subsidy provision in the Bill is to the tune of £700 million in the course of a year. We have seen in the Chancellor's Budget £1,400 million of additional taxation. There has been ample discussion in the debate about just what is meant by this and how far it would go before the balance between taxation and subsidy is regarded as inequitable by the vast majority of the population. The Government must be warned that this kind of balance is already a very large factor in the unease of people who are earning good money or poor money or less money than they should, because they see the taxation increase hitting them very hard.
  I come now to the machinery in the Bill. The machinery has already been

  1779
  shown to be extremely cumbersome. The idea of price scales in shops is not one which commends itself for ease of interpretation. It is very difficult to believe that this will be simple and well understood. It is difficult to believe that it will be always up to date. But the most important element in it is that it tends to disguise the real contribution which is made by smaller shops. I regret that we were not able to get that provision expunged from the Bill in our attempt earlier this afternoon. But I recognise that if we are to have a Bill which insists that display notices be put in shops, it will have to be a burden on the retail trade to see that it is done effectively. I hope that the voluntary agreement will be extended to carry that through without too much increased effort on the part of that hard-pressed sector of the community.
  One has to conclude that the assumption upon which the Bill is largely based is that it should be a major extension of Government into the area of supply, demand and distribution. This is certainly a Bill whose principle we find very difficult to accept. I welcome the fact that there is to be plenty of consultation. I congratulate the right hon. Lady on being able to achieve a high level of consultation. But it must be clear that if voluntary arrangements are to be preferred, the legislation in the Bill is largely cosmetic or a charade in effect. If, however, the powers that have been written into the Bill are to be exercised to the full, it is probably the most Draconian measure that has been introduced into the food distribution trade for many a long year.
  Finally, perhaps the Minister would care to comment on the relationship between the producers of food, the agricultural producers and farmers, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. One notices that there is a view that the Minister's Department should have the major hand in determining the prices at which goods should be sold. But those prices will ultimately affect the willingness of producers to invest, be it in livestock or in new equipment. I urge upon the Minister that to interfere in this way with the mechanism at the point of sale should bear some important relationship to the mechanism at the point of pro-
  1780
  duction. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment on that matter.
  We see here a Bill which is a "huff and a puff", as has been suggested by many hon. Members on the Government benches, but which is to be put on the statute book with major Draconian measures included in it. If it is to be used to the full we shall see a major deterioration in the retail distribution of food products in this country.
  11.39 p.m.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: We have had something of a one-sided debate. Most of the views that have been expressed about the Bill have not been exactly in favour of it. I did not find that at all surprising. What surprised me more than somewhat was the fact that the Government had the bare-faced effrontery to bring this piece of legislation before the House at all, when one considers that in the same month that these subsidies for which such great significance was claimed were introduced, involving hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, we have had the highest ever recorded monthly increase in the retail price index. I can imagine how embarrassed some Labour back benchers who care seriously about inflation must have been when they had to explain that to their constituents. We are not alone in our views. I quote from one newspaper. It says
  "The massive April rise—due very largely to the Budget—crossed the phase 3 Pay Code. … It is no good for the Government to make excuses about 'factors beyond its control'. It was not acts of God, but acts of Mr. Healey in his Budget, which put up all the prices."
  Did I hear an hon. Member say "Tory Press"? I was quoting from the Morning Star of 25th May. [Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member recognised it. It must have caused him even greater embarrassment than I thought. [Interruption.] Inflation is not a laughing matter, but the Bill is. The Opposition are deeply worried, as are many Labour Members, about the problem of inflation. We see its effects upon our constituents, on the poorer members of the community, the poorer families and the pensioners.
  I wonder whether Labour Members have recently been in touch with their constituents who represent these groups. Some hon. Members meet them regularly. It is our duty to represent their interests

  1781
  in this House, and I refer, of course, to those who are hardest hit by inflation, the people who have to face it daily when they do their shopping and who have all the time the anxiety of what will happen to savings, pensions and earnings which continue to be eroded in this way.
  This anxiety is not confined to the poorer members of the community. It pervades the whole of the middle income group. We therefore do not underestimate the size of the problem or its importance, particularly to the economy. But this is primarily a social measure and it is claimed that it will mete out social justice. We have shown repeatedly that it will do no such thing. The figures which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) quoted show that more of the subsidy money will go to the better-off than to the people for whom it is intended.
  I have received figures this afternoon which show quite clearly that more of the revenue from the imposition of VAT on sweets, chocolates, chocolate biscuits, ice cream and soft drinks is coming from poorer families and pensioners than from the rich. We also know that subsidies can have only the most temporary and marginal effect on the budgets of the families at whom they are aimed, because the items on which those families spend the greatest proportion of their food budget cannot be subsidised because they are not demand inelastic.
  We know from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) that more money could be put into the pockets of these families by way of the family allowance, and into the pockets of pensioners by an annual bonus, than these subsidies are ever likely to do, and at a fraction of the cost. Why did the Government not adopt these cheaper, more effective methods? The answer is that they would not have had the same immediate political impact. They would not have coincided with the Labour Party manifesto and they would not have met the dictates of the social contract.
  We are entitled therefore to ask whether what is being meted out under the Bill is not so much social justice as Socialist justice, and whether the claims being made for it are not just a trifle disingenuous. We may ask whether the
  1782
  provision of the subsidies is not so much a pursuit of a social ideal as an exercise in political sophistry. But quite apart from the political considerations and the fact that we and a number of hon. Members have expressed repeatedly concern as to the effectiveness, cost and wisdom of these subsidies, we are also very concerned, and we cannot issue this warning often enough, at the whiplash of price increases that the consumers will have to face if and when these subsidies are withdrawn. If they are not to be withdrawn how much more will they cost than they have cost so far? We believe that before long the Government and the people, if they do not know it already, will find out from experience what a foolish, expensive and temporary piece of political window dressing this is.
  Although the subsidies are fundamental to the Bill, they are not the entire Bill or the entire policy. Clause 2 is the second string on which the right hon. Lady has been able to hang her voluntary or, as it could have been, statutory shopping basket. We do not believe that even if it is possible to get this into operation it will be possible to know whether it is being observed, any more than a statutory version could have been enforced.
  On the surface, the idea seems appealing enough. It seems sensible to try to focus the cuts in gross profit margins on necessities, especially as they cannot be the targets of subsidies. The only trouble is that for every price held down in this way another will rise. These consequential price increases may occur on items which the right hon. Lady thinks are not necessities, but which many other people do. As the right hon. Lady has admitted, this cross-subsidisation will have no effect on the retail price index. It will also have little or no effect on the budgets of the families at whom it is aimed.
  Like the Chancellor's Budget, this Robin Hood measure may very well leave people a great deal worse off. One of the main reasons is that a number of the items in the lists given as either targets of the semi-permanent cuts or the occasional rotational cuts are not necessities. Also, the value of the measure is very much diluted by the fact that in each case only one item, only one brand, only

  1783
  one cut or only one line in the case of each item in the list will be on offer. In both categories the cuts will follow existing promotional patterns, and where they are not it will be impossible to discern whether they are useful, because of the vague definitions in the Bill and the limitation of choice imposed on consumers by the fact that only one cut, one line or one brand is to be offered.
  Despite the right hon. Lady's avowed aversion to shopping around consumers will have not just to shop around but to do it on the run. For example, if Mrs. Brown wants to buy minced beef for the family supper it will not help her much to find that the lower-priced cut of beef is tripe. If the family like Heinz baked beans, it will not be much help if HP baked beans are on offer. The entire list could consist of brands that people did not like, cuts they would not choose, or items they would not use. That is the strength of the measure.
  Even more important, the right hon. Lady knows perfectly well that even if she could focus the cuts in the gross profit margins effectively on those fresh foods that cannot be subsidised the effect on demand elasticity would be exactly the same as if they were subsidised. That is why sugar has already been withdrawn from the list; there is a shortage of sugar.
  As the rotational promotions will vary from shop to shop, from item to item, from brand to brand, from day to day, it would be impossible to enforce them if they were statutory, just as it will be impossible to know whether the measure is being observed. Nor will consumers dedicated to buying only those items which are cut in price be able to discern easily what they are, let alone whether they want them or need them.
  The right hon. Lady spoke in Committee of the value of the Woolworth shopping basket. She said that she was grateful to hear what Woolworth was doing, and that it was following her advice. It has subsequently come to light that the Woolworth meat offer was of a somewhat bogus nature. I saw it myself. Part of the offer involved cuts of meat which are not normally sold in butchers' shops and it was not possible to know whether the price was lower. Other items were mis-described. No items were unit priced. Two cuts of meat were
  1784
  offered together at a price which on average was cheaper for one of the cuts but dearer on average for the two. I must declare an interest. I have the misfortune to own a few Woolworth shares—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members want me to be precise, I own 1,000 Woolworth shares. I inherited them. I believe that they are worth about 42p a share.
  The irony of the Woolworth offer is that it is typical of the kind of deception that is going to be practised on consumers by the measures that the right hon. Lady proposes. It will be nothing more than a Government approved nationwide loss leader operation of the kind that most respectable consumer organisations disapprove of and which most sensible housewives do not trust. It may well be referred to the Director General of Fair Trading as a practice that is calculated to mislead consumers and which is contrary to their economic interests.
  We accept the need to regulate the price of subsidised foods but we believe that the maximum price notices will confuse consumers. But they are only part of the tangled web that the right hon. Lady will practice. If she does so not to deceive intentionally she will certainly succeed in deceiving. Her web may succeed in deceiving some consumers for a short time into thinking that they are being helped by this measure. It will deceive a good many consumers as to what or how they should buy under the right hon. Lady's shopping basket promotion.
  This is the package that we are offered. Cross-subsidisation will probably put more prices up than down. Subsidies will go more to the rich than to the poor. We shall have lists that will reveal more than they can conceal. They will be foisted on the public and on the trade and described as a policy when they are no more than part of a conjuring trick. That is a trick that will not produce one rabbit out of the hat let alone putting one into the shopping basket.
  The right hon. Lady, who has nothing up her sleeve, admitted in Committee—as she admitted during her statement today—that some of the things which she has proposed will be difficult, that there will be anomalies and that certain matters might impose difficulties on the trade. She adds that it is better to do something than nothing. We sympathise with those

  1785
  sentiments. That is a very appealing claim. There is only one thing that is very wrong with it. The right hon. Lady knows, we know and most of the Press commentators know that what she has proposed will not do very much and that the result of the whole operation is nothing more than a political fraud. [Interruption.] That is what we have condemned it as.
  In this measure there is one item—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is entitled to be heard.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: There is one item in the Bill to which we can extend a wholehearted welcome—namely, unit pricing. We hope that it will be introduced swiftly and intelligently and applied in the most effective manner. We hope that it will be accompanied by an adequate educative programme of publicity so that it can be appreciated by as many consumers as possible. It is not a bit of good the right hon. Lady or anyone else in the Labour Party lecturing us and suggesting that we have been making political speeches. If they claim that the motivation behind the Bill is not political and that we should accept its sincerity, we can only marvel at its naiveté and denounce its futility. On both sides of the House our objectives are the same. We want to protect the weaker members of the community against the ravages of inflation, and we realise that there is a compelling and urgent need to do so.
  Despite the real misgivings we have about the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I doubt very much whether Liberal Members will disagree with what I am about to say. Despite the fact that we believe the Bill is politically tainted, we do not wish to see it fail. We hope that, despite our better judgment, it will succeed. We only wish that we could believe in our heart of hearts that it will.
  11.56 p.m.
  Mr. Join Fraser: I understand that there could be as many as 256 Conservative Members of Parliament hanging around to abstain. I do not want to detain them from their duty for one moment longer than is necessary. Therefore, I shall be brief.
  Let me deal with one or two points: I cannot deal with a large number of the matters which have been raised. Let me
  1786
  turn first to esoteric foreign cheeses. Perhaps I can say to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) who dealt with the subsidy on St. Paulin and Elbo cheeses, that if he goes on tabling Questions on this topic the cost of so doing will probably be greater than the cost of subsidising the cheeses about which he has been complaining. One has only to mention St. Paulin and Elbo to produce a Pavlov Ian reaction in some Conservative Members.
  The exercise of food subsidies is a redistributive process aimed at those who need the greatest help. A figure of £440 million to £470 million of extra taxation raised in the Budget comes from those earning more than £60 a week. Some Conservative Members should be careful when they sneer and snigger about cheaper fish fingers, cooking oil and lard. There are many people who live frugal lives and who are entitled to look for some hope of relief. To them the holding down of prices is meaningful. These are matters which affect ordinary working families, and some Conservative Members may be out of touch with the situation. The House and the country will welcome what we are doing.
  I will deal mainly with the points raised on Clause 6. I welcomed the thoughtful speech made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Gordon Wilson). I confirm that there are as many employers as employees waiting to get rid of the statutory restrictions, with the anomalies, difficulties and problems which they involve. Matters of detail, such as what will happen to the Pay Board, will be covered by orders to be laid before the House. We intend to lay such orders as soon as we can, soon after the Bill becomes law early in July. This statement has the support of the entire Government. As to the future, the Government will be making a statement about pay arrangements following the abolition of statutory controls.
  Hon. Members may have seen Press reports that the TUC is thinking of taking action with a variety of unions on collective bargaining. I understand that a substantive document has been considered by the TUC Economic Committee today. A statement about the abolition of the statutory policy will be made in due course. We already have the signs of voluntary agreement with people who

  1787
  sell and manufacture food which will bring about the sort of co-operation with the workers on which the future of the country depends.
  We have a chance to get away from the statutory pay policy that virtually brought this country to its knees. No matter what sneering comments have been made about the Bill, no matter how supercilious the criticism of it, I believe
  that outside this House the sense of fairness, justice and urgency which we have displayed in taking the Bill through the House will command the support of all the country. I hope that it will command the support of the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 20.

  Division No. 40.]

  AYES

  [12 midnight.

  Altaun, Frank

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Archer, Peter (Warley, West)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Millan, Bruce

  Ashton, Joe

  Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)

  Atkinson, Norman

  George, Bruce

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  Burnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Morris, Charles R. (Opens haw)

  Bates, Alf

  Golding, John

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

  Graham, Ted

  Murray, Ronald King

  Bishop, E S.

  Grant, John (Islington, C.)

  Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Booth, Albert

  Hamling, William

  Ogden, Eric

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Harper, Joseph

  O'Malley, Brian

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Brown,Bob(NewcastleuponTyne,W.)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Ovenden, John

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Hatton, Frank

  Owen, Dr. David

  Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &Sh'ditch)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Palmer, Arthur

  Buchan, Norman

  Henderson,Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're.E)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Buchanan,Richard(G gow,Springbrn)

  Horam, John

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wich)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pendry, Tom

  Campbell, Ian

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Phipps, Dr. Colin

  Carmichael, Nell

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Carter, Ray

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Prescotl, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartlord)

  Price, Christopher (Lewlsham, W.)

  Cocks, Michael

  Jackson, Colin

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

  Radice, Giles

  Coleman, Donald

  John, Brynmor

  Reid, George

  Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

  Johnson.James(K'ston upon Hull,W)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Concannon, J. D.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.

  Cox, Thomas

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Craigen, J. M. iG'gow, Maryhill)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Roper, John

  C-awshaw, Richard

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Cronin, John

  Judd, Frank

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Cryer, G. R.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rowlands, Edward

  Cunningham.G.llsl'ngt'n.S&F'sb'ry)

  Kerr, Russell

  Sandelson, Neville

  Cunningham, Dr. JohnA.(Whiteh'v'n)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Selby, Harry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lambie. David

  Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lamborn, Harry

  Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

  Lamond, James

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C.(S'hwark,Dulwich)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Latham, Arthur(CityofW'minsterP'ton)

  Slllars, James

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lawson.George(Motherwell&WIshaw)

  Silverman, Julius

  Deakins, Eric

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Skinner, Dennis

  de Freitas, Rt. In. Sir Geoffrey

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Dempsey, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dormand, J. D.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Sprnggs, Leslie

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'slh, Fulh'm)

  Dunn, James A.

  MacCormack, lain

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Dunnett, Jack

  McElhone, Frank

  Stott, Roger

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Strang, Gavin

  Eadie Alex

  McGuire, Michael

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Ellis, J. (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Swain, Thomas

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  English, Michael

  McNamara. Kevin

  Tinn, James

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Madden, M. O. F.

  Tomlinson, John

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Magee, Bryan

  Tuck, Raphael

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Mahon, Simon

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ewing, Harry (St'ling.F'kirk&G'm'th)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.

  Ewing,Mrs. Winifred (Moray&Nairn)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marquand, David

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Flannery, Martin

  Meacher, Michael

  Watkins, David

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Waft, Hamish

  Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

  Mendelson, John

  Weitzman, David

  White, James

  Williams, Rt.Hn. Shirley (H'f'd&St'ge)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Young, David (Bolton, E.)

  Whltlock, William

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)

  Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

  Wise, Mrs. Audrey

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Woodall, Alec

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

  Woof, Robert

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

  NOES

  Beith, A. J.

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn, Jeremy

  Biffen, John

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Tyler, Paul

  Bruce Gardyne, J.

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Winstanley, Dr. Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Freud, Clement

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Mr. John Pardoe and

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Steel, David

  Mr. Richard.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time and passed.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Golding.]

LOCAL DISASTERS (RELIEF)
12.10 a.m.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The disaster at Flixborough in Lincolnshire is yet fresh in all our minds, but it is now off the pages of the newspapers and off television. Very soon it will be forgotten, but in Flixborough there are people whose lives in the next few months will be dominated by the disaster, as well as those whose lives will be permanently affected. For the next few months the reconstruction of houses will go on. The country may forget but the people who live in Flixborough will not.
In my constituency, in the hamlet of Barleythorpe, Rutland, in November 1973 there was a gas main explosion. A woman of 44, Mrs. Doreen Featherstone, was killed, her husband had to go to hospital and their stone cottage was completely demolished. In other houses nearby windows were broken and ceilings fell down. The damage suffered by several residences although not serious was upsetting, and it ought to be put right quickly. Mrs. Featherstone had been complaining about a gas leak for some time before the disaster. Unhappily she did not write to me so that I could pass on her complaint. Although she complained, no action was taken.
The gas main was an old one. It is said that the main had probably been
1790
affected by heavy vehicles using the road. Fifteen or 20 years ago, however, there were no heavy lorries, and if the gas board had thought that heavy vehicles might wear or fracture the mains they should have been strengthened.
The British Council should consider whether mains are being laid deeply enough in new housing estates. In a new housing estate in Oakham the people say that the mains are laid just below the surface and that it is possible for a person digging the garden to put the fork through them.
In November, after the explosion, officials visited Barleythorpe. They came to look at the roadway and the main that had been destroyed, but they did not go to see the people who had been affected by the explosion. They did not ask whether those people were all right, they did not offer welfare assistance and they made no comments. When I heard this I immediately got in touch with Mr. A. F. Hetherington, the Chairman of the British Gas Corporation. I told him that it was a disgrace and that something should be done about it. He immediately arranged for officials to visit the people concerned. The fact remains that it should have been done without my intervention. Then we had the beginning of the difficulties.
As a result of my intervention, certain small jobbing builders were put on to try to put right the breaking of some windows and doors and to put right the ceilings which had fallen down—in other words, to put the houses back into proper order; but the delay on this was several weeks. The delay in settling the bills of the builders was so great that I am told that up to a week or two ago they had not received their money.
In more than one letter the gas board has said that there are legal matters and

1791
questions of insurance in which it cannot intervene and which are not its responsibility. Up to May I was informed that no final settlement had been made for any of the properties opposite the explosion.
When Mr. Featherstone, who has lost his wife, came out of hospital, he had no home. His employer, Mr. Gibson of Barleythorpe, gave him a temporary home in a bungalow which he will need in due course for a new employee.
Mr. Featherstone had to get legal help to make a claim against the British Gas Corporation. Then began his troubles. His sick pay, sick benefit and a small insurance were all taken into account in his claim for legal aid. He spent much of his small capital on new furniture for the new bungalow. He had £1,000 insurance due but not yet paid, and that was also taken into account in his assessment for legal aid.
With his sick pay, plus capital of £814, without taking into account the £1,000 insurance due to him, Mr. Featherstone was asked to make a payment of £564 towards legal expenses. He did not have this sum as the money had gone on furniture, but he was deemed to have had it, except that following my intervention he was told that under the disregards rule, on hardship grounds, the Legal Aid Commission would take into account any necessary expenditure but that the £1,000 insurance would also have to be taken into account, which meant that he could be back to square one with the possibility of having to pay £600 for legal expenses. That is outrageous for a person who has been affected by an explosion which is no concern of his and had nothing to do with him and which is a disaster for him and for the people round about.
Meanwhile the legal and insurance processes crawl on. Mr. Featherstone is trying to battle for his rights against a powerful and wealthy gas board—his difficulties could be the same if it were a private company—to recompense himself for his loss and to put himself back into a situation where he can carry on his normal life.
Damages are at issue. It is more than likely that Mr. Featherstone will get them, yet how can anyone fight a legal battle
1792
when he has no money, though he is said to have money due to him but when it comes it will be more than half used up in legal expenses? How can he get legal help without resources? I have written to the Lord Chancellor and he has been more than helpful, but he also is governed by statute and the delay in bureaucracy. So much for Barleythorpe. This was a small example of a local disaster which can be repeated in many places throughout the country.
At Flixborough it was a local disaster but a very large one. Soon after it occurred, a meeting was held, and people were very irate because they did not know whether action was likely to be taken to alleviate their immediate needs in the situation. The voluntary organisations—the Round Table, Rotary and others—and the social services of the county did a tremendous job, I understand. A great number of private individuals also helped. But there was need for emergency repairs and attention to other welfare matters. No one seemed to know where the homeless would be put until someone at the meeting suggested caravans, which arrived within a short time. The sense created was that there was no one in charge, no one who seemed able to call upon Government help or who could even promise the people that, notwithstanding legal impediments and difficulties of insurance, something would be done to deal with their immediate problems. Someone said that there was nothing but talk, talk, talk, and he seems to have been right. Someone asked what would happen if the insurance was not enough—an important point.
That sort of situation can be repeated. My purpose in raising the subject tonight is to propose one or two things which should be done and can be done by the Government without any great expense, perhaps with no expense at all.
First, we must have action prepared for situations of this kind. I believe that the Department should have a plan to help against such disasters which could immediately be put into operation in cooperation between the Department and the local authorities, so that whatever the scale—and most of these disasters are on a small scale—the plan could operate in a way whereby people would understand that something was being done, could be seen to be done and was likely to show

1793
results in temporary patching-up process, enabling it to take place very quickly.
Secondly, the Government should provide funds—this is very important—to give loans for immediate work which requires to be done on the properties, for the replacement of personal appliances and for money to be spent on welfare of one kind or another. This money, which would be available to individuals, should be on loan against what they themselves will recoup in due course, either from their own insurance or from damages which may be made available to them.
Thirdly, legal aid should be made available to all people affected by disasters of this kind, again at least on a loan basis. They should not have to argue about it; the argument can come afterwards. If the money was available on loan, they would be able to pay it back out of whatever costs were awarded to them or from the insurance they might get.
Only by a plan of that kind can the little man, already badly mauled by the disaster and in great difficulties, be assisted to get his rights from the large and powerful organisations and be helped to resume the active life in which he might have been involved at work and socially. Only in this way can reconstruction after any disaster be carried through as quickly as possible, unimpeded by the kind of slow legal and insurance negotiations and disputes which are bound to happen but in which assistance can be given.
Action is wanted now. We should not wait for other small disasters to take place. We should provide a plan immediately. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to promise that the Government will take a good look at this as a matter of urgency and try to provide some proposals in the near future.
12.25 a.m.
Mr. John Ellis Mr. John Ellis (Brigg and Scunthorpe) rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) has made arrangements with the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) and the Minister to make a brief intervention. Mr. Ellis.
Mr. Ellis: I am grateful both to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for allowing me this
1794
opportunity, and I promise that my intervention will be brief.
In terms of the seriousness of the incidents which have occurred recently, the one referred to by the hon. Gentleman was much smaller in degree. But he has made some very telling points, and I shall seek leave at a later date to go into the details of the disaster affecting my own constituency. I do not want to presume on any inquiries which may be held into it.
It is instructive to learn that this debate is to be answered by a spokesman for the Home Department. Responsibility for the recent disaster in my area is that of the Department of Employment, because the explosion occurred in a factory. But I have prepared a list of the Government Departments which could be involved in disasters of this kind. They include the Department of Employment, the Department of the Environment, the Home Department, the Department of Health and Social Security, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Defence and so on.
Without going into the serious matters which will be investigated by the inquiry which has been set in train, it is clear that there is a need not to set up a massive organisation but to have contingency plans at ministerial level ready so that the various Ministers involved can be prepared and can co-ordinate the very next day to move into the area affected, to give advice across a whole range of issues, including social services, transport and so on, and to discover from the local authorities what help they need.
I have no criticism of the local authorities and how they acted in the disaster which affected my constituency. It may be that they have learned some lessons from it. On the night in question they worked very well together. However, from matters which I have had to take up with Ministers who were not immediately responsible, there is an urgent need for co-ordination as soon as a disaster of this kind occurs. We need to have the appropriate network of arrangements at ministerial level so that it is known which Ministers are responsible, that people will be brought in at that level, and that if there is a need to bring in outside experts everyone knows the channels.

1795
I am pleased to say that one of my hon. Friends from the Department of the Environment will be talking to the local authorities about housing. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has been there already. I was pleased to see the reaction of Ministers in visiting the area. What we need, however, is a strategic plan of action. I intend to question my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the subject, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will add her weight to my plea that we have to look at strategic planning and see how nationally we can help the local authorities involved.
We do not want to take away the local authorities' responsibilities, but we must see how we can move in speedily on a co-ordinated basis to help in the ways that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford has suggested and in many more ways that I have in mind.
12.28 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) for raising this important matter, especially when we are all very much aware of the serious and tragic disaster at Flixborough. Clearly I cannot anticipate the result of the full public inquiry which is to be held, but we may be sure that it will keep to the forefront of the public mind the lessons to be learned from the disaster.
I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in his statement. He said that tribute should be paid to the emergency services in the area, including the voluntary services, whose efforts to cope with the fire and destruction and to help the injured and homeless deserved the highest praise.
I must also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) for his intervention. I have noted carefully what he said about the need for co-ordination between all the Ministers involved. He mentioned the great number of different Departments which can be involved in such a disaster. Immediate co-ordination is essential.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford mentioned the gas main explosion in his constituency which resulted in
1796
the tragic death of Mrs. Featherstone, the injury of her husband and damage to surrounding properties. I have every sympathy with the victims of such accidents and their relatives. The hon. Member suggested an advance from the Government against the compensation to next of kin, particularly in the light of the frequent delays in determining liability and settling claims. I shall arrange for this suggestion to be examined by the different Departments involved, such as the legal Departments and perhaps the Department of Health and Social Security. If such a scheme were to apply to gas accidents, it would probably also extend to other accidents, on the roads and railways and in factories, where sudden injury and death may occur. This would be a large undertaking.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I would not want it to go that far. There is a special situation when people's homes are affected. If they lose a motor car they still have a place in which to live.
Dr. Summerskill: I have noted that point.
Immediate help is being given to the homes of those affected by the Flixborough disaster. The Secretary of State has said that the Government might exceptionally consider declaring the affected districts housing action areas once the Housing Bill has gained Royal Assent, to enable repairs grants at 75 per cent. to be made. I appreciate that this does not help the hon. Member's constituents but it shows that the Government are taking action over the damaged houses. Otherwise general improvement area powers could be used, with repair grants at 60 per cent. Some of the houses subject to severe structural damage might rank as unfit houses under the 1957 Housing Act. Those are three ways in which my right hon. Friend has risen to the occasion.
Also, power is vested in local authorities to incur expenditure in any emergency in which property is damaged or destroyed or people are injured or killed. If there is urgent financial need, the Supplementary Benefits Commission has powers to pay for essentials. We will, however, consider the hon. Member's suggestion about Government loans.
The immediate assistance at any disaster comes from the local authorities and from police, fire and ambulance services,

1797
often supported by special kinds of help, like pit rescue teams in a mine disaster, the coastguard and lifeboat services at sea, the special fire and crash services at airports and so on. Voluntary associations can and usually do play an important part. The Government believe that the provision of these services will be primarily a local authority responsibility but we are anxious to consider other suggestions for the improvement of emergency services, especially in the light of disasters like Flixborough. We will continue to strengthen existing arrangements and do anything we can to achieve the closest consultation between all the different Government Departments that might be involved, together with the local authority services.
In the event of a disaster proving to be beyond the capabilities and resources of the local authority, the Government would not hesitate to intervene with additional aid from whatever source proved necessary—for example, bringing in help from other areas, in the last resort bringing in troops, powers of requisition and so on. If inquiry revealed deficiencies in local arrangements and co-ordination, the Government would issue guidance to local authorities so that in a future disaster they could cope even better.
From time to time it is suggested that there should be a national disaster fund, and successive Governments have considered this. The great difficulty in making contingency plans provided by the Government for dealing with accidents and natural disasters on a national basis is that disasters can be of a multiplicity of types. For instance there could be a factory fire, a major tidal flood, a bomb explosion, pit disaster, railway accident or aircraft crash. Each type of disaster poses its own special problems and needs special skills to deal with it, and often different Government Departments are involved. One thing that is certain, however, is that when a disaster occurs relief must be provided immediately by the service best equipped to deal with it alongside the police, fire and ambulance services.
A national disaster force if created could bring problems of divided control and responsibility which might be caused by superimposing a Government body on the existing local services. On the other hand one must always maintain
1798
contact and co-ordination between the Government and local authorities in any emergency. The Government are always providing guidance to local authorities to deal with any emergency that might occur in peace time. Local authorities have regular contacts with the regional organisations and specialist headquarters staff of the Government Departments concerned.
We have, therefore, a procedure under which the emergency services and the local authorities which are in the best position to provide immediate relief bear the immediate impact of the disaster, but the resources of the central Government can be called upon in case of need. For instance, scientific knowledge is a sector in which the Government's assistance is often required in incidents involving radioactive substances or dangerous chemicals, as we have recently seen. The members of the Factory Inspectorate were on the site within two hours of the Flixborough explosion.
The Government could provide assistance in the form of emergency supplies and equipment, water pumps, blankets, clothing and so on. As I have said, in an extreme case troops could be called in to help in situations in which a reserve supply of manpower was required.
I have mentioned the finance that is available from local authorities, and this would apply also in the case of a major catastrophe such as storm, flood, oil pollution or explosion. Any application by a local authority for help in meeting the costs of dealing with disasters is considered in the light of the scale of the damage, the availability of specific grants and insurance and the extent of local resources.
I suggest to the hon. Member that coordination between Government Departments and local authorities is the key to dealing with disasters. I shall certainly consider very carefully all the points that he and my hon. Friend have made. I am totally sympathetic with the motives behind this Adjournment debate. We will continue to strengthen existing arrangements and I undertake to consult my colleagues on all the points which have been raised tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to One o'clock.