Lords Sitting of 18 April 1962

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury

BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY
Elaine Frances Burton, having been created Baroness Burton of Coventry, of Coventry in the County of Warwick, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS
Edward Francis Williams, Esquire, C.B.E., having been created Baron Francis-Williams, of Abinger in the County of Surrey, for life—Was introduced, making the Solemn Affirmation.

EGYPT: DISTRIBUTION OF COMPENSATION FUND
2.27 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government—

(1) How much of the £27½ million received from Egypt has been distributed by the Foreign Claims Commission; and how much therefore still remains;

(2) How much has been paid to claimants whose property has been

(a) nationalised

(b) sequestrated

respectively; and

(3) How much tax has been levied up to date on this Fund.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, up to March 31, 1962, the Foreign Compensation Commission had distributed
834
£11,641,367 7s. 8d. Of this sum, £10,754,399 14s. 0d. was in respect of 528 claims for property which had been Egyptianised, and £886,967 13s. 8d. was in respect of 835 claims for sequestration and other losses. £15,858,632 12s. 4d. of the £27½ million received from the United Arab Republic therefore still remained to be distributed. Up to March 31 of this year £959,619 had been paid as income tax.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for his full, informative and very helpful reply. It will take a little digesting. May I ask him one supplementary? Are the Government mindful of the fact that these unfortunate claimants were thrown out of Egypt neck and crop over five years ago, and would he not agree that it is high time that these claims were equitably settled?
TILE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:
My Lords, as the noble Lord is well aware, Her Majesty's Government are doing everything in their power to ensure that these payments are made as quickly as possible. I can give the noble Lord my absolute assurance that we are very much exercised over this matter and doing everything we can to expedite it.
LORD KILLEARN: I should like to thank the noble Marquess for that assurance and I hope the pressure will continue to be exercised.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I press the point which the noble Lord has raised? These people have been waiting at least five years now, and I gather from the noble Marquess's reply that only about half has been distributed. How many more years have to pass before this matteer is settled? These people are waiting. I do not think they can be expected to be satisfied with an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are doing all they can to speed up matters. Five years is a long time. If they have to wait another five years, it will have been ten years before they get satisfaction.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:
My Lords, this matter was very closely debated, as your Lordships remember, on December 20 last. I think that perhaps in answer to the noble Lord I

835
should point out that of the 5,328 applications received to date 2,587 remain unformulated, and assessment of many formulated ones is being held up by lack of evidence. I think the noble Lord is aware that there is a judicial procedure to be gone through, and it is not in consonance with British practice for this judicial procedure not to be thorough and absolutely complete. That is one of the difficulties we are up against.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess this? I think there is a Committee handling these things. Are they giving all assistance to claimants to enable them to speed up their applications on the basis that the noble Marquess has just mentioned?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we have in fact increased the number of Commissioners and we have also sent out two special representatives to Egypt; and I think this is helping. Of course, as the noble Lord is well aware, there is the bottle-neck in Egypt itself.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the noble Marquess gave us the figures of those claims that had been formulated and of those that had not. If I took down his figures aright, 1,300 claims have been dealt with and satisfied and 2,600 have been made and formulated or substantiated; so now only 50 per cent. of the live claims have been dealt with. Can Her Majesty's Government give us hope of anything better?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, can the Minister give us any hope that the Egyptian Government's conduct is becoming more resilient and helpful as compared with its conduct in the past?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:
Yes, my Lords, I can give a rather more optimistic report. As some of your Lordships are already aware, the Egyptian Minister for Economy and Finance, Dr. Kaissuni, came to this country last month; my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal had a long, detailed and frank discussion with him about outstanding difficulties arising out of the 1959 Financial Agreement, and subsequently a memorandum was handed to Dr. Kaissuni giving our principal
836
points of complaint. I am happy to be able to inform your Lordships that Dr. Kaissuni was most sympathetic and cooperative. He has, in fact, appointed a new Sequestrator General, and I have every reason to hope that, from the Egyptian end, we may have rather more favourable and rapid results than we have had before.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, could the noble Marquess answer the question I asked him—namely, whether it is a fact that only 50 per cent. of the formulated claims have so far been dealt with?
THE MARQUESS or LANSDOWNE: I do not think that the noble Earl's question is quite so simple as it appears. I should like to look into it a little more rather than to give a snap reply. As the noble Earl is well aware, this is a complicated subject, and I should like to have a further look at that question before giving an answer.

H-BOMB DISCUSSION AND ILLEGAL DEMONSTRATIONS
2.33 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they endorse the opinion expressed by the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, in this House on April 5 last, viz.:—
That to describe the effects of a hundred megaton weapon and to discuss the effects of Civil Defence policies on the East-West balance of deterrence is to encourage illegal demonstrations.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, the noble Lord appears to have misunderstood the purport of my remarks. The Government welcome informed discussion on all the matters to which he refers.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I have two points to make which, if I may, I shall make in two separate supplementaries. If I am in order to quote from

837
the speech of the noble Earl in the Civil Defence debate, I would point out that he said [col. 316]:
" But, what is much more dangerous, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and his friends persuade young people in this country to go sitting in the streets, fearing that nothing else can be done."
This was said in the Civil Defence debate. I should like to ask the noble Earl whom he considers to be my friends, with the rider that I am not connected with the Committee of One Hundred, and never have been; and specifically to ask him whether he has in mind the "Pugwash" Conference of Scientists, with which I am connected and may he publicly identified, since these Conferences are attended chiefly by the senior scientific advisers of this country, the United States, the Soviet Union and France?
EARL BATHURST: Unfortunately, I have not had the pleasure of the acquaintance of a great number of the noble Lord's friends, and When I used that remark I meant it in the widest possible sense, referring to those who hold or express the same views that the noble Lord expresses. I am perfectly aware, of course, of the "Pugwash" Conference; but I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that the views that the noble Lord put forward in the Civil Defence debate in your Lordships' House are really quite different from the views of the eminent scientists who take part in that Conference.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I accept the noble Earl's affirmation that he does not know who my friends are in any case; so that settles that. The second point I wish to make is this. To quote once more, if I may, from the noble Earl's speech in the debate, he said [col. 315].
" In the view of Her Majesty's Government—and I think it must also be the view of anybody who thinks about it seriously—millions would survive an attack on this country. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, does not like that."
I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he considers this to be Parliamentary language, because I am certain that it is inhumane language.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, when I used the term that "the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, does not like that", I meant—and I think that when one reads
838
the OFFICIAL REPORT it is clear—that the noble Lord does not agree with our belief that millions would survive. If in any way I appear to have meant that the noble Lord was inhumane or anything of that sort. I will withdraw the remark but what I meant to say was that the noble Lord does not agree with the principle that millions would survive.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am sorry to take up the time of the House yet a third time. To quote from my own speech in the debate, in answer to the point that I do not accept the principle that millions would survive, I said [col. 297]:
" however horrible a nuclear war might be, there would obviously be some people in some areas whose lives could be saved by a good Civil Defence programme."
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, it looks as if the noble Lord and I are getting rather closer—I only say "rather closer "—than otherwise would appear to be the case. I still hold to the principle, as do Her Majesty's Government, that millions would survive.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I accept this principle, and I did so in my speech.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would the noble Earl explain on what evidence he bases the statement that the noble Lord persuaded either his friends or his enemies to take this action of sitting down?
EARL BATHURST: Will the noble Baroness repeat the last word?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: On what basis does the noble Earl base his statement that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, persuaded his friends, or, if he wishes, his enemies or persons he did not know, to take this action of sitting down to deter nuclear action?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think I made it quite clear—and it is clear, I am sure, in the columns of Hansard—that it is the ideas that the noble Lord and his friends or enemies express that persuade people, and in particular young people, to carry out illegal actions. I apologise to the noble Lord if he thinks that I meant that he himself purposely

839
encourages these actions. I think that is quite clear in my reply to the noble Lord's friend, Lord Longford.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I hardly know what to say. What ideas of mine or of my friends persuade people to take illegal action? That is the question to which we wish an answer.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord would want me to prolong this rather personal debate in your Lordships' House; but I think that the entire essence of what the noble Lord and his friends, or enemies, say with regard to Civil Defence and nuclear warfare in general—and, so far as I can see, what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said—is quite different from what his noble friend Lord Lindgren said when he instituted that debate.

AGRICULTURE AND THE COMMON MARKET
2.38 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the official translation of the agreement on agricultural policy reached by the European Economic Community in January, 1962, will be available.]
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:
My Lords, the final texts were approved by the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community on April 4. They will be published in the Official Journal of the Communities in due course. Nine texts comprising six regulations and three decisions have been received (together with two supplementary documents) and have been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. We expect to place the remaining five texts there this afternoon. An English translation will be made available to noble Lords in the Printed Paper Office as soon as possible.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for that information. I wonder whether he could amplify in a little more detail than he did in his answer to the first
840
Question from the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, what is meant by as soon as possible" in this context. I think it is slightly simpler to be more precise when it is a question of translating from French and not of disposing of Egyptianised assets.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:
My Lords, I should like to be precise on this, but it is quite a tricky piece of translation, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. We have set to work on the translation. I cannot give your Lordships an exact date, but I hope that it will be soon after Easter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I happen to have been the recipient of a promise, some months ago, in regard to the simple task of supplying Parliament, which ought to be informed as to what happened, with a plain and official English translation. What on earth is the matter with the Minister's Department? If it is a tricky translation, what are you "tricking" with? Can we not have a plain translation of what was in the agreement?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:
My Lords, I should very much like to help the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition. The point is that the translation which we give to your Lordships must be the translation of the final and substantive document. We have the French version and are going to translate from the French. In the Library your Lordships will find the copies to which I have already referred, and the five others that are coming; they will all be there, in French, in the Library. We are now going to set to work to put them into English, which will be done as quickly as is humanly possible.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, there may be some phrases used in this House which are still in Norman French. I am not ashamed of having been to a board school and of having worked ever since I left it. There is no reason at all why your Lordships' House should not have a translation of this important document within days, not within months. It is quite unreasonable that information is apparently being withheld from Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:
My Lords, with great respect to the noble Viscount, I think he has misunderstood the situation. We have only just received these documents; therefore, it has not been possible for us to translate them sooner.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, when British Ministers attend meetings with the Six they do not speak in French, I presume, but in English. Therefore, their speeches do not need to be translated. Is it not possible to have their speeches issued direct for public consumption, instead of merely handing a précis to the Press for publication?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:
My Lords, that is quite another question. What we are dealing with now is the texts of decisions and regulations, which are in French—they are in fact in French and will be issued in other languages, but the language from which we propose to translate is French. If your Lordships care to look in the Library you will find them there in French. They are all very highly technical—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Thank you very much.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:
That is all we can do for the time being, my Lords.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think that the Government's action in this matter deserves a hearty vote of censure from all sides of the House.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I have not been to any of these international meetings for quite a long while now, but there used to be a good old rule that French and English were equally binding. If that still applies, how does it come about that these documents are in French and not in English as well?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:
Because these are documents which have been discussed among members of the Six.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that there is a real point involved here? It takes the Six three months to decide what they mean in French. What precautions are being taken by Her Majesty's Govern-
842
ment to make quite sure that the translation, when we get it, means exactly the same in English?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:
My Lords, what the noble Lord has said is very helpful. There have been, as your Lordships are perfectly aware, a number of texts, provisional and now final, which have had to be carefully Checked and cross-checked. In order to hurry the thing up, we are working both from the provisional text and from the final French text, and I can assure the noble Viscount he should not be angry with us, because we are doing this as fast as we possibly can.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I will go off and count up the number of days you have had since you made the promise, and I will come to you again.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:
It is not physically possible to translate a text that you have not got.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It would not be impossible for a really up-to-date and enterprising Government, who would have obtained the text much earlier, as between friends.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
2.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH rose to call attention to the Economic Situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have one very great regret in moving this Motion, and that is that I have to move it instead of our old friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence; I cannot help thinking about him as I rise to undertake this task. My Lords, whatever opinions are now held about the general economic situation in the country, one thing is certain. The Conservative Government, after ten and a half years of office, must take the responsibility for the present economic condition of the country. When I was thinking over who was responsible, my mind flashed back to a speech (which I am sure was made in the hearing of many Members of this House who were then Members of the other place) which was the greatest indictment of a Government I have ever

843
heard in my Parliamentary life. It was made on October 5, 1938, by Sir Winston Churchill against the Chamberlain Government. Sir Winston used these words, which I quote [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 339; col. 366]:
" So far as this country is concerned …"
this was in relation to the crisis of 1938—
"… the responsibility must rest with those who have had the undisputed control of our political affairs …"
So whatever I say this afternoon about the situation, I would adopt that first of all.
The country, apparently, is also concerned about it. This morning we can see in the Press the results of the first by-election after Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's Budget, and therefore what the voters think about it. This great and powerful Conservative majority Government receive far less than a quarter of the total votes cast by the electorate in North Derby within a week or so of the Budget—a Budget which was to deal with the economic and financial position in which we find ourselves to-day. I think there can be little doubt about that. If that is so in the case of North Derby, it has been almost continuously so since the first great shock to the Conservative Party at Orpington. Obviously to-day, when we come to discuss the economic situation of the country, the country at large has confidence neither in Mr. Macmillan nor in the Conservative majority Government. They do not seem to be able to use the election opportunities which are given to them.
The Economist newspaper—which I suppose would pride itself upon being a more or less independent paper on financial and economic questions; but which to my mind, at any rate, is often guilty of being especially anti-Labour—has been very interested in our general economic position. Just before Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's Budget there appeared in that paper a particularly carefully drafted article, to which I will come in a moment. Broadly speaking, what they wanted was a loosening up of the economy in order to try to find some remedy for our present difficulties of stagnation in production and repeated crises in exports and balance of pay-
844
ments. But, when they came to write their article last week, they had a comment to make on Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's Budget. I need not quote the article in detail, but two things stand out in it.
The first is that they regarded the Budget as depressing. The other thing—and this, of course, is not a charge against the Government in this case—is that they said the one thing they thought they could praise, apart from the promise of a change in the Schedule A tax in the future, were the taxes to be imposed—now known as "lollipop" taxes—upon children's and old age pensioners' sweets and soft drinks. No wonder,they regarded the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as depressing, if that is the best comment they could find to make about it!
There was, of course, something to be said for the promise that was made to repeal next year for owner-occupiers the present Schedule A tax, but I think most owner-occupiers would have preferred to have something in hand rather than to wait for it. I would not go so far as to use the words of a Member in the other place, who said, "You might wait till next year, some time, never." I think they would be bound to fulfil this promise, seeing that they are fulfilling the promise they made last year to relieve the sur-tax payer by £83 million. But certainly it does very little to help those who are in just as much difficulty as the owner-occupier; those who, since the Government's Rent Act, have had constantly increasing rents to pay, and who are facing the results of a new assessment and valuation, having already suffered rent increases far greater than the actual amount of the Schedule A tax upon the apartment or house they rent. I should say that, judging by the estimates I have seen, the burden on those tenants and properties would be at least half as much again as that on those involved in owner-occupation, if not nearly double. So there is little hope and help for them there. I think, therefore, that we can pretty well leave out the Budget from anything we consider as being effective in relation to the general economic situation of the country. It means almost nothing in its contribution to improving the situation—almost nothing at all.
But there are some things revealed by a study of accounts, as to how some prophets have come to judgment. I have noticed from time to time in the Conservative speeches in the other place, and sometimes in the country, that they are very concerned about the general state of expenditure under the Conservative Government, and about its effect upon the national economy, so we produced some figures brought up to date with this last Budget. Before I quote them, may I just say this: that during the 1959 General Election tour of Mr. Macmillan, the Prime Minister, he warned the country that if the Labour Party were elected their costly measures would cause Government expenditure to rise by the end of five years by £1,000 million in a year. I would point out that the Conservative Government have managed to get to that position in half the time. I will give the figures if I may.
In 1959–60 the Budget estimate was £4,495 million for Supply Services expenditure the actual expenditure was £4,502 million. In 1960–61 the Budget estimate was £4,907 million: the actual expenditure was £4,989 million. In 1961–62 the Budget estimate was £5,187 million: the actual Exchequer issues for that year were £5,368 million. The Budget estimate submitted for this year is £5,612 million. So, my Lords, instead of being £1,000 million up in five years, they are over £1,100 million up in about two and a half years. That is one prophet come to judgment, anyway. If that is the basis upon which Conservative appeals are made to the country to try to sway the electors' opinions, I should have thought that the sooner they revised their methods the better it would be. I readily admit that gat Election times, when Party feeling is running high, there may be quite wild speeches made here and there; but they should not come in that manner from the Prime Minister.
In the next breath, I should like to refer to Mr. Macmillan's comments in the 1959 Election with regard to something which is in the Budget, the taxation of capital gains. Mr. Macmillan toured about 2,000 miles in the Election campaign, and in his first tour he was opening up at Bradford. After generally attacking Mr. Gaitskell's reliance
846
upon a tax on capital gains and business expenses, he said:
" The truth is that this vast Eldorado, these vast millions to be found so easily and so painlessly, simply do not exist. The plain fact of the matter is that Mr. Gaitskell has been rattled and is running around in circles."
That was said at Bradford, according to the Daily Telegraph of October 1, 1959—two and a half years ago. This Budget adopts what we on our side believe to be a very unsatisfactory method of taxing capital gains. But it is adopted—another prophet come to judgment.
Then there were references in the same tour of Mr. Macmillan to the stupidity of talking about getting money from taxation of business expenses. I need only say to your Lordships that those of you who have any connection with business know as well as I do that there is already a revision by this Government of the basis of taxation of business expenses, and that they seem to get money from it—another prophet come to judgment. I could go on with quite a number of other cases to prove the same thing, but I will quote only one more speech of Mr. Macmillan, made during his Kent tour. He said, in dealing with Labour's taxation proposals on capital gains and business expenses:
" Mr. Gaitskell has apparently discovered a new golden path to success—taxation of expense accounts and capital gains. The truth is it is a fake. It is the last desperate throw of people who know they are not going to win the election."
LORD STONHAM: That is why they are doing it now.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But the Prime Minister won the Election, and he has adopted both. Fake business expenses and capital gains! Is it any wonder that the country loses confidence?
These things can be carried to an even later stage than that, beause if your Lordships look at column 821 of the Hansard Report of the other place for April, 17, 1961 you will find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, dealt with the suggestion from some quarters that remissions on surtax should be accompanied by a capital gains tax. He went on to explain that he had carefully examined it all,

847 and at the end of that particular paragraph he said:
" I propose to look at it myself again during the coming year. But I am not at present satisfied that what is called a capital gains tax is worth while."
My Lords, it has been thought worth while in the Budget which has just passed, although intervening between those two was the occurrence of the "little Budget" last July, when Mr. Selwyn Lloyd said, with regard to this tax:
" It would involve a new and complicated drain on the administrative resources available. We should find that all the best brains in the country would be concentrating at once on how legally to get round it. We should have a limit, and we should have exceptions We should have to have a sliding scale; and in my view—I look at this from a purely practicable point of view—I do not think it would be worth while".
That was what he said even when dealing with the "little Budget", which was to be an interim measure for getting rid of the difficulties that had occurred in the progress of our economic situation. But it is in this Budget.
The only criticism one can make about it at once, perhaps, is that he has gone as far as the can to leave all the loopholes there for those people who want to escape it to do so. For short-term profits they need to hold an investment for only one or two days longer than six months in order to escape it; and on properties, they can also manage to escape taxes of the same character by manipulation. In calling attention to the economic situation, my Lords, I do really think that we might ask the Government to look at their past record in this matter to see whether they could not be a little more certain as to what they are saying, as to whether they can carry it out, and in ensuring that the country will not be misled.
There is one other matter I should like to refer to, which is the tendency nowadays for all political Parties to say, "We are in favour of dealing with this matter by way of planning and controls." There, again, is a most extraordinary change of behaviour and opinion. During the evening of the Stockton by-election I listened in very carefully to all the television shows that were put on and to the opinions which were being obtained from Liberals and Conservatives.
848
One Liberal candidate or past candidate—I think one speaker was the prospective Member and another was a past Member for Middlesbrough—claimed that his Party could present to the country a proper five-year plan to get rid of all the present difficulties. He was a representative of the Liberal Party, which I have always associated in my mind with those in complete support of what is called absolutely free trade, absence of controls: every man for himself and the Devil take the hindmost! The same night the defeated Conservative candidate, speaking I believe from the steps of the Town Hall, indicated that the Government's planning which they intended for the future would of course lead to better times and would be coming to fruition in time for the Tory Party to be returned at the next Election. They are all in favour of planning now.
When the Conservatives came to power in 1951 on the basis that it was necessary to set the people free from planning and controls, you would never have believed that they would come to the situation that they have reached now. First of all, they often complain of our referring to the league table, but they stand practically at the bottom of the league table in production, especially industrial production. In that regard, there were two boom years—strangely enough, they were the Election years, 1955 and 1959. Nevertheless, taking an average over their whole 10½ years in office, production has not expanded more than an average of 2 per cent. But in the case of the Election years, it was 4 per cent. or nearly 5 per cent. in 1955, and that figure was boosted to 9½ per cent. in 1959. That was brought about largely by Budget manipulation and also by increasing productive output, not so much for export or to correct our balance of payments, but by providing, in advance of production, more spending money for the people for the time being in the Election year. No wonder that even some Conservative Members of Parliament say that they are tired of seeing Governments offering bribes to the electorate! That is the state of the nation, which we want honestly and sincerely to see improved.
One reason Why we want to get back to a sound basis of planning and control is that there can be no shadow of doubt

849
that one of the great handicaps to keeping up a steady growth of production, which is what this country needs, has been the "Stop-Go, Stop-Go" policy of this Government over the last ten years. This has led to very great anxiety and a great lack of confidence in various of the industries concerned. I should say that the actual direction of investment has probably been greatly handicapped by the lack of an adequate lead or of fiscal measures to support investment in the right industries for the right purpose, together with a guarantee at the same time that these would be no restriction against the bolding of skilled labour in certain districts where it ought not to be held because it is required elsewhere for the general economic benefit of the whole country.
My Lords, you cannot arrange things of this sort without planning, and you cannot arrange them without control. You can speak and argue and plan all you like about political Party policies for a redistribution of industry into the areas where you can thereby undo unemployment or expand the overall production for the country; but you must also ensure that you stop this continuous and undue flow of people who are enticed into industries in areas such as London and its neighbouring parts, or centres like Birmingham and its nearby districts, which leads to an unequal distribution of labour in relation to the skilled requirements of the nation. It is very important that that should be seen to.
Then, I must complain about the manner in which even the beginnings of a plan by the Government seem to he put into operation. One of the things which has obviously been very much in the mind of Mr. Selwyn Lloyd ever since last July is the pressure of some policy which was called the "pay pause". Of all the stupidity, politically, of introducing it in the way it was introduced at such a time, in the light of relief of surtax, and holding up the legitimate cost-of-living increases which were due, some of them under quite normally operated agreements which made it clear that they were due for reconsideration! And if I may bring your Lordships up to date, there was also that extraordinary answer yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, with regard to the position of nurses. It is the same thing. Yet all this was suddenly launched arising out
850
of the "Little Budget", and there has been a great deal of difficulty since.
Organised labour in this country is always at the service of a Government, of any colour; and it is asked for its advice, after consultation, upon what is best for the industry of the country. I could quote, if I looked them up, any number of cases where organised labour has been called in on such occasions as that. But then, to set up a National Economic Development Council—which was immediately labelled Neddy "—before there was anything like a basis of agreement as to how it should function between employers, the Government and the employees' organisations, is something I cannot fathom. I certainly cannot admire either the wisdom or the political discretion of those who were responsible for that approach; and up to the moment it has not done any good in this matter. Yet I should like to see an organisation of that kind really succeed, if the matter were soundly approached, with the responsibilities both of labour and employer, as well as the Government, in actual planning to bring about the results we want. But, like nearly everything else this Government have touched, from Suez to "Neddy ", they make unhappy mistakes, rushing when they ought not to and hesitating when they ought to go forward, and going down in history as the Government of continuous blunders. And they blundered on this one.
However, I should like to see an attempt made to get a planning organisation with a proper view as to what is the basis of fair remuneration. On the other hand, I should like to put to the House what is very often said in this country, as if it were only so in this country—that there is not the proper relation between wages and the actual growth of production, which is really at the base of what Mr. Selwyn Lloyd seeks when he asks for a pause. It is not true to suggest that our 'position in the league table of production internationally is due to the fact that higher wages are paid in this country. If you see some of the claims in the United States, you will see that the average wage to-day, for a shorter week, is nearer £40 than £30 per week. We have no such wages in general use in this country as there are in the United States.

851
Or, if you come to examine the position in relation to the Common Market countries—the Six countries which noble Lords, or many of them, are so anxious to join, so as to get, in some miraculous way, out of the present economic dangers in which the country finds itself—do you find wages there in any better relation to production than here? If you look at the facts, I think it will be agreed that that is not so. What a comment that was in the London Times, when the O.E.C.D. Economic Survey came out! They said:
" This contains all the information that ought to have been given in our own Economic Survey".
But it was not given. They thought very poorly of the Economic Survey in this country. The O.E.C.D. pointed out that the hourly wage earnings in manufacture are as follows. These are the figures from 1953 to 1960 (I have not the figure for 1953–61): in Italy, 137; in the United Kingdom, 155; in West Germany, 158; in the Netherlands, 167; in France, 182. That is the measure of the increase in wages which has taken place. How can it therefore be said that there is an undue handicap to our exports to those countries, when in fact there is not any such obstacle? Because I think that if you watch the export figures (I have not got them with me, but I look at them from time to time) of this country, compared with the Common Market countries in the last two years, you will see that those figures have steadily increased, whereas they have not been increasing in some of our best-known markets of the world. I could quote other examples, but I have not the time to do so.
But I will say to your Lordships that what this country needs at the present time is the right sort of growth. It needs a growth of industry all the way round. I am very much in favour of planning, so that we give all the necessary favours to export industry in order to correct the frequent tendency in our balance of payments, and therefore bringing pressure on the pound. But, my Lords, I am not in favour of so putting on this "Stop and go" that you very often stop something in home production which is, in fact, of very great assistance to our export trade. Any businessman who has been engaged, as I am sure many
852
of your Lordships have, in industries which are vertically organised—and therefore you are in it from the primary production right up to the final distribution—would say that, if it were not for the proportion of overheads on your export goods which are carried along on your home production, you could not get the markets you are getting to-day. And to make these sudden stops and starts, which very often fall penally hard on your home producers, is not right.
I am naturally very interested in agriculture, and I have a paper here which will show what I mean. Let us state the position that agriculture has taken up on this difficult question of balance of payments. It has been of enormous service in holding off the worst aspects of the balance-of-payments crises through which we have been going, involving hundreds of millions a year. Let us take one of the things which has happened in relation to the home industry—the enormous increase in machinery ordered by the British farmer. Speaking from memory, I think it has not been as much in the last twelve months as it was before (some years have been better than others), but there is a continuous purchase of agricultural machinery. Anyway, the value of machinery ordered by farmers in this country in 1961 was £214,500,000, or 17 per cent. of the whole of the agricultural purchases for the year.
Then I look at the exports, and I find that the export of farming machinery in 1961 has been no less than £134 million. How much does the costing of these two parts of trade go together? I must say, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, who just before Christmas drew attention to the Government's view that one cause of our situation had been far too much pressure upon our resources for the home market, that we have to examine all these matters carefully, because to cut deliberately products X, Y or Z in home production may do inordinate damage to their export trade. It needs to be planned and it needs to be controlled—two words which were anathema to the Conservative Party in 1951. I am very anxious to see this put right, whoever does it, because I want to see my country prosperous, I want to see the workers not only employed but also properly

853
paid and I want to see the better spending of money.
In studying the figures of the way in which money is spent, one of the most shocking things I find is the extent to which money is being spent, encouraged by the moral outlook of the Government, on gambling. The Conservative Government have given a special cachet to the people to think that gambling is all right, by a special Bill, by setting up betting shops and by having Premium Bonds, with special competitions arising out of them. The amount spent on these forms of gambling runs into something like £790 million a year. About £440 million is spent or racing. I notice that the money spent on the pools has decreased from £111 million to £100 million. The amount spent on Premium Bonds is £13½ million. The way in which a country can be made to appear as if the people "never had it so good" is fantastic. Everybody is anxious to get more money and will risk anything in any sort of gamble to get it.
I want to see better production and better wages and a better use of the nation's money. I want to see demands being made which will help not only our own country, which is a prime necessity, but also to keep together people who have been under British influence, who have been given British ideas and some idea of freedom and of coming together in future to co-operate for production, trade and development. At present, I am entirely dissatisfied with the state of the national economy, and I am even more dissatisfied with the efforts the Government have either made or not made at all. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I have listened with rapt attention to the skilful political speech which the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has made. I am not going to follow him into the many statements and misstatements in which he has indulged. I am going to ask him to be patient and wait for my noble friend the Leader of the House, who, I am sure, will be much more capable of that task than I am.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I suppose that the noble Lord thinks that the noble Viscount is more answerable.
LORD MILLS: Your Lordships must draw your own conclusions about what I think. The noble Viscount referred to the fact that the late Lord Pethick-Lawrence was no longer with us. It is nearly a year ago since he opened a similar debate in your Lordships' House. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Dundee said that his criticisms of the Government were always fair, reasonable and consistent. I am not saying that the noble Viscount's criticisms also are not as fair as he can make them, but Lord Dundee's statement was true and we shall remember our late noble friend with great respect and affection, not only for his many qualities but also for the friendly criticisms to which he submitted the Government and the wise advice he gave us.
Last year in the economic debate he said that there had been some bright periods and on the other hand a good deal of cloudy weather. He then proceeded to describe the most depressing factors—first, the balance-of-payments position, and secondly, the growth of the gross national product. Because our noble friend had the faculty of putting his finger on the things that matter, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the present position of the balance of payments.
The balance-of-payments position recovered substantially last year. The account as a whole was much better. For the balance of imports and exports alone—because that is what is most important for the years ahead—the visible trade balance improved from a deficit of £391 million in 1960 to a deficit of £135 million in 1961. In the second half of last year, the deficit was only £23 million. The balance improved because imports were lower and exports were higher. But we still have to secure the substantial rise in exports that we must have Ito get the balance of payments on a sound foundation, so that we can meet all our oversea commitments and pay for the extra imports that an expanding economy needs, without falling back into a fresh crisis. Of course there has been a price for the gains we have secured since July. There has been some loss of industrial production, though the latest figures of industrial production, which were produced to-day, show a rise of two points between January and February.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, should I not be correct in saying that the actual percentage increase for the whole of the year was only 1 per cent.?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I thought that I had already indicated that there had been a price, in a standstill in industrial production. However, production seems to be coming forward again. But the price in terms of inflationary pressure, both at home and abroad, and in the balance of payments, would have been far higher if we had not made a determined attack on the problem last summer. There is an old saying,
" Look not into the past: it comes not back."
But the noble Viscount invited the Government to look into the past and see what their record had been. I believe that we are entitled to look to the past if only to profit from its lessons, so long as we also look into the future and try to ascertain what it has in store for us. So for a short time I would crave your Lordships' indulgence while I review what has been the record of this Government since they came to power in 1951.
Britain has taken the lead in reducing barriers to trade; the pound has been made convertible, import controls have been lifted, and negotiations have been started for entry into the Common Market, after we had been responsible for forming the European Free Trade Association. We have agreed to reduce import duties on many goods by 20 per cent. in the G.A.T.T. negotiations. Since 1951 the annual value of United Kingdom exports has increased from £2,582 million to £3,682 million in 1961. In volume this represents an increase of over 25 per cent. and has been achieved in the face of growing competition. As a result of Government encouragement and higher savings, Britain is now investing more than twice as much as in 1951 in new factories, plant, equipment, roads, houses and schools. Large-scale modernisation of British industry has been carried out. The net investment by companies has risen from £267 million to £835 million in 1960, and about £1,000 million in 1961.
So far as production is concerned, in the past eleven years it has risen by
856
more than 30 per cent. The emphasis of industrial production has of course shifted from the old to the new industries. One of the fastest growing industries, as your Lordships know, has been the motor industry, in which production of motor vehicles has risen from under 500,000 in 1951 to over 1 million in 1961. Steel, engineering, electronics, plastics, electricity and television have all shown great expansion. The aircraft industry's exports have more than trebled since 1951. I would remind your Lordships that the first nuclear power station in the world was opened at Calder Hall in 1956, and eight more nuclear power stations are being erected.
Full employment has been maintained even when the world recession reached Britain. Unemployment has not reached the 3 per cent. figure which Mr. Gaitskell defined as full employment. The number at work to-day is 1¾ million greater than it was in 1951. The noble Viscount referred to the question of the distribution of industry. I would remind him that special measures have been taken under the Distribution of Industry Act and the new Local Employment Act to deal with pockets of unemployment. As a result South-Wales and Merseyside are being transformed into flourishing industrial areas.
The average standard of living in this period has risen by over 30 per cent.—more than in all the previous 40 years put together. There has been a big rise in the consumption of practically all types of goods. By far the greatest increases have been in motor cars, motor cycles and other durable goods. Allowing for the rise in prices, we are spending to-day about seven times as much on motor cars and motor cycles as we were eleven years ago. On other durable goods expenditure has risen by 50 per cent. and weekly earnings since 1951 have risen by 85 per cent.
I should now like to say a word about taxes. Despite the cost of greatly improved social services, the Government are taking only about 26 per cent. of the gross national product in taxation compared with 32 per cent. in 1951. The standard rate of income tax, as your Lordships know, has been reduced in that period from 9s. 6d. to 7s. 9d.; the personal allowances have been improved; and special reliefs have

857
been given to those on fixed incomes and to encourage savings. Even this year, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to introduce a Budget which really offered no rewards—I could almost call it a tough Budget—he extended the tax reliefs, to the benefit of nearly 500,000 people, in his proposals for the age exemption and the small income relief. Purchase tax has been reduced several times, and the maximum rate is now down from 100 per cent. to 45 per cent. The entertainments tax has been abolished, and the duties on beer and wine have been cut. In 1951, 52½ per cent. of companies' undistributed profits and nearly 75 per cent, of their distributed profits went in income and profits tax. To-day the figure is about 54 per cent.
Then we have record savings. The return of the Conservative Government in 1951 restored confidence in the future. There has been a remarkable increase in personal savings. In 1961 alone we saved over £2,000 million. I suggest that these are achievements which are worth consideration when we talk about the record of this Government. Since the war British investments in and aid to under-developed countries have totalled well over £2,500 million. Since 1956 Government aid has more than doubled, increasing to about £180 million in 1961–62.
But, in the face of these substantial advances, there have been great improvements, too, in the social field. Retirement pensions have been raised four times by over 90 per cent. The real value of the single pension is 15s. more than it was in 1951. With regard to education, we have built over 5,000 new schools, and provided 2,750,000 more school places. On housing, over 3 million houses have been completed, including over 1 million for home ownership. Almost one family in five has moved into a new house since 1951. Then on the health side there has been a fourfold increase in the amount of money spent on hospital building. It was £9 million in 1951, £36 million in 1961 and, as your Lordships know, a new £500 million ten-year programme has been launched. There has also been a big expansion in local authority health and welfare services.
In the face of these great achievements, why have we been faced with
858
balance of payments difficulties, inflation and higher costs, in spite of the great scientific and technological advances which have characterised recent years? During and after the war inflation was analysed in terms of excess demand—too much spending was pulling up prices and incomes tried to keep pace. We tried to deal with this problem—not only the Socialist Government but the Conservative Government too—by fiscal means. Now it is recognised that inflation is also caused by a rise in costs not primarily due to the pull of excess demand, but by increases in incomes not justified by events. The pay pause and the incomes policy, which the noble Viscount mentioned and which are set out in the White Paper, represent an attempt not only to grapple with the problem itself but also to bring home the fact that an incomes policy which goes beyond fiscal controls is essential if we are to be competitive and really to improve our standards.
I suggest that we have made a good start on this incomes problem. Since last July the index of hourly wage rates has risen by less than 3 per cent., and much of that was due to pre-pause commitments. In the same period in 1960–61, the increase was nearly 5 per cent. This is a real gain and there are fairly clear signs that we are already seeing some benefit in the trends of prices, apart from food prices which have been hit by the bad weather and the comparative shortage of potatoes. But this is only the beginning and it is crucial to get money incomes into a proper relationship with production.
Now as to the future. I said that we must look to the future and try to assess what it holds for us. Let us look at both the short-term position and the longer term. First, what are the prospects for the next financial year, 1962–63? Though our exports have risen comparatively little for some time, the conjunction of conditions both at home and abroad is favourable now. Exports to Europe and to North America have been rising strongly. Indeed, between 1960 and 1961 our exports to the members of the Common Market rose more quickly than did their trade among themselves, and there seem good prospects of a recovery of demand for imports by the primary producing countries, who take about half our exports. Generally

859 our casts are now more competitive. We believe there is a prospect of a substantial rise in exports as a whole in the course of this year. Indeed, the latest figures suggest that it may have begun. Exports have increased in the last three months and in March they were some £312 million. Plainly, we must safeguard the opportunity if we are to increase our exports; we would not foster it—on the contrary, we should damage it—by trying to boost our home demand too fast. We need to get the economy more export-minded and to be less tempted by an easy home market. That was the theme to which the noble Viscount referred and about which I was talking last December.
To look ahead over the coming year, there is in prospect not merely rising demand from overseas but more demand from home. In the public sector, investment is rising at an annual rate of 5 per cent., and current spending on goods and services by Government, both central and local, is rising at about 3 per cent. In the private sector, though there may be further falls in investment by manufacturing industry after the immense boom up to the third quarter of last year, the level of investment will still be high. There is also an increasing investment in distribution and in the service trades. The pattern of events suggests that stockbuilding may well be low this year. It seems likely to rise, however, before the end of the year and we must allow for such a demand on current output.
I have given your Lordships a pretty cheerful picture. Let us assume that events do not turn out as we foresee. The Government have now a wide range of powers, both monetary and fiscal, at their disposal to adjust the course of demand. We have developed new tools in the last few years—notably the system of special deposits and the indirect tax regulator for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is seeking renewed powers. Such new powers, added to the existing more conventional powers, provide the way of adjusting the economy to changing events more flexibly, more quickly and in a less discriminatory fashion than in the past. I suggest to your Lordships that this is an important step forward.
860
Now, the longer-term prospect. We have made a good start towards establishing the conditions which are necessary if we are to achieve and sustain a higher rate of growth. I would just refer to the National Economic Development Council. I do not think the noble Viscount has given it a chance yet. I think actually it has had one meeting; but its staff are working hard to get the information upon which they can make judgments.
I should like to highlight four points for the future. The first is the need for a sound balance of payments. I think now there is a growing appreciation that we need a steady and significant export rise as the dynamic element in economic growth. The second point is the balance of claims on resources. We need a better balance between the demands made on the economy and the resources we have to meet them. Too sudden and rapid an upsurge in demand, outstripping the rate of growth in the capacity of the economy both in equipment and in manpower, leads to delay in deliveries, rising costs and damage to our balance of payments. It leads inevitably to restraints to get the economy back in balance. I believe there is a growing appreciation of these factors. We want a steadier course, fixing our policy in the light of prospective developments so as to avoid the "Stop and Go" type of economy and to avoid abrupt changes of direction.
The third point is incomes policy, but I do not propose to add anything to what I have said about that. The fourth point is investment. There has been a considerable rise in the proportion of our resources devoted to fixed investment over the years. The ratio of fixed investment to the gross national product has risen from 17¼ per cent. in 1958 to just over 19 per cent. in 1961. Though the share of our resources devoted to investment at home remains rather lower than, for example, the proportion in Common Market countries, it seems to me clear that over the last decade we have been increasing our share, despite all the other claims on our resources, more quickly than they have. In manufacturing industry alone investment last year was 40 per cent. higher than in 1959. Manufacturing investment accounts for only about 28 per cent. of

861
all fixed investment. It will remain at a high level, and other investment, for example in power, road and transport, also continues to rise.
Now just one word about the Common Market and then I shall be finished. In opening the debate last year on the economic situation Lord Pethick-Lawrence referred to the Common Market and said that if proper terms were found it might be to our great advantage, both economically and politically, if we took part. That is the view of Her Majesty's Government also. We have never disguised what our views are in this respect. We have entered into negotiations with the Six because the opportunities in a market of a further 170 million people should be very great for our industries. With no tariff barrier on British goods we should be able not only to sell more but to increase our share of this expanding market. Whatever develops, we shall find ourselves in a new society. To hold our own in the domestic market and exploit the chances across the Channel will be a major test for our industries.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think it would be very interesting if the noble and learned Viscount later on would say something about the reports which have appeared, in The Times especially, of Dr. Erhard's defence of his Budget and reports of difficulties in the economies of other countries in the Common Market. I did not think the Common Market would be discussed in quite so much detail, but what these countries have done in increased production over the last few years has been boosted up so much and there has been no mention of what view is taken of the pause in the economies of those countries in the Common Market.
LORD MILLS: My noble friend who has just listened to the noble Viscount has murmured something about the "league table". so no doubt he will enlarge on that.
Finally, the future offers opportunities on the economic front, provided we adjust ourselves to the changing circumstances of world trade. We must not think, or continue to think, in terms of
862
what we have known; we must think in terms of what is actually happening and is likely to happen.
3.58 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord, replying to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, said that my noble friend made a skilful political speech. I will not throw any such gibe at the noble Lord, but his speech makes me absolutely despair. It is a tragedy that, year after year, we hear speeches from those Benches—although there are some warning voices from time to time, pointing to the fact that all is not as well with the British economy as it might be—yet the noble Lord's speech was apparently a record of achievement. He said we have lowered trade barriers, we have achieved convertibility, and we are talking about going into the Common Market. The position so far as the security of this country as a base for expansion is concerned is that it is still as weak as it was when, for instance, the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, and others were criticising the Government for the same sort of complacency as we have had to-day. Despite the blinding light that appears to have flashed with regard to inflation—it had flashed a little earlier among some Government supporters—the fact remains that this Budget and Government policy still make no real attack on the basic problem of maintaining a balance in our economy so that we can go forward to expansion.
Ever since the War we have been afflicted by the modern successor of the old trade cycle, namely, a cycle, sometimes of two or three years, of an excess of demand in regard to currency and an imbalance in regard to exports and imports; and we are nowhere nearer solving it now than we were five or, indeed, ten years ago. The situation that precipitated the particularly acute crisis in 1950–51 was, of course, the change in the terms of trade. For the last few years the Government have had a pretty easy time with regard to commodity prices. There has been none of the disturbance that almost overnight turned the favourable balance from one year to another by several hundred million pounds.
When we analyse the situation—and I am sorry that the noble Lord did not

863
do it—we find that there have been certain changes, some of which are certainly not the fault of the Government, but which they have failed to take into account in their planning of budgetary policy, in their presentation of the economic facts to the country. Certain of these difficulties have arisen, I think, from good intentions; I think the intentions in this country in regard to the export of long-term capital have perhaps exceeded our capacity. I think we all applaud the fact we are doing this, particularly in regard to under-developed areas. We have had, especially lately, the acute problem, a new one in recent years, of the balance of payments in regard to the maintenance of our Forces in Germany. We have, in recent years particularly, the decline in trade in the sterling area; and when the Government boast about our achievements in the Common Market, it is worth noting that it is met by a decline elsewhere; perhaps our Common Market competitors were busy in that area. We shall know better about this when, as I hope, we go into the Common Market. My noble friend and I are perhaps not in full agreement on this.
Against this also we have the decline in invisibles. I am staggered that we had no explanation of this. In the past our invisible earnings have been one of the most important parts, the saving grace, of the balance-of-payments situation. We find a really shocking decline in invisible earnings in the last two or three years, sometimes by as much as nearly £200 million, in one year, and we see that the earnings from shipping, which used to be such a standby in this country, declining at a quite deplorable rate. Again, that is, to some extent, affected by the world trade situation and the fall in freight rates and so on. When we look at this position and see the difficulties—and these are genuine ones, not all of the Government's making—we are bound to wonder how it is that the noble Lord can come to make a speech full of easy optimism without any suggestion as to the course we should follow.
It really is not good enough to give a list of the improvements in this country without comparing them with those in other countries. I do not doubt that
864
the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, may wish to murmer "league tables again". I am sorry that we do not have visual aids in this House so that those of your Lordships who have not read the report of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development—and I do not doubt the Government will give a sigh every time this document is mentioned—could look at the relative position of this country; and I urge noble Lords who have not done so to look at page 10 of this document. We see that over the last ten years the increase in the gross national product, averaged year by year, has been exceeded by practically all the countries, indeed all the main industrial and other countries in the West except Ireland. When it comes to increase in individual productivity per man-hour we are at the bottom the Irish beat us with regard to this.
I really fail to see how it is that the Government can be as content as they appear to be. In looking at our export position and at the difficulties we are in in this country and then at the achievements of other countries, we see how unfavourable is the comparison even allowing far the basic insecurity that we have always recognised because of our dependence on raw materials from abroad for imports. I have the figures here in the United Nations digest; I will not bother your Lordships with them. When we look at the achievements of countries like Germany and France and other countries, we see how their exports and imports have risen at a prodigious rate in, comparison to ours. And they appear to have achieved it with only minor disadvantages, although I agree that there are warning signs at the moment as wage rates rise so fast in Germany. When we look at the growth of our economy, then it is certainly worth quoting what this document says:
" The rate of growth of gross national product in the United Kingdom was about half the rate achieved in the member countries of the European Economic Community."
It is probably reasonable to have expected a greater rate between 1950 and 1955. There was the tremendous rate between 1945 and 1950, during the days of the Labour Government. I am not claiming the credit for that; it was part of the post-war recovery which came later in Europe. The growth of gross national product per head of employed

865
population was nearly three times faster on the Continent up to 1955 and twice as fast subsequently.
The noble Lord boasted about investment. But the figures on investment are pretty depressing. We have referred before to this 'matter, and particularly to the failure of the Government to provide the right circumstances for stimulating confidence among private investors. Certainly, except when the Government have seen fit to cut them off rather suddenly or to cut them back—or, as they say, to delay completion—there have been investment programmes in the nationalised industries. The position in private industry is worrying. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, has been rather maligned, particularly by his supporters on my side of the House when they said the City was at the end of its tether. It has not been purely a question of whether or not the Government taxed the rich too much; it has been the absence of any clear-cut Government policy on any long-term approach to the problem.
The Government have very largely ignored the advice of the Radcliffe Report, which I admit was not as clear as it might have been. They have used precisely those instruments they were advised not to use. They have gone in for excessive use of the bank rate, variations of which may be of slight significance in industry but they have an effect on confidence and, among other things, attract a large amount of short-term capital of a very dangerous kind to match our long-term capital invested. It is no wonder that those people who are concerned with the future progress of this country begin at times to despair.
The balance-of-payments problem is not one that is going to be at all easy to solve. It seems to me that the Government, confronted by this basic dilemma, confronted by the problem of rising costs and the pull of home demand, can find only one solution, and that is restriction; their analysis of the problem always leads them to apply the restrictive solution instead of an expansionist one. Yet the surprising thing is that from 1956 to 1958 the yearly rise in industrial production was little over 1 per cent. more than was achieved in 1955. Home costs per unit of output rose by 16 per cent. and the volume of
866
exports by only 4 per cent. Then in 1959–60, when the Government took the lid off (I will not say whether it was connected with Elections, but, at any rate, they did) the economy was allowed to expand and industrial production rose by 13 per cent., home cost nor unit of output by 4 per cent., and exports increased by 9 per cent.
Our criticism is that the policy of the Government, and their Budget in particular, is quite irrelevant—I am not concerned with questions of a confectionery tax—to the needs of our present situation. It fails to provide encouragement for economic growth, even among those who believe most passionately in private enterprise. The Government are rightly concerned with wage levels. To-day no Government can ignore incomes as a factor. It is worth noting that in the last year profits have risen 25 per cent. more than wages, and since 1957 they have risen twice as much. It is against this background that we look at Government policy. They introduce the pay pause; they ignore Radcliffe; last year they introduced a pay roll tax which they quite clearly did not understand. A pay roll tax could, as a long-term instrument of planning, be of some use; but the Government brought it in with the idea of its being a short-term regulator, until they were laughed out of it and, quite properly, dropped it this year. Their sole contribution during the last two years, to a proper and relevant understanding of the problems of this country and the urgency of raising our standards of living as a basis for the security of the Western world has been the introduction of commercial television. This seems to me to be the height of irrelevance and frivolity against the real needs of the part that we ought to play.
When considering what has gone on in the by-elections, I would say only that it is quite obvious that the country is now wanting another lead. Whether or not they want the Labour Party I do not know; but I am quite sure they will not, when the time comes, want the Liberal Party. However, it is quite obvious that the people of this country would like something rather more in the way of leadership; and while we do not want to go back to that sort of austerity and controls, at least in the day of

867
Sir Stafford Cripps there was some leadership, some purpose and determination to arrive at proper priorities. This Budget is no stimulus to invention, to exports, to output or to consumption. In fact, the only thing the Government are achieving is perhaps a limitation on consumption.
Here we find their figures confusing, because they talk about an increase in productivity and that income and consumption must not exceed that increase; yet they are expecting a bigger increase in consumption. What they have done now is to decide that they will "pass the buck", and will hide behind the National Economic Development Council—"Neddy", as it is called. I am entirely in favour of this Council, and am delighted that the trade unions have gone into it. The fact that they did not go into it before was because the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to talk to them, except on one issue—namely, control of wages. If we are to have a national policy we need much more stimulus, much more direction and a new climate of opinion. The trade unions and employers, with the Government, since the Government themselves refuse to govern, need to look and see how this problem of incomes and production can be tackled.
There are some things that could be done. The O.E.C.D. Report—I will not bother your Lordships with reading it in detail—again refers to the need for long-term solutions as opposed to the short ones that we have to-day. Clearly, there is a need to get labour rather more mobile. The Government do little to stimulate mobility. Here, a lead for the introduction of rational redundancy arrangements for industry would be of real help. Few firms have them. Some of the most progressive provide them, but they are pathetic in comparison to the real need to get people moved out of an industry. This is going to be even more necessary if we go into the Common Market.
Secondly, and perhaps most important, we in this country need rather more of an atmosphere of social justice. Although noble Lords may have laughed at some of the remarks of my noble friend and Leader with regard to the
868
" gambling State ", the fact is that most people to-day are looking for the easy way to make money. The speculative gains tax, although of some significance—I would not write it off entirely—is still small in comparison to the need for achieving a proper taxation of that section of earnings, namely, capital gains, which, at the present moment, are untaxed. I cannot, for the life of me, see how a Conservative Government who have not normally suffered from doctrinal restraints can find themselves unable to introduce this tax which would have a really considerable effect in changing the atmosphere within this country.
There are two or three things that could be done urgently now. The time has come when we must stop playing around with mere exhortations to exporters. Other countries have gone further. The Labour Government in the past, and now the Conservative Government, refuse to give real incentives. I think it is necessary that finance should be available—I do not mean export credit guarantees, admirable though they are for their rather limited purpose—at low interest rates. It is no good our worrying about the fact that there are exporters who do not directly export, and therefore will probably go out. Somehow, we have to improve the very poor performance in comparison to that of other countries of the exporters of this country. It is poor because it is more difficult to export. There are all sorts of dangers and hazards in it. I think that if we are to have an incentive society, and have to rely on incentives, some incentives should be given. There are other things that could have been done again this year. We could at least have had some improvement in depreciation allowances in industry.
I hone that we shall not think of this discussion simply in terms of an attack on the Budget. This is a fundamental problem that is affecting our country. The country is tired, and it will remain tired until some leadership is provided. We have such vast commitments, both internationally and at home, that we must get at least somewhere near the promise (which does not seem likely to be fulfilled) of Mr. Butler, when he talked about doubling the standard of living in 25 years. Whether or not

869
we double our standard of living, certainly we have to increase our production at a much higher rate. At the moment we are noticeably failing to achieve this increase.
4.18 p.m.
LORD POOLE: My Lords, I listened with the greatest respect to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who initiated this debate, and also to the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I hope they will not think me discourteous if I say that I disagreed with almost everything the noble Viscount said, and with a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton said. I shall confine myself to certain other aspects of our economic problem which have not been fully dealt with this afternoon.
The noble Viscount is quite right to consider the economic situation to-day against the background and light of the Budget which was introduced last week, and to consider the extent to which it meets the immediate economic demands of the country without, as I am afraid has happened in the past, prejudicing the long-term position. But it seems to me that, before we can really assess the effect of the Budget, whether it meets the needs of the country at this time, we must be clear in our own mind whether the Budget should have been an inflationary or a deflationary Budget.
Here, I find myself in complete disagreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and also I think, with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. For the ordinary people in this country it is extremely difficult to determine, when the economy is fairly nicely balanced, what should be done. For example, the noble Viscount quoted the Economist—and I am very glad he should have done so, because, as perhaps some of your Lordships know, I am associated with it. But Mr. Wincott, in the Financial Times, said this:
"… the one way to have ensured yet another crisis for Britain before 1962 is out would have been to pump another £150–£200 million of purchasing power into the economy."
Last Sunday, Mr. Lawson, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, said:
" But perhaps the most extraordinary Treasury decision of all was that the British economy on 9th April, 1962 required a dose of disinflation."
870
It is therefore very difficult for the ordinary reader to know which to follow. The only conclusion to which one can really come is that they cannot both be right. I take the exact opposite view to that taken by noble Lords opposite. I believe that at this time what was needed was a Budget that was deflationary, and I do not agree that the Budget was irrevelant, because I think it was a great deal more deflationary than some people have been led to believe. If I come to this conclusion, I am greatly influenced by the fact that, in my opinion, inflation is endemic in the whole economy of the free countries of the world, particularly in Europe and the United States; and whereas it is fairly easy to inflate the economy, it is extremely difficult and laborious to have to deflate, should that be necessary.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, we have the advantage of having the O.E.C.D. Report to guide us. I have it here, too. I hope that he will forgive me if I quote from it, and perhaps the passages I quote will not carry quite the same connotation as those he quoted. This, of course, is always likely to happen. Contrary to what was, I think, the general impression in the newspapers—and certainly contrary to what has been said to-day—my general conclusion from this Report is that it completely supports the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the view he has taken. If your Lordships will turn to page 30. in the Conclusions (I usually find it easier to read the Conclusions because, as a rule, they are shorter than the rest of the Report), you will see that paragraph 47 says:
" But it is equally important that full advantage should be taken of the breathing space thus provided to set on foot the more fundamental adjustments the economy requires."
I maintain that that was exactly what the Chancellor intended to do in this Budget.
LORD SHACKLETON: Lollipops!
LORD POOLE: I will argue lollipops with the noble Lord if he wishes, but I thought he said he did not want to do so.
This Report gives the most thorough examination of our present economic condition, but there is nothing very new

871
in it: there is nothing that has not been said before and is known to most people. It gives (and noble Lords opposite are quite justified in calling attention to it) rather depressing comparisons with the economic situation and growth in other European countries. But I do not think one can ignore all the factors that have led to it. I feel that it is perhaps a danger of debates on economic situations that one tends to confine oneself entirely to economic matters, when in fact there are many matters, which are not purely economic in themselves, but which have a very great impact on the economic life of the country. For example, few people in this country think that economic conditions are really the be-all and end-all of what we are trying to do, and the objectives of economic policy must be consistent with other objectives, such as the maintenance of personal liberty, social justice, freedom, in regard to all of which I should have thought Great Britain has an excellent record, under any Government during the last 25 years, in comparison with many other countries in the world.
Nor is the raising of the standard of living the only objective of economic policy. I think that full employment (and the noble Lord, Lord Mills has drawn attention to this) ranks with many people in this country as high as greater wealth. It certainly does with people like myself, who started work in the early thirties. I do not think that this should be forgotten. Unemployment in Britain has varied between 1·1 and 1·2 per cent. over the last few years, and it has never been up to 3 per cent., whereas in other European countries—which we have had quoted as to their productive success—unemployment has been consistently at a level of 5 per cent., or more. I think that noble Lords opposite, when they quote these figures and are stoning current productivity, should say whether they would be prepared to accept that level of unemployment.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but may we be told which countries have had consistent unemployment of 5 per cent.?
LORD POOLE: Yes.
LORD SHACKLETON: Portugal?
LORD POOLE: I am quite prepared to be quoted against myself, but I have not these figures with me. I had in mind Italy and France.
LORD SHACKLETON: No.
LORD POOLE: Yes.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:
My Lords, would the noble Lord explain the high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland?
LORD POOLE: I am merely saying—and I am not going back on my point—that these countries, whose productivity is considered to be so superior to ours, have in most cases a level of unemployment greatly in excess of ours. If I have made a miscalculation I will apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and withdraw. It does not, however, alter the purpose of my case.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that under the Labour Government we had much higher productivity than the other countries of Europe, and also a lower level of unemployment?
LORD POOLE: My Lords, I think that if the noble Lord had listened to Lord Shackleton he would have heard him mention the different circumstances which obtained at that time. I consider that these are very important points.
Another objective, I think, is the avoidance of great inequalities of wealth; and although no one would say that has been completely achieved in this country, nor would it be argued that inflation does not cover up great patches of poverty. I do not believe that there is anybody who would say that the situation in this country does not compare very favourably with many other countries. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred to our contribution to the under-developed countries. I would say that Britain has contributed as much—I was going to say more, but I do not wish to be corrected by the noble Lord again—in relation to its resources as any other country.
LORD SHACKLETON: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene again? France has made a bigger contribution.
LORD POOLE: I said "as much as" other countries. We should remember these points, and we should emphasise

873
these achievements. The great problem—I accept this from noble Lords opposite—is that it is difficult to do this and strike the right balance without appearing to be complacent, for which there is no possible justification.
There is another great illusion, I think, and that is that economic and productive growth is influenced only by economic factors. It is a mistake, in my opinion, to assume that there is a direct relationship between capital investment and productivity. I think the O.E.C.D. Report makes this mistake on page 18. For example, Norway has invested a larger proportion of its national income than most other countries, and has in fact a rather lower than average growth rate. Mr. Odd Aukrust, who has made a detailed study of the economies of Norway, Finland and the United States of America, concludes in his article in the Productivity Review for February, 1959, that the human factor—better organisation, better management, better labour relations—matters more than mere additions to capital or size of the labour farce. I would agree, inasmuch as this was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that these factors are just as important as making a capital investment or having statistics which are drawn from one book or another.
But, my Lords, having said all this, having achieved so much, we must seriously ask ourselves: what has gone wrong? I agree With the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that the factor which has hindered us most is that When the economy has expanded as rapidly as it did in 1953 and 1958 we have almost at once run into a balance-of-payments crisis or, as in 1957, a speculative run on the pound, and the Government have been obliged to take restrictive action. I believe that the reason for this is rather different from What has been suggested.
It is wrong to underestimate the difficulties of managing a currency like sterling, which, like the dollar, but unlike the European currencies, is an international reserve currency. As an example of this, in 1938 the ratio of the sterling area's reserves to trade was 72 per cent.; in 1955 the ratio was 25 per cent. Put in another way (and this is referred to in the O.E.C.D. Report), in 1959 Britain's foreign liabilities were more than three times its reserves, where-
874
as the reserves of the European Six were five times their liabilities. I think that this fact simply cannot be overlooked.
I am convinced that we are never going to solve this problem—and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, rightly criticises this "stop and go" economy—unless there are very real adjustments made fairly soon to what is loosely called "world liquidity". A start has been made, but not nearly enough has been done. The results of the discussions in Vienna were, to me, extremely disappointing. We have had the views of Mr. Tryffin, Professor Bernstein and Mr. Stamp; and I will say at once that I am in no position to put forward the merits of any one of their views, because I do not fully understand them. But they are authoritative proposals, and, so far as I know, none of them has been adopted by any Government concerned.
I would urge Her Majesty's Government to give immediate and serious attention to this problem. Because, my Lords, however much we increase exports, it is an absolute illusion to think that we can increase them so quickly, so much, that this vast gap which I have disclosed will be filled—at least in any circumstances which we can foresee. In fact, it can be demonstrated that an increase in exports, without an increase in reserves, makes us temporarily more vulnerable to fluctuations and, particularly, to delays in settlements made from overseas. We are in exactly the same position as a company which is consistently and regularly over-trading, which is being exhorted to over-trade more; and I think that no one can view this situation without the very gravest concern.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that we must not increase our exports at the present stage.
LORD POOLE: No, my Lords, but I am suggesting, and I am suggesting quite seriously, that it is quite wrong to assume that in the circumstances as we see them, or are likely to see them, we can increase exports indefinitely, without equally bearing in mind that we are running exactly the risk which I have described. This must be borne in mind. The Government can help exports, and I certainly agreed

875
when it was said that the Government should not do so only by exhortation. There is really nothing more infuriating than that. But various things can be done, such as the provision of medium-term credits, as has been suggested, and of additional finance. But all of these things are extremely difficult to do when, in fact, our resources are inadequate.
It has been suggested that the Government should give direct incentives to help exports. I find it difficult to make any such recommendation myself because I am hesitant to know what exactly the Government should do. Do the people who make these suggestions say that we should have a turnover tax, as in France and Germany, and replace our taxation system? Do they suggest that we should perhaps ignore, or appear to ignore, some of the arrangements which are made at G.A.T.T.? I really do not know. But, in my opinion, there is no doubt that anybody who lightly makes suggestions of this kind, bearing in mind the effect they are bound to have—and I certainly do not say this regressively—should have a very clear idea of what exactly he is proposing.
I would suggest that Her Majesty's Government might consider urging our Embassies abroad to be a little less aloof on trade. If you try to sell, particularly in Latin American countries, you find that your principal opponent is only too often the accredited representative of some other country; whereas our own Embassies appear—at least, to those of us who struggle—to take the rather high attitude that it is beneath them to help. I believe that, if that point could be taken up, it would be helpful.
But far and away the most important thing the Government can do to help exports, is to keep our precarious economy on an even keel; and they must do this by the use of the Budget. Fiscal and financial measures are no real alternative. If the Budget does not restrain the inflation which, in my opinion, is endemic in our situation, and is generated to a great extent by Government expenditure, whether above or below the line (and when people talk about expenditure rising let them say quite clearly which they would like to see cut), then tighter monetary controls and higher interest rates are no alterna
876
tive. My Lords, I would end where I began. In my opinion, this is exactly what the Chancellor had in mind; this is exactly what he has done. He had to create conditions under which the National Economic Development Council could start to function.
I am extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, referred to Europe. I was a little disappointed that in the debate in another place last week there was not much reference to Europe. It is surely a matter that is in the minds of most of us, whether we are in agreement with it or not; and some of us expressed our views on that on another occasion. But it is certainly a primary duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this time to have our economy in a form that will enable us to enter the Common Market in the most advantageous circumstances possible. I consider that the Chancellor has done this. It is considered in some quarters that what he has done is dull. It is always dull to tell people that there is no easy panacea which can be brought in to solve all the problems; and, of course, so far as the Press are concerned it is more exciting to have tremendous pieces of news. I believe, therefore, not only that this was a Budget conceived in exactly the right terms, but that in the present circumstances—which have been much referred to by noble Lords opposite—it was, on the part of the Chancellor. a courageous Budget. I hope that it will have the support of the majority here in your Lordships' House.
4.40 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING:
My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships for the first time, may I start by requesting you to extend to me the indulgence which is traditionally shown on these occasions? Your Lordships are, of course, aware that there are certain occupational hazards which confront anybody who rises to his feet in your Lordships' House. In my own case, there is an additional and, I venture to suggest, unique hazard to which am liable to be exposed: for, my Lords, I may confidently assert that none of your Lordships (nor, indeed, of your Lordships' predecessors) has been liable, on rising to his feet, to find himself subjected to step-grand maternal

877
surveillance from the Cross Benches. It so happens, my Lords, that the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, left the country by air this morning. This was entirely coincidental, and was arranged long before she or, indeed, I myself had any idea that I should be speaking this afternoon.
My Lords, the noble Viscount opposite who opened this debate depicted the economy in what appeared to me to be somewhat sombre hues, and I am not entirely persuaded that this sombreness was justified. Surely over the past decade there has been a considerable improvement in general standards of living throughout the country, despite the onerous burdens imposed upon us by the sacrifice of our overseas investments and the heavy additional obligations incurred during the war, upon which is now superimposed the high current level of expenditure upon defence. This, surely my Lords, is no mean achievement in the circumstances. But, of course, the stresses and strains developed in the process have erupted in the form of inflationary pressures which have not only introduced serious distortions in the home economy but also played havoc with the balance of payments. So it is that, every time there has been an attempt to expand the economy, sooner or later—and it is usually sooner—drastic restrictive measures have had to be introduced for the defence of the pound.
My Lords, if poverty in the midst of plenty was the tragedy and paradox of the pre-war era, might it not be true to say that prosperity in the midst of crises is the distinguishing feature of more recent times? We have had to endure for some years the disconcerting experience of riding upon this monstrous economic switchback. It so happens that, at the present time, we are being granted a respite and breathing space, while the driver seeks to determine whether the next stage requires an upward or a downward movement of his regulalator. Meanwhile we can be thankful that he has resisted the temptation to release the brakes immediately; for your Lordships do not need me to remind you that on previous occasions, when other drivers have prematurely released the brakes, their subsequent and abrupt reapplication has proved singularly uncomfortable.
878
I confess that, contemplating the last decade or so, and the monotonous regularity with which the same treatment of credit restriction, high bank rate, and so on, has been prescribed time after time, I find myself irresistibly reminded of a phrase from the saga describing that famous amphibious expedition which I suppose would nowadays be designated "Operation Snark". Perhaps I should make it clear at this stage that in what follows no direct or indirect reference to my noble and, learned Leader is implied. The verse that keeps recurring to my mind is the one that goes:
"This was charming no doubt,
Though they shortly found out
That the Captain they trusted so well,
Had only one notion for crossing the ocean,
And that was to tinkle his bell."
My Lords, it is surely high time that we devised some new notions. The stock treatment has proved no more than a palliative, and the basic disorder remains to be remedied.
Any doubts which may linger as to the accuracy of this diagnosis should have been dispelled by the O.E.C.D. Survey, which has been mentioned by more than one of your Lordships, and I shall not risk inducing any sighs by quoting further from it. But, my Lords, I should like, if I may, to say this. I can think of no more complete vindication for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's insistence upon the supreme importance of a national income policy than the analysis and conclusion presented in this document. Moreover, there is an unmistakable note of urgency underlying the recommendations, which state that it is imperative that a start should be made at once if the temporary respite, gained as a result of the measures introduced last July, is to be turned to more lasting advantage. This crucial problem has been submitted to the National Economic Development Council, and if that body can evolve, with reasonable despatch, a policy which conforms broadly to the recommendations of the O.E.C.D. Survey, and proves acceptable to the country, it will have rendered a conspicuously valuable service.
I warmly welcome the formation of this important body, and my right honourable friend surely deserves the greatest credit for the initial proposal

879
and for the patience and perseverance which he displayed in what was undoubtedly a difficult and long-drawn-out accouchement. My only regret, and it is a mild one, is that this important body—I suppose as a result of our passion for initials and portmanteau words—is now familiarly known as "NED"—a name which, for all its charm, is more generally associated with a domesticated, but asinine, beast of burden. This is both inappropriate and somewhat unfortunate.
Last summer, my Lords, an outstandingly informative and constructive Report was produced, on the Control of Public Expenditure by the group presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Plowden. Among other things, it lays great stress upon the importance of building up an informed body of public opinion. May I quote from the penultimate paragraph of that Report? It says:
" The best system and most up-to-date techniques will succeed only if public opinion is actively stimulated and enabled to take a balanced view of the alternative uses of national resources that are posed, and to bring to the consideration of public expenditure and resources the same qualities of common sense and realism that the average household shows all the time in handling its own financial affairs."
This is an important aspect of the economic scene which perhaps has not received as much attention as it deserves, for there is a considerable way to go before public opinion arrives at the stage at which it is able to fulfil this important function.
My Lords, I make no claim whatsoever to be an economist, but I frequently find myself verging on despair after reading some of the comments upon the economic situation and upon economic questions which appear in the newspapers. I am not talking about editorial views; I am talking about the reporting of views expressed by various individuals and groups in this country. Not only do they often appear to reveal a staggering ignorance of the most elementary economic facts of life, and thus are frequently irrelevant, but they also reflect an archaic approach to these subjects.
My Lords, I cannot see how we, as a country, can ever develop our full earning power so long as these mental
880
attitudes remain so widely prevalent. It may well be that the rather abstract nature of the principal threats to economic stability in this modern world—such things as inflation and balance of payments—makes them appear far removed from most people's daily lives, so that the danger is not taken seriously. This may, perhaps, explain the depressing predilection which I have noted of certain economic "Don Quixotes" to dissipate their time and energies in furiously tilting at notional windmills, thereby distracting attention from much more real and pressing dangers.
A basic and popular misconception which must be removed is the suggestion that profits are disreputable, and, indeed, even immoral. My Lords, where else can we find the means which are required to double the standard of living of the people of this country? This is getting near to advocating capital punishment for the goose that lays the golden egg, and represents a truly appalling confusion of thought. I do not underrate the need for an equitable basis of distributing profits; nor do I overlook the relationship between this important consideration and the extent to which the economy can be expanded. I therefore accept the basic proposition that short-term gains should be brought within the ambit of the tax authorities, although I have serious reservations about the further and future implications of the specific proposal, and also about the powers which it is proposed the authorities should be given to obtain information from banks and other agents.
My Lords, how can we get the basic priorities right, when fundamental misconceptions, such as those that I have tried to outline, are so widely, and often so vociferously, held? The noble Lord designate (if that is the proper way of referring to him), Sir Oliver Franks, in his last statement as Chairman of Lloyds Bank, drew attention to the dilemmas that may result from attempting to pursue ethical and economic objectives at one and the same time, and to the tendency to judge proposals, not by whether they will increase production, but by whether they are fair. Sir Oliver stated, of course, that he is all for fair play, and that distributive justice is a

881
vital part of social morality. He proceeded to observe:
" There has been too general an acceptance of the idea that the economic system exists to produce jobs rather than goods ".
This may not be an ideal state of affairs, but surely we must, at all costs, face up to realities and avoid emulating the posture of the ostrich in these matters. Our constant endeavour must be efficiently to deploy the resources that are at the country's disposal, and to ensure that our economic policies and our fiscal arrangements, at least, do not hinder the employment of these resources to the greatest advantage of the community. I wonder whether we are doing all we can in this direction. Could not greater incentive be provided, for example through depreciation allowances, to install the most up-to-date and efficient productive equipment available in our factories, thereby assisting industry to maintain and strengthen its competitive position? And in this context, surely the continued existence of the tax on fuel constitutes a deplorable blot upon the fiscal landscape.
I also cannot help wondering whether, in surveying our resources, sufficient thought is given to improving our sadly depleted invisible account. The highly developed financial and trading machinery of this country, and the experience and skills which exist in the City of London, are immensely valuable assets. They have the great advantage that, since they make minimal demands upon manpower, and virtually none upon other resources, they must have the highest conversion factor that it is possible to achieve. To what extent, my Lords, are we directing our thoughts to preparing for a European financial community, parallel with the Common Market in goods? May there not be immense opportunities for us in these directions if we are ready to grasp them?
A small, but discouraging, omen is the absence in the Budget proposals of the repeal of the 2 per cent. stamp duty on transfers of securities. I should declare my interest as a member of the London Stock Exchange; though I hasten to add, particularly with my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee sitting almost next door to me, that I do not presume to speak in anything other than
882
my personal and individual capacity. The existence of this tax is now literally driving away business, particularly from Continental countries, which would otherwise come to London; and perhaps I might add that it seems somewhat at variance with the principles of a property-owning democracy.
My Lords, I hope that in what I have said I have not made myself appear pessimistic about the economic prospects of this country, because I am very far from being pessimistic on this score. I believe that, given the right leadership and the right forms of organisation, we can establish our economy upon strong and sound foundations, that we shall do so, and will proceed to create steadily improving standards of living throughout the country.
5.0 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure for me to follow upon the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and be the first to congratulate him on his maiden speech, because many years ago he was my fag, and I should like to take a little credit for the admirably restrained and disciplined manner in which he spoke to-day. We both started our debating career in the same debating society, which was the nursery of such ornaments of your Lordships' House as the noble Earl, Lord Arran, whom I saw look in and look out again a little while ago, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven. I feel that he has not only maintained such reputation as there may be for that place, but has greatly enhanced it.
I do not think that the noble Marquess will expect me to agree with every word he said, and I certainly do not, but I did agree with the emphasis in his speech upon the need for expansion in our economy. I think that that really is the king-pin of the whole debate. What we have to face at the moment is that the policy of this Government is a policy of failure. One can produce figures of one kind and another which will substantiate or minimise that, but it is not a happy thing for anybody to do, because it is not only the Government who have failed but the country which has failed also, and that is far more serious. No matter what paper one reads or what expert or ordinary

883
person one listens to, one realises, however ardent a defence the noble Lord, Lord Mills, put up and I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will also, that there is not a single person in the country, let alone in your Lordships' House, who is in any way satisfied with the economic situation of the country to-day.
No reference has yet been made to some significant figures which have just appeared in to-day's paper and which underline that point. I refer to those of industrial production. It is perfectly true that the figures in the Index of Industrial Production for February rose by two points over the figure for January—from 111 to 113; but, without going into any statistical details, the important thing to remember is that the figure for the three months. December, January and February, are exactly the same as they were for the three previous months, September, October, November. In other words, there has been no improvement, no increase in our total industrial production during that period, and that is an extremely sad and serious fact. What is even more serious is that if we compare the industrial index for December, January, February, 1961–62, with the same months in 1960–61, we see that we are now one point lower than we were at that time. That should be sufficient to convince any doubters that all is not well with our economy.
At this point, I should like to take up something which the noble Lord, Lord Poole, said, even though he is not in the Chamber at the moment. He quoted, perfectly fairly, from the conclusions of the Economic Survey of O.E.C.D. Perhaps the noble Lord was a little over-honest when he said that he found it easier to read the conclusions than the whole document. Sometimes, when you read the whole document, you find that you do not agree with the conclusions. On page 30, in paragraph 47, it says:
" It is equally important that full advantage should he taken of the breathing space "—
that is, the pay pause—
" thus provided to set on foot the more fundamental adjustments which the economy requires. The experience of the economy in the 1950s suggests that the restriction of domestic demand is not a sufficient condition for achieving the desired combination of a more rapid rate of growth, stronger external position and a more stable price level,"
884
I think that that is the significant part of the conclusions of that document. We cannot continue as we have been in the past, carrying on at this low level of production, maybe going up one point, maybe coming down one point. We have to make use of the breathing space which the pay pause was supposed to give us in order to make some radical overhaul of our economy. I was going to quote some more figures from this document which have not been quoted yet, but the gist of them has been given, so all I will say on that score is that, by comparison with other countries in Europe, we have been doing extremely badly. And that is not a happy thing for any Englishman to have to say, either in public or in private.
In looking at the future, may I remind your Lordships of some figures in today's Times newspaper concerning the issuing of industrial development certificates, which should be some indication of the amount of industrial development that is likely to take place in future? For the three months, January, February and March of this year, 474 certificates were issued for schemes covering an area of 10 million square feet. That may sound an impressive amount, but if we compare it with the three previous months (October, November and December, 1961) we see, in place of 474 certificates, 487; so we have dropped in those three months, and the area has also dropped from 11·5 million square feet to 10 million square feet. It might be said that this is purely a seasonal matter. One would naturally expect a smaller number of schemes to be initiated in the first three months of the year. But if we compare the figures I have given with those for the first three months of last year, we find the difference is even greater. There were 640 schemes then in place of 474 and the total square footage was 17·6 million in place of 10 million. So the prospect does not look any rosier, to put it mildly.
Turning to the most important problem—which is, the actual amount of production, whether for export or not—I would at the outset remind your Lordships of another factor which has not so far been mentioned—that is, that in spite of our bad showing in international trade over the past ten years, we have

885
been enjoying what we refer to as favourable terms of trade during that time. Again I have some figures but I do not want to overload your Lordships with them. If we look at the last three years, 1959 to 1961, and compare this country with other industrial countries of the world, we see that the export of manufactures from the other industrial countries has risen by 10 per cent. per annum, quite a substantial rise, whilst ours has risen by only 5 per cent. I admit that our exports have risen, but they have risen only half as fast as the exports of other countries. When we turn to the share of this country in world trade in 1955, we find we had managed to retain 20 per cent., but to-day it is down to 15 per cent. Again, that is a sorry picture.
Why is it that we have experienced this general failure all through over the past ten years in the whole of our economic efforts, whether it is at home or in exports? The fault primarily must be laid at the door of the Government; it must be a failure of Government policy. But it is not entirely due to Government policy, because, after all, in industry, in manufacturing and in exporting other people beside the Government are concerned. There are the manufacturers, the exporters themselves, those whom one might call management: and there is labour. Unless they all play their part we shall never achieve success. It is always easy to throw blame about, and there are certainly exceptions to any general blame, but I suggest to your Lordships that a large measure of the blame for this failure must, in fact, lie with management.
If your Lordships look back over the years, it will become clear to you that there are scarcely any managers in industry to-day (and I refer to "management" in the widest sense) who have had really tough experience, particularly when it comes to dealing with labour. During the 'thirties we had unemployment and there was always a large reservoir of labour waiting to he employed. That is not a good training ground for getting the best out of labour if you are a manager. So long as you know that there are other men waiting to take the jobs which some men may not be doing properly you do not have to study the technique of management so
886
carefully as if there were not this reservoir of labour. There was the period before the war when there was little need to work hard at this and give thought to it, and little opportunity for gaining experience at it. After the war there was no reservoir of labour. But there was a large reservoir of unfulfilled demand, and when demands were made by labour for higher wages or better conditions there was no problem there for management: all they had to do was to put up wages, put up the prices and pass it on to the consumer, because there was this large unfulfilled demand. That, again, meant that management was not forced to meet the challenge of its job. To-day I believe we are suffering from that lack of training over the past twenty or even thirty years. We find that also in our exports—again with honourable exceptions, as there are, of course, in what I have already said. But there is no real incentive to go out and find fresh export markets.
However, it is not only management that is at fault; labour also has many things to answer for—though I should always put the blame more on management for having failed to create the right conditions for labour than the other way round. And, above all, the Government have failed. They have failed because they have not established the right atmosphere for read co-operation between management and labour, and the feeling that it is something that the country needs, as well as simply something from which the individual may benefit. The I'm all right, Jack" slogan is not without significance here.
But when one talks about this question of establishing the right atmosphere the question arises: what have the Government done, or failed to do, in order to accomplish this? Many of your Lordships have received an extremely interesting, useful and very nicely prepared document called Interests and Dividends upon Securities Quoted on the Stock Exchange, London, 1961. If your Lordships look at that document you will see that dividends in 1959 amounted to £715·9 million, and in 1961 to £956·3 million. In other words, taking 1959 as 100, by 1961 they had risen to 133. If you look at wages (this is in the Annual Abstract of Statistics, the official figure) you will find that, taking 1959 as 100,

887 by 1961, wages had risen to 107. So that you there have the picture of wages going up 7 per cent. and dividends going up 33 per cent. in the last three years, then, on top of that is the imposed wages pause, on the one hand, and, on the other, the surtax concessions in the last Budget. I suggest that when that sort of thing is going on it is extremely difficult even for the best management in the world to maintain the right sort of relationship with labour, or for the most effective, efficient and co-operative trade unions in the world to tell their members that the national interest must come before their own personal interest.
Therefore it is not surprising, when one looks back over the last ten years of Conservative Government, to see what has been happening in industrial disputes. Again (and I think this is the last set of statistics with which I shall weary your Lordships, but they are not without their significance), in the years 1951 to 1955, the annual average loss from industrial disputes was 2,362,000 days: and in the next period of five years, 1956 to 1960, that figure nearly doubled, to 4,450,000 days. In other words, it has become increasingly hard to persuade the workers of this country that they are receiving justice: and from that the country itself has suffered. I suggest to your Lordships that this is one of the main reasons why our actual industrial effort has been [putting up such a poor show compared with the industrial effort of all other manufacturing countries and other countries in Europe.
But why has our export market been doing so badly at the same time? I do not think there is any need to tell your Lordships, who have much greater experience in this than I have, that exporting if, not, as some people say, just "fun". Exporting is an extremely arduous job. There is no doubt whatever that it is much easier for any businessman or manufacturer to sell at home; and he much prefers to sell at home, provided he can get rid of his products.
What the Government do, in over-simple terms, when we have trouble with our balance of payments, is to say that we must export more, and therefore they restrict home demand by various fiscal means. But the effect of
888
that is not immediately to push into the export market all production that otherwise would have gone on to the Home market. This cannot be built up in a matter of weeks or months. If it were going to be a really long-term policy, and if the Government were prepared to say: "For the next ten years we are going to have austerity in this country, and we shall restrict home demand by various means ", I believe that manufacturers would know that it was worthwhile making an effort to go out into the export markets themselves. But they know perfectly well—and the experience of the last ten years has shown us—that this restriction on home demand is a purely temporary thing. Whether it is relaxed because of economists' theories, or because of by-elections or General Elections is another matter. But after a matter of eighteen months or two years, at the most, the restriction on the home market is relaxed, and back will come the demand surging in; and the manufacturers know that perfectly well.
So the only effect of this "stop—go" policy is not, as the Government would have it, to divert efforts into the export market, but to make sure that a certain amount of necessary and desirable capital investment is postponed—which is bad for the country—and that such money as has been invested already is not fully used; that we have surplus industrial capacity but, because the market at home is not there, and the market abroad has not been built up, we are not using our previous investment to the full. It further has the highly undesirable effect of encouraging manufacturers to hoard labour. They know, as I say, that this is not a long-term policy over the next ten years and there would be no demand for that particular line of goods unless they switched to export. If that were so they would either switch to export or they would get rid of labour, which would go into more potentially productive export. As it is, they know that they have only to wait for a few months, or a year. They put their labour on to short-time: industrial production falls, and nobody benefits from this policy.
I submit that, in spite of the comforting directors' report which the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has already given to

889
us, assuring us that the country is in a fine position and that there is nothing we need worry about, we have had long enough of this particular prospectus over ten years to be quite certain that it cannot work. We are not getting our increased production, and we are not getting the exports we need. We must have a policy of expansion, but we must also have a policy which ensures that at least some of that extra production is channelled into exports.
It is not very difficult to devise an expansionist policy at home. There is no need to dwell on that at this stage. It is much harder to devise a policy which is going to encourage exports. My noble friend Lord Shackleton put forward some suggestions. Other noble Lords also have done so, and the noble Lord, Lord Poole, made mention of them in broad outline. I myself do not see how any form of preferential tax on exports is likely to work. I do not think it can in itself, and I think it would be grossly unfair to many of those industries, including agriculture, which are import savers. So I should not like to see that so far as I am concerned. General tax relaxation, while expansionist so far as the whole economy is concerned, does nothing to direct our products into export.
We have seen over these years that the laissez-faire policy of the Government, coupled with bank rate, surtax concessions, credit squeeze, and all the rest, has got us nowhere. The only way we are likely to get anywhere in this crucial problem is by abandoning any doctrinaire abhorrence we may have of such things, and by considering in all seriousness a policy of allocation of raw materials to our essential industries based on their export performance. It is not an easy thing to set up. It has been done under a Labour Government, and it had considerable success. It need not be in any way restrictionist; it can easily be expansionist. I believe that, by such means, we shall be able to make sure that our economy increases, and increases as rapidly as that of any of our competitors, and at the same time our exports will also go up, and the home market will not absorb everything.
We were told that the pay pause—and the noble Lord, Lord Poole, reminded us of it—was there to produce a breathing space. But a breathing space is of
890
no value whatsoever if nothing comes out of it except hot air. I am very much afraid that that is what has been happening since it was introduced last July. The National Economic Development Council has been set up. It is a good thing; but again, as my noble friend Lord Shackleton said, it must not be a cloak for the failure of the Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government and the Chancellor between them have the responsibility for running the economic affairs of this country. If they cannot do it, then they should get out and leave somebody else who can to do it. They cannot set up a new Council simply to take over that responsibility from them. Let it advise them by all means, though they have plenty of advisers already. Let it co-operate with them if the Government are doing the right thing, but it can do no more at all than that. I hope the Government will now make progress not only with a wages policy but also with a whole incomes policy, which is an essential if we are to proceed in any orderly way without the law of the jungle supervening.
Then, one short word about the Budget, which, as noble Lords have said, should be the means by which our national economy is annually directed, The recent Budget must be regarded as a lamentable one if we consider that expansion is what this country needs; there is nothing of any kind in the Budget which encourages expansion. Certain emergency powers were taken last July, and those powers have now been incorporated into our general Budget, simply raising the cost of living, raising the cost of exports and, above all, as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said, increasing the cost of fuel. Not only has that been incorporated into our Budget as a permanent part of our tax system, but further power has been taken to superimpose a further 10 per cent. in the next year on whatever the Chancellor may wish. That is not a great encouragement to expansion; it is surely a restrictionist attitude.
The speculation tax, or whatever it is called, is derisory. It can have no effect either on raising revenue or on satisfying those people who have been asked to submit to a pay pause and restrict their wages and their wages claims. As for the Schedule A announcement, that

891
can be nothing more, surely, than mortgaging the future—giving away money of which a future Chancellor of the Exchequer might have had the disposal, before we have the money there. Finally, there is the sweets tax, which, rightly, has received practically no attention at all, because it can have no effect on the expansion of our economy. If a target for the Budget should be, as I am sure is, expansion, you do not hit the bull's eyes by taxing them.
5.28 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like at once to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in congratulating the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, on his humorous, well-delivered and forceful maiden speech. I am sure it is the wish of your Lordships in all quarters of the House that we should hear the noble Marquess on many occasions in the future.
I take up at once the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Poole, which is that there can be no reality to any economic debate at the present time unless it bears some relation to the greatest economic issue which faces our country at the present time, our possible entry into the Common Market. Let me hasten to assure your Lordships that it is not my intention in any way to debate this evening the merits or demerits of such entry, because we shall do that at a later date on more appropriate occasions when we have in front of us information which is at present lacking. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place, I think rightly, avoided giving any view as to whether we shall or shall not join in the future, admitting only that, whatever the circumstances, we must be competitive. But, apart from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think the position is becoming increasingly confusing, both economically and politically, when we read the speeches of various Ministers, and particularly the sayings and speeches of the Lord Privy Seal. And we must ask ourselves, "Are we or are we not at the present time virtually committed to entry into the Common Market?"
I understood that the position was as stated by the Prime Minister, that we as would make the Party opposite look
892
had applied for entry, and were now negotiating, but that we had laid down certain unalterable conditions which must be met for Commonwealth trade, both present and future, and for British agriculture. It is on the basis of these unalterables that many of us wait to see further details, and there is no need at the present time to campaign fiercely as would be necessary if the unalterables were amended. But some of Her Majesty's Ministers do not seem to have that open view; they do not seem balanced in their considerations, but have become most ardent propagandists and appear to assume that we are virtually already in the Common Market. They certainly assume the successful outcome of negotiations and talk as if they do.
On the one side, we are offered a glorious new vista, often described in picturesque language. I note that the Observer of last Sunday, alluding to a speech of Mr. Brooke, said:
" If Britain stays out of the Common Market our economic troubles will multiply and our ability to help the Commonwealth will dwindle if we join 'the prospects ahead will be more exciting and rewarding than we yet conceive '."
Referring to a speech of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, the reports says:
" if Britain joined the Common Market 'a great new field of opportunity would be open to our industry and commerce.' but that if we stayed outside ' our economic growth would be faced with much greater difficulties …."
They may or may not be individual views of Ministers, but I feel that Her Majesty's Ministers, having told us that there are certain unalterables—and we do not yet know whether these unalterables will be achieved—are ardent propagandists. On the one side the great vista; on the other side gloom and trouble. If I may say so, they over-painted the picture of the difficulties that lie ahead if we cannot negotiate.
As the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer have both said, it may be that the price will be too high. We must face that possibility. It seems to me, then, that one of two courses is open to us. Either we reduce what we have hitherto been told are the unalterables—and if that occurs there would be such a political split in both Parties like a band of brothers out for a Sunday

893
march; the alternative would be for us to buckle to and re-look at our economic policies with the Commonwealth and refuse to be daunted by, or afraid of, a Common Market tariff, because it may well be that the Common Market countries want us rather more than we want them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, as the noble Lord has mentioned me, and in view of the form his speech has taken, I think it ought to be made clear that in the speech of mine which he quoted I said that our joining was subject to three conditions: one, safeguards for the Commonwealth; two, safeguards for agriculture; and, three, safeguards for our partners in the European Free Trade Association. I do not know about Mr. Brooke's speech, but I have never made a speech without stating that. The House heard me speak on the Common Market last July and I do not take back a word of what I said then. I have always said that in every speech I have made on the subject.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am more than grateful to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I was, of course, quoting only what the newspaper had said and, of course, many newspapers take particular points of view that suit them. Therefore, I am sure that the House and the whole country will take note of the inadequate report which I have quoted of the speech of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack.
If the price is too high, economically or politically (and I am not arguing that question politically at all tonight), such Ministers as are committed to Europe as a great new vista and, What I will term, the "gloomsters" for a life of this country outside Europe will all quickly have to go into reverse. But some of them, such as Mr. Heath, Mr. Thorneycroft and Sir David Eccles, according to their speeches, are deeply committed. I think it is pretty hard on them, because it will be too much to expect them to continue serving a policy Which they have damned and continue in the disappointments of a policy that they have not succeeded in putting across. I feel that it will be tough on them. They would probably feel it incumbent not
894
to continue. We should say: "We don't want to lose you, but we know you want to go." They really must be cautious about this assumption that we already have a commitment. I suggest that some Ministers take a few steps backwards from the unjustified, and, I must say, irritating, bland assumption that entry is a foregone conclusion.
The only other point that I want to make is this: whether we do or do not go into the Common Market, we are told in general terms that we must be very competitive. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House, in his reply to-night, will be so good as to tell us how we become more competitive. Is it by lower wages? No. Is it by working longer hours? No. Is it by lower raw material costs? We cannot see that happening in the world at the present time. Is it by lower industrial taxation? I do not see any prospect of that from the present Administration. Is it by special export incentives? Those have been rejected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Moreover, general talk of working harder is not of any use. Let us be told then, clearly and concisely, how we can make ourselves more competitive, because I think it is a question which merits a simple answer.
No Government can prosper unless it gives a lead. As the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House so clearly said, in a speech to the Conservative and National Union Association at Church House:
" You cannot lead the Conservative Party from behind, like the Duke of Plaza Toro; and you cannot lead it in bad English rich in platitudes and violating every principle of good grammar."
How right he is! I agree with him. And I think the country is showing that it is tired of a diet of a mixture of what I would term economic pap and political bromides, such things as "As a nation we tried to do too much too quickly", or "As a nation we are consuming too much"; and then "We must export more"; and finally, and worst of all, "Exporting is fun"—that really was the worst we have ever had. How right the Leader of the House is when he says that the country will respond to a clear and definite call; and that, whatever difficulties the country is faced with, so

895
long as it is told frankly, harshly, and maybe dramatically, the country will respond.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Poole, and others, that the Government's economic policies are sound—I am thinking of the pay pause, and the Chancellor's income policy, which has been so well endorsed, not only in this country but in the O.E.C.D. Report. They are the right policies, though the presentation is sometimes dull, drab and unimaginative. I hope that Her Majesty's Government may feel that their good works have been too much hidden hitherto, and that in the future they will make very clear, in terms we can all understand, the economic policies that are justified for the present, and the economic policies, at present unknown, for the future, for which we wait with considerable anxiety.
5.43 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, in his speech, which I think we might call the economic state of the nation, was far more than a ray of sunshine; he was a whole shaft of sunlight. While listening to him I glanced at The Times Review of Industry for April.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord hut, as he knows, there is to be a Royal Commission in a short time. It is, of course, for the House and the noble Lord to say whether it is more convenient for them and him for the noble Lord to make half his speech before and half afterwards. We should be delighted to listen to him in that form. Otherwise, if the House would prefer to take it, if I may so put it without disrespect, in one dose, I suggest that we should now adjourn during pleasure till the Royal Commission.
LORD STONHAM: That, of course, would suit me very well and would be much better, and that is what I thought had been arranged through the usual channels.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: They are rather blocked.
LORD STONHAM: That would suit me very well.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

British Museum,

West Indies,

International Monetary Fund,

Commonwealth Immigrants,

Zinc Corporation,

Royal Holloway College,

Australian Agricultural Company,

Whitehaven Harbour,

Saint Paul, Covent Garden,

Royal Russell School.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
Debate resumed.
6.15 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I got almost halfway through exchanging a pleasantry with the noble Lord, Lord Mills, in that I commented on the fact that in his economic report on the nation he had been far more than a mere ray, indeed was a positive shaft, of sunshine. It so happens, however, that I this morning received The Times Review of Industry for April and this records that Lord Mills on May 7 will open the new engineering and building centre at Birmingham. Unfortunately, the headline of this report on industry in the Midlands says:
" Gloomy outlook in all sectors ".
So I most sincerely hope that the noble Lord will convey to our manufacturers in the Midlands that happy outlook which he has tried to pass on to us to-day.
We all have to examine, and no doubt we shall continue to examine, these

897
official reports, and extract from them just those figures which suit our own case, but I submit that, no matter how one juggles the figures, the Government cannot escape responsibility for the proven fact that over recent years Britain's industrial and economic record is worse than that of any other major industrial nation in the world. I give it as my opinion that there are two reasons for this. The first is stubborn adherence to doctrinaire beliefs long after they have been proven false, and the second is the major dependence by the Government on a wide variety of distinguished economists who have only one thing in common: they have no practical knowledge of industry.
I must confess that I myself was trained at the London School of Economics and naturally have a great affection for my contemporaries. Indeed, I have a great admiration for the fact that they now command the attention of the nation, and no doubt large fees, in expounding views the exact opposite of those which held us in thrall 30 years ago. But I myself, for the last 35 years, have been responsible for the day-to-day running of a small manufacturing business, and therefore, to some extent, have worked the L.S.E. out of my system. I hope, therefore, that such theory as I assimilated which is unstable has been replaced by basic practical truths.
One of these is that maximum output tends to lower costs per piece, whereas restricted output raises them. This basic truth is, in fact, confirmed in the Economic Survey. In paragraphs 11 to 13, for example, it is recorded that in 1961 demand slackened, total production fell, but prices continued to rise. The Survey also records that, although home demand fell, there was no increase in exports or in output per head. In the Survey this last is attributed to a reduction in the working week; but practical experience would have told the experts that it was nothing of the kind. Every manufacturer knows the psychological effect on his workers of full and not-so-full order books. It does not matter how much you exhort them; it does not even matter if it means less earnings for them: the chaps do not work so well and output is not so good if they know—and they always do know—that the order position is not so good.
898
In my own firm, for example, recently, because of the good order position, output has increased with a shorter working week.
Unhappily, although correctly stating the facts in the Economic Survey, the experts have apparently persuaded the Government to draw the wrong conclusions from them. Because the Government are proceeding on what I regard as the false assumption that if you cut down home demand it is easier to sell abroad. They speak of regulating home demand so as not to compete with exports. Then, in the same breath, they declare that export opportunities will be missed if export goods are not competitive. How can they be when the Government, by their policy, deliberately increase manufacturingcosts?
In paragraph 23 of the Survey there is the blind declaration that our foremost aim must be to maintain conditions in which United Kingdom exporters can take advantage of the opportunities open to them. Speaking as a manufacturer, I say that we do not need any incentive to sell where the opportunity really exists. For the manufacturers know, if the Government do not, that the prime objective in any business—and this comes before profit—is to keep plant working at the most efficient level; and then, if you have done your other sums right, your profits will come.
I say that it is for this reason that all experience shows that you get maximum exports when you have maximum home production. In the Economic Survey the Government put the cart completely before the horse by insisting that exports must be increased before home demand is allowed to rise. I know the other difficulties, and no doubt the noble and learned Viscount, if he does in any way comment on anything I say, will point them out. I am aware of those other difficulties; but, as the T.U.C. so rightly point out, we must first have expansion as a foundation for an export drive.
My Lords, there must be stability. The noble Lord, Lord Poole, made a great point of this, and I nodded my head very vigorously when he said it. There must be stability; there must be an end to this policy that my noble leader referred to as "Stop and go"—the traffic-light economy. I should like to illustrate this

899
from the effects of Government policy upon a single important industry which I have studied—the consumer durable goods industry. This is an industry in which, in fact, the Government pursue, not a "Stop and go" policy but a "Yo-yo" policy, because the sharp ups and downs of the production graphs always follow the Government's sudden, panic, fiscal changes.
In these industries, particularly domestic appliances, this is all the more deplorable because they are among those which have the largest growth-potential in the whole economy. They are among the best equipped and the most efficient; and, given the right conditions, they could greatly increase their exports. Yet over the last ten years the Government have subjected them to an unbroken series of senseless actions, resulting in grievous loss and utter frustration. For example, the expenditure on cars and cycles, furniture, radio and electrical consumer goods, accounts for only 8 per cent.—that is, less than one-twelfth of total consumers expenditure—but this one-twelfth of industry, because of the Government's policy, is made the scapegoat for what I regard as the Government's financial follies. Apart from bank rate changes, which affect all industry, and which are, of course, a major instrument of policy, this narrow front is always made to bear the brunt.
We expect industry to have the "know-how" and to provide the necessary capital investment for expanding, efficient production. In turn, industry has the right to expect the Government to provide a stable framework in which it can plan ahead. In domestic appliances, the size of the market is largely determined by the selling price and the conditions under which the industry is allowed to sell. These, of course, are determined by the levels of purchase tax and of the hire-purchase initial deposit. Inevitably, sudden, frequent changes in these conditions have a disastrous effect upon sales and production, and it is thus the Government and not the manufacturers who, in fact, decide the pattern.
Now, my Lords, in the last eleven years there have been no fewer than sixteen complete changes in the levels of purchase tax and hire-purchase de-
900
posits on these goods, thirteen of those changes in the last seven years—an average of one every six months. I have here some graphs which show the result. They show the extreme peaks and the valleys of the "Yo-yo" policy; and against every peak and every depression I have marked the particular change which took place at the time, so one can see cause and effect. Every single, violent change has been the result of the Government's policy—a policy which, for example, during the period, has put purchase tax as high as 66½ per cent. and as low as 25 per cent.; which has put initial hire-purchase deposits as high as 50 per cent. and as low as nothing. The industry has learnt, from bitter experience, to fear the artificial booms as much as they fear the artificial slumps. Yet twice, against their strong advice, there has been no deposit at all. The Government have just ploughed suicidally ahead, regardless of the voice of experience.
My Lords, the resultant upper and lower limits of demand, when you have studied them, are quite staggering—and I shall be pleased to give the noble and learned Viscount these graphs, so that he can check for himself. But, if you know anything about industry at all, imagine trying to plan the manufacture of, say, refrigerators when, largely through Government action, sales in a three-month period can be forced down as low as 20,000 or up as high as 480,000; or of washing machines, sales of which may be as low as 40,000 in a quarter and as high as 340,000; or vacuum cleaners, as few as 80,000 a quarter and as many as 430,000. Those low levels of demands for output are directly attributable to 60 per cent. purchase tax and 50 per cent. initial hire-purchase deposit, and the high levels to no deposit at all. If these things are not recognised or are in any way disputed, I shall be delighted to hand over the evidence, and the noble and learned Viscount can see for himself cause and effect.
In particular, I would ask the noble Viscount to consider the results of the most recent exercise in this field. In October, 1958, for the second time in recent years, hire-purchase controls on these goods were completely removed. Naturally, demand boomed. As a result,

901
to quote one example, in 1958 British manufacturers sold 450,000 refrigerators—twice as many as in 1957. In 1959, demand doubled again, and in 1960 home manufacturers' sales were not far short of a million. That is virtually a four-fold expansion in three years. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, knows something about industry, and he will know the effect of changes like that. Even then, the manufacturers could not satisfy the demand, so imports came flooding in. My Lords, in 1958 we imported 2,000 refrigerators; in 1959, 125,000; and in the first six months of 1960, 152,000. That is a 150-fold increase in imports in less than two years. It was much the same story with washing machines. The imports in 1958 were only 22,000; in 1959, they were 125,000.
My Lords, with imports increasing at this rate, and encouraged—virtually invited—by the Government, we naturally ran into balance-of-payments problems, so in April, 1960, hire-purchase restrictions were reimposed, requiring a 20 per cent. deposit. Overnight the manufacturers discovered the deposit had risen from nothing to 20 per cent. From beginning to end the whole cruel, stupid tragedy was manufactured entirely by the Government. There are some who say—and this has been mentioned in the debate to-day—that the Government created an artificial boom deliberately in order to win the 1959 Election. I cannot believe that any British Government would, for such a reason, deliberately jeopardise British industry. But then we are faced with this dilemma that if the Government are acquitted as knaves, they stand convicted as fools. I do not think there can be any argument about that.
Just think what they have done to this particular, quite important, consumer-durable industry. Although they counselled against "no deposit" trading, the 1959 demand induced manufacturers to increase, at great cost, their production capacity. Apart from the capital outlay—and these people do know their business—the "know-how", the obtaining of money, and the additional factories and machines, it takes at least a year to build up output. Therefore, by the beginning of 1960 the manufacturers were geared to cope with the increased demand. It was precisely at this point that the severe hire-purchase restrictions were
902
reimposed, largely, as I have said, because of foreign imports, which Government policy had encouraged. Demand fell dramatically. The "Yo-yo" fell; and for the last two years this industry has struggled with all the extra costs which have arisen from a capacity greatly in excess of demand, and from rising production costs. The industry has done all it could, but stocks are much higher than they should be; and even so the industry has had to resort to short-time working.
Unhappily, also, the increased costs arising from decreased production have affected the industry's ability to export. I know that my noble friend Lord Walston made some suggestions to the Government about increasing exports, but the absolute first essential is costs. A very important factor in getting costs down is the level of your production, and the extent to which, and the efficiency with which, you are using your plant. There cannot be any argument about that. But the Government still stick to the fallacy that if they make it more difficult to sell at home they make it easier to sell abroad. Usually, and certainly in the industries about which I am talking, it is just the reverse.
These are the facts. In 1960, when the industry was still under the influence of phenomenal demand at home, it exported £8 million worth of refrigerators. Last year, with savagely reduced home demand, exports were down to less than £6 million; and so far this year they are lower still. And this despite the fact that the manufacturers have reduced the prices of export models, and, in the hope of holding export markets dearly won, are actually selling at less than cost. The exports are shown on these graphs in front of me, and they are selling at less than cost. "Such fun", says the Prime Minister. And the right honourable Member's son, Mr. Maurice Macmillan, says of exporters: "Give them more stick". In this particular industry, I think, they had had "stick" enough from the Government. It is about time they were treated with common sense and some regard was had for the important contribution they make to the economy and to the exports of this country. Even now, when they are hanging on by their eyelids, Mr. Erroll, who helped to create their difficulties, tells them—as did the noble

903
Lord, Lord Mills, to-day—that 1962 export prospects are great. It is just like telling a drowning man: "This is a good time to learn to swim". These people are selling at a loss in order to hold the markets, in the hope that eventually they will be able to increase production, get their costs down, and so sell under more favourable conditions. I often think—
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could help me. I am very interesed in what he has been saying about the volume of exports, but I understood him to say that, now these manufacturers have reduced their prices in the hope of maintaining their volume of exports sales, nevertheless the volume is down. I do not quite follow him in saying that if there had been a bigger home demand this would have helped them in keeping up their volume of export sales, since their prices are down in any case.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is an extremely important point, and one with which I am going to deal. It is an example of the kind of thing that my noble Leader mentioned in opening the debate, of industries whose exports are carried on the home market. In many industries—perhaps where the situation is not quite as bad as this—I think the noble Lord will find, as will anyone with experience, that once your plant is working you are quite likely to be able to obtain export orders even if the prices are below those which would be acceptable for your whole business. In other words, you can, with a comparatively marginal sale of perhaps 10 per cent. of your total sales, afford to have them carried by your home market. But if your home market is very much reduced, or your bulk sales are very much reduced, then your overheads percentage goes up and your costs rise. That is the point. I am bound to say that if I try to expound that at greater length, my speech will be of intolerable duration, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord will excuse me from going into it further.
I realise the great experience of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and the noble Lord. Lord Poole. Many a time I have thought, when reading some of the speeches which are made and the things
904
that people in high positions in the Government say, "If only one member of the Government spoke and acted as if he knew what he was talking about!" When we come to exports, and the things politicians say about them, as a manufacturer, and as one who for 35 years has had to bear the heat and burden of the day and assume responsibility, that is the kind of feeling I get.
My Lords, what is to be done? I would say that the first essential is to restore shattered confidence. If we are to increase exports, the industry must be given a firm guarantee that, if it invests in research again, in the development of new products, and in the development of overseas markets, which is a long and expensive business, history will not be repeated. Because you cannot go out abroad and sell if you have one eye looking behind you, waiting for the stab in the back at home, as these people have had. Secondly, the Government must act in the knowledge that, when you restrict the expansion of these growth industries, you create inefficiencies and high costs, thus reducing their ability to compete in world markets. In these goods, price is the barrier to export sales. Frankly, we are about 5 per cent. better in quality and performance, but about 20 per cent. higher in price, than are the Continentals.
If we are to reduce costs and prices and use the large plants to the full—and we cannot reduce costs without doing that—we must increase production. That requires an increase in home sales which, in some lines, are now the lowest for six years. It is beyond dispute that the 20 per cent. deposit on hire purchase is too high to allow sales to reach a level which will permit the industry to operate efficiently and to reduce prices. Although the 25 per cent. purchase tax is a burden, frankly, it is not a major deterrent to home demand. It is the size of the deposit which is the dominant factor in influencing demand and it is urgently necessary to reduce it to 10 per cent. and promise to keep it there, for this is an important industry and it cannot carry on much longer making little or no profit at home and losing money abroad. It is imperative that this change is made soon, so that we can recover lost ground and get ready for the challenge of the Common Market,

905
whether or not we go into it. I submit that the facts are beyond dispute and I hope that we shall at least be given a promise that the case will be urgently considered.
I have dealt in the main with one industry, but I believe that the lessons to be drawn from it apply in a major measure to nearly all. The greatest need is for a settled and stable policy. The restraints from which this and other industries are suffering are the direct and inevitable product of the past excesses permitted by the Government, of the 1959 excesses and the 1954 excesses which 'preceded them. I think that the Government have made so many mistakes that they are afraid to move; but, for Heaven's sake! let there be an end to this miserable and hopeless 1 or 2 per cent, production advance. Restricted production increases costs and reduces exports. Let us at least be equal to the Continent and plan for a 4 to 5 per cent. production advance every year. I submit that, as a priority, the N.E.D.C. should consider setting up subcommittees for each major industry, and that each sub-committee should decide what it must do to achieve its share of the target; and, when they have decided, let them get on with it, with the guarantee that this time they will not be ordered to stop as soon as they have started to go.
6.43 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, perhaps as a Back Bencher I may add, at the outset of my remarks, my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who so often initiated our debates. He had for long been my friend in another place and here, and it was in a debate which he initiated that I had a chance of making, my maiden speech rather over six years ago.
The all-important question of the Budget is that which was put by my noble friend Lord Poole, to whose speech we listened with so much interest. That is: what is the general nature of this Budget and ought it to be inflationary, deflationary or neutral? As my noble friend said, this question is much disputed by the experts. I do not profess to be an expert but, so far as I understand the various comments, I certainly should not be prepared to say that my noble friend's view that, on the
906
whole, the Budget in this respect was right was not a correct view. Certainly I do not mean to dispute it. I do wish, however, to comment on a few of the proposals in the Budget.
First of all, I shall deal briefly with two points of which I approve: the taxing of sweets and the taxing of soft drinks. It seems to me obviously wise of my right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tax sweets. As a result of the medical reports on the effects of smoking, particularly of cigarette smoking, and the speech of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House the other day, we must certainly contemplate as a possibility that in due course there will be a much diminished yield from the existing taxation on tobacco. In those circumstances, I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been extremely negligent had he not put some tax on sweets. I also think that an incidental advantage is gained because excessive consumption of sweets is deleterious to the teeth and health of our children. I also think that there were good reasons for putting soft drinks within the scheme of purchase tax. I do not take the view that the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed this tax because he thought that this was the sort of thing that Liberals drank.
I come to the Budget proposal of which I do not approve and which strikes me simply as foolish; that is, the short-term gains tax. Let me say at once that of course I agree there are serious arguments for and against a capital gains tax. These arguments were well stated some years ago by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Incomes. On a point on which I agree with Her Majesty's Government, I much prefer the Report of the main body of Commissioners to the Minority Report of the three Commissioners who dissented. Nevertheless, there are serious arguments for and against a capital gains tax. The tax of my right honourable and learned friend as imposed in this Budget is not such a capital gains tax, on his own admission, as was there discussed.
In my opinion, the result of the Budget proposal is to produce a tax which can please no thinking person at all. The tax will be immensely complicated. It

907
will involve many people in a great deal of work. And apparently it is not expected, even by Her Majesty's Government, to produce much revenue. In fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was comparatively indifferent about whether it produced revenue or not. I take the old-fashioned view that, in proposing taxation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, on the whole, desire to raise revenue by it. It may be an old-fashioned doctrine, but I think it is a good doctrine.
Nevertheless, one must be fair and deal with the argument on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer advocated this tax. He advocated it on the ground of fairness among taxpayers. I confess that a question of fairness or justice always makes a great appeal to me. I have always had a feeling, I hope, for justice, though I have never understood what precisely was meant by social justice. On the whole, I have come to the conclusion that social justice bears the same relation to justice as social credit does to credit.
Let us examine the argument of fairness put forward in justification of this tax. Under the Budget proposal, if a very rich man whose income is taxed at the highest level buys shares and sells them at a profit within six months, he has to pay 17s. 9d. in the £ on his profit; but if he retains them for one additional day, he pays nothing. I should be grateful if somebody who has been able to detect the great principle of justice behind this astonishing proposal could explain it to me. The tax will not, of course, injure any investor very much. Its principal effect, in my opinion, will be on the efficiency of the market. It will reduce turnover and make the market, particularly the gilt-edged market, less efficient. That will slightly raise the price for every borrower on the London market, and that is not, I should have thought, a very good thing for a trading nation to do on the eve of possible entry into the Common Market.
But the real damage done by this proposal is through its appalling revelation of the Government's capacity for irrelevance. This may be the last Budget before we enter the European system and the Common Market. If
908
ever there was a time in which every new tax proposal should have been judged on its real merit, this is that time. It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government have preferred to abandon a great principle—because the difference between capital and income is a great principle—and to do so for no compensating advantage whatsoever. I believe that the explanation of this tax is quite simple. It is intended to please those who regard all profits, except, of course, those derived from the football pools, as basically immoral.
That brings me to the constantly repeated request by Her Majesty's Government for restraint in profits and dividends, which was made last, I think, in paragraph 14 of the February White Paper on Incomes Policy. Whenever I see this request I am reminded of a character in a book by the late G. K. Chesterton, who remarks to another character:
" It may be a literary prejudice, but I feel that you must mean something ".
I feel precisely the same towards the Government when they call for restraint in profits and dividends. I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government ever pause to consider with precision and clarity what precisely they mean by this request. May I ask the House to consider the matter in a little more detail? Clearly we must consider profits and dividends separately, for they are not the same thing. Let us take, first, profits. Let me explain (I have often done so before) my own attitude about profits. I have always been opposed to inflation. I have always wished the Government to get rid of inflation and thus to make profits infinitely more difficult to gain. I have also always thought that profits were a proper subject for taxation. But is it right to tell people not to try to make profits, or to restrain their efforts to make them? I should have thought that was the precise opposite of what was in the public interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned invisible exports, and I agree entirely with him about their great importance: they used to make, and I hope they will make again, a great contribution to our balance of payments. Think of how we benefited by the earnings of our shipping companies and our insurance services. Are the Government

909
really frightened to-day that the P. & O. may make too big profits? Is that what keeps them awake at night? Is it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government, in their saner moments, wish very much that the profits of our shipping and insurance companies and our earnings from the rest of the world were much bigger than they are now? Of course they must have such a wish. If, however, they wish that profits were much larger, is it not rather unfortunate that they are always publishing statements to say how they wish people would use more restraint in earning profits? They really cannot desire simultaneously that profits should be larger and that they should be smaller: that should be impossible, even in the Treasury.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government are always urging restraint on the payment of dividends?
LORD CONESFORD: No.
LORD STONHAM: Is it not also the case, in regard to shipping that in the Budget the Government have introduced a measure which it is expected will benefit shipping companies?
LORD CONESFORD: If the noble Lord who has just intervened had listened to me he would have heard me point out that the Government were urging restraint in profits and dividends; I went on to say that these two things were not the same, and that, therefore, I was dealing with them separately. At the moment, I am dealing with profits, and I say it is most unfortunate that the Government are always urging retraint in making profits if what in their saner moments they desire is that profits should be much bigger. That is a quite simple thought. It may be that I have gone mad; it may be that there is an overwhelming answer. But it seems to me wrong at one and the same moment to say that you want profits to be bigger and that you want profits to be smaller, because that cannot be.
My next question to the Government on the subject of profits is a quite simple one. I want to understand the policy of the Government so as occasionally to be able to advise one of my friends in industry who asks me what the Government mean. What is a company to do which wishes to
910
obey the Government's request for restraint in profits but fears that its profits are increasing? What do the Government desire that it should do? Of course, one obvious way in which it can comply with the Government's request is to make itself so much less efficient that instead of making a profit it will make a loss. That would be one way of getting restraint in profits. I give the Government credit for not desiring that. I want my noble and learned friend to tell me precisely what a company is to do which wishes to comply with the Government's request for restraint in profits and fears that its profits are increasing. It is not, apparently, to make itself deliberately less efficient. Somebody may say: "Why not reduce the prices charged to the consumer?" That would be a possible answer. But, of course, it is no answer: because what would happen if the only effect of reducing prices to the consumer were to increase trading profits, as it might well do? If my noble and learned friend has studied the history of the first Henry Ford, I think he will agree with me.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the only way to follow that last argument would be to look at the present situation and the price cutting going on through the consumer service, which means putting the cost back on the consumer. The consumer would get on his bus to a centre, serve himself, carry it back and destroy all the service given. There is no other way of making profits out of price cutting.
LORD CONESFORD: I did not say there was. The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition will realise that I was putting a question to the Government. I was considering the possible answers. I do not know the answers. I remind the noble Viscount that the problem is this oft-repeated request of the Government for restraint in profits. I am asking how the Government themselves desire that this request shall be met in the case of a company that wishes to do what the Government want, but fears that its profits are in fact increasing. That is my question. I suggested the possible answer of reducing prices, but I do not differ from the view

911
of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition that that will not necessarily have the desired effect at all.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, can we assume from that that the only way of dealing with higher industrial profitability is by the paying of higher dividends? Are we right to assume that the only way is to pay higher dividends to shareholders?
LORD CONESFORD: I have not made any statement of the sort. If only noble Lords opposite would do me the honour of listening to what I say, they would realise that I have not yet reached dividends. I started by saying that I was dealing with the Government's request for restraint in profits and dividends. So far I have been dealing with profits, and have put a perfectly definite series of questions to Her Majesty's Government.
Now I will come to the distribution of dividends. Let me say that there may be admirable reasons for not paying out dividends, or for paying out smaller dividends, or for not paying out bigger dividends. There may be excellent economic reasons for building up reserves, or for modernisation or re-equipment. There may be all those admirable reasons for not paying dividends, or not paying bigger dividends. But, if none of those considerations applies, it is, to my mind, a complete illusion to think that any public purpose is served by not distributing dividends which are not needed in the business. I wonder what advantage anybody, whether he is a Socialist, a Liberal or to whatever Party he belongs, thinks will result from having a company retaining profits which it does not need, and which it could distribute to the shareholders.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The employees might get some.
LORD CONESFORD: In my maiden speech I ventured to quote to the House the considered conclusion of the Royal Commission sitting under my noble and learned friend Lord Radcliffe. I will read the passage again. It is paragraph 536 of the final Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, and it says:
912
" The mere retention of profits cannot be rated as an economic advantage; on the contrary, it would better serve the public interest that the company should be encouraged to distribute those profits which it cannot put to fruitful use, in order that there may be a chance that they may be invested effectively elsewhere. Nor is it advantageous for the economy that the level of dividends should be kept down. Whatever other considerations bear upon the problem, the market value of shares in industrial and commercial enterprise is artificially depressed and an obstacle placed in the way of raising new capital."
I believe that those considered words of the Royal Commission—and these were words with which nearly all the Commissioners agreed; there was only one, I think, who dissented from that paragraph—deserve some attention by Her Majesty's Government. If they think that my noble and learned friend Lord Radcliffe and the Commissioners did not know what they were talking about, surely they should give us some reason for taking that view.
The only explanation I can see of this extraordinary attitude to the payment of dividends on profits already made and not needed by the company in question is that the Government, in a fit of absentmindedness, share the view expressed by a former Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer—now alas ! no longer with us—who complained of profits being "dished out to the shareholders." That reminded me very much of a legal story, which will be familiar to my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, of a complicated will case involving many parties which was being tried in the Chancery Court. At the end of the third day, while two practitioners were walking hack together to Lincoln's Inn, one was heard to remark, If this case is settled, the whole estate will be frittered away among the beneficiaries." That seems to be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the payment of dividends.
Since I am giving my own views which perhaps do not command universal assent, although I think they command a good deal, may I say a word about the suggestion, which so often is made, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he desires no increased distribution of dividends, the directors of companies in this country are under some sort of obligation to obey him? Taking the view that this country is a democracy which believes in the rule of law, I would

913
say that the duties of a director are to be derived from the Statutes passed by the Sovereign Parliament; they are to be derived from a study of the Companies Act, and the duties that are stated by judges in decided cases. They are not to be decided by the wish or desire of any Minister. I am not saying for one moment that a director of a company is not entitled to pay great attention to a request by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he must make up his own mind bona fide as to its wisdom, and if he comes to the conclusion that the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is foolish and he does not share that view, then he should be governed by what he understands to be the company law and the duties of directors as defined in the courts, and he is under no duty whatsoever to obey the wishes of Her Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, whilst it is obvious that directors of companies are not bound to observe expressions of opinion by any Minister, does my noble friend consider that part of the duties of directors of public companies is to pay some regard to the public interest, or what they conceive to be the public interest?
LORD CONESFORD: Certainly I agree with that, and if I did not make it clear before, I make it clear now. I say it is certainly their duty to make up their minds principally as to the public interest. I am in complete agreement with my noble Leader on that. But it must be their own genuine opinion of the public interest, and the view of a Minister is not decisive.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord would agree—I am not being hostile—that at the same time as an expression of opinion is being put up by a Chancellor of the Exchequer, the same freedom should be given to the leaders of the trade unions. If you are proposing a pay pause and proposing a more conservative policy in "dishing out" dividends, then there must be freedom to both sides, both on the labour side and on the directors' side.
LORD CONESFORD: I have never questioned for one moment that every trade unionist must make up his mind where the public interest lies, but if the
914
noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition thinks I am admitting a direct connection between wages and dividends, then let me say I am not. I will tell him why straight away. No wage earner would be content to make his right to wages contingent on the profits of the company. Of course not. He demands and gets, subject to the bargaining of the market, wages in accordance with his work. He would demand that wage, quite rightly, if the company made no profit at all. There may be a case on profits and dividends, but it has nothing to do with the case on wages. They are totally different considerations. In answer to the direct question put by the noble Viscount, of course I give that freedom to trade union members. I am happy to say that I have had a good number of them as my friends and I do not think any of them has doubted that that was my attitude.
To sum up this part of my argument, there are dozens of good reasons why it may be wrong to distribute a dividend. The money may be required for reserves, for modernising the industry or for other purposes. There is, however, one reason which would be a rotten reason for not distributing dividends, and that is that you think it is bad for the shareholders. Courtaulds Limited not so long ago reduced a dividend because they thought they would please their employees by demonstrating their loathing of their shareholders. It was not a very successful operation and subsequent events made them very much regret it.
I must say that I found myself in some sympathy with a part of the speech of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition on certain thoughts he had about gambling. I do not object to premium bonds, but there were passages in that part of his speech with which I found myself in more sympathy, perhaps, than most, but what I find so strange is that he can have that attitude to sheer gambling, which he does not propose to make illegal, but feels apparently some horror if those who invest in British industry derive increased profit from that investment. I would remind him in this connection that the shareholders, of course, are not

915 only rich men, but trade unions, pensions funds, the Church of England and many others.
I have tried to explain—I will not repeat the reasons—why I think that the Government request for restraint in profits and dividends should either be abandoned or stated with much greater accuracy and precision. In fact, I think they should indulge in accurate thought on the whole subject before they speak or compose statements of policy. My noble and learned Leader the other day made a similar suggestion in a speech which he made, to which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inch rye has already alluded. My noble and learned friend went so far as to suggest that Ministers should actually use good English. What he advocated differed so widely from the practice of some of his colleagues that his speech was widely cited as evidence of a Cabinet split. I even saw a suggestion that there was something disloyal about his suggestion that Ministers should use the English language.
I repeat his advice. The Government have everything to gain by using the English language with accuracy and precision. May I give a couple of examples? I think that fourteen years ago to the day, at the request of Ivor Brown, who was at that time editing the Observer, I wrote an article in that paper on the first edition of the book of Sir Ernest Gowers. I ventured there to comment on the then popular and slightly absurd use of the word "break-down" to mean analysis or classification. The example I then quoted was something I had seen in the Press about the break-down of the European Services of the B.B.C., not meaning that these services had broken down but meaning apparently the relative number of broadcasts the service had made to France and Germany respectively. I ventured to prophesy that, if this rather silly habit persisted, it would cause trouble. It was persisted in. My fate is that of a Cassandra; nobody ever takes the least notice of what I say, but it gave me the greatest pleasure to see in the American Press an allusion to "the population of the United States broken down by age and sex".
The other example that I venture to give to the House is the use in almost every Government Speech and in every
916
Government White Paper and Blue Book of what has become easily the most useless word in the English language, and that is the adjective "overall".
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I know he is quite an expert on modern English usage—a kind of up-to-date Fowler—but may I ask him, with respect, what this has to do with the economic situation?
LORD CONESFORD: I think, quite a lot; and I do not think the noble Lord who has interrupted me will find it too difficult to follow if he listens to my next two or three sentences. It has everything to do with it and I will tell him why. At the time that Ernest Gowers wrote his book, the adjective "overall" generally meant nothing whatever; that is to say, you could omit the word completely without having any effect whatsoever on the meaning. But, if it did mean something, it could have meant any of fourteen different things. Now I ask the noble Lord who interrupted me to concentrate on this simple thought. The word "overall" is now used indiscriminately to mean "average", "maximum" and total". If he studies economics, I am sure he will come to the conclusion that "average", "maximum" and "total" are three different conceptions and to use the same word when it may have any of those three meanings leads to the greatest confusion. In any Government White Paper the chances are that the word "overall" means nothing, but in cases where it means something it may mean any of those three things. The reader does not know which it means and he suspects that the writer does not know either. Indulging in ill-considered exhortation in sloppy language can injure the Government's reputation. The case is well known at the Temple of a leading counsel who addressed a jury in a very difficult case with these words, "Members of the Jury, my client talks like an ass and he looks like an ass; but, do not be deceived, he is an ass". My Lords, may this never be said of Her Majesty's Government.
7.20 p.m.
LORD MILNE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of noble Lords with regard to the very interesting maiden speech of the noble

917
Marquess—may we often hear him here—and also with the remarks made concerning the late Lord Pethick-Lawrence, whom we remember to-day and of whom we were very fond.
I should like to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the results of last year's "housekeeping" as disclosed by the Economic Survey. Personally, I should like to add something else. Whether or not one agrees with his policy, I think he has shown considerable courage in pursuing what was obviously something very unpopular in the face of widespread opposition. if the quality of the results was somewhat fortuitous, I feel that one is entitled to ask why, if things were going so well, there was need for a 7 per cent. bank rate. The fact seems to be that our country is pursuing two operations at the same time, one trading and one banking; and both lack capital, the banking operation to such an extent that it hinders the trading side.
If John Bull were a private citizen he would by now probably have received something of the following advice: "Separate out the two activities, both accounting and management. Secondly, strengthen your bank, and in the meantime do not overtrade. Finally, do not let your prosperous trading business suffer for the sake of the banking side." Clearly, what applies to an individual does not necessarily follow for a nation. Nevertheless, it appears to me that there is some need for something like a differential bank rate. We are justly proud of our role as bankers to the sterling area and custodians of the pound sterling. But are we really clear in our minds on the price we are paying for it, or are we confusing business with sentiment? For so long as sterling occupies the position of an international currency, so long must we expect the pressures and alarms to which such currencies are heir and, in avoiding them, the consequent damage to our home development in present circumstances.
What is the other side of the coin? Starved of capital and stunted by banking medicine, industry struggles along trying to anticipate events. Instead of receiving praise for the strides made since the war by our exports in bridging the gap of lost invisibles, industry is now the whipping horse, even in the O.E.C.D. Economic Survey. I know that
918
we have a lot to learn in business, but in a highly industrialised country such as ours productivity is usually synonymous with modern plant and extra capital. Even if he can get it, no businessman is likely to embark on such a project unless he has confidence in the home market. This is precisely where our banking operation impinges on our trade. Just when industry begins to expand, along comes what is really a banking crisis; up goes the bank rate; down must go overdrafts, and a potential expansion eventually ends as a contraction. In such circumstances the product cost would rise without any movement in wages whatsoever. No wonder our plant is out of date, our productivity low, and dissatisfaction general.
How can we get out of the rut? First of all, I suggest that we should do some basic economic re-thinking; and, with the Common Market in the offing, now is the time. There are indeed signs of it already. Foreign spending has been cut, arrangements have been made to strengthen the reserves, and "Neddy" has been formed. Nevertheless, with the demand for capital ever on the increase, it would be a brave man who would forecast any considerable or sustained improvement in the general balance of payments. It follows that we must in our faith to the trading side and do everything to encourage increased productivity and, with it, exports. Viewed in this vital context the Budget seems to me irrelevant. Was it too much to expect that company taxation might be reorganised to help exporters and yet satisfy the rules of the GATT; or possibly a more realistic view be taken of capital allowances? But no, my Lords; instead we received barley water and a capital gains tax which was really a sop for Cerberus.
7.26 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, first I should like to apologise to the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition for the fact that, due to a prior engagement, I was not able to be present to hear his speech. I should like to congratulate my noble friend the Marquess of Reading on a most forthright and convincing maiden speech and I associate myself with all the tributes which have been paid to my noble friend from all parts of this House.

919
I should like to deal primarily with specific proposals in the Budget. I would congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bringing in what has for the most part, I think, been a realistic Budget. It has been described in various circles as a mouse Budget, an insipid Budget, and an uninspiring Budget. I would say that in some respects the last adjective is not entirely unjustified, but, as one who is not an economist, I have often wondered what constitutes an inspiring Budget. An inspiring Budget must, surely, in the long run be one that seeks votes, and I think that, whatever shortcomings the recent Budget may have, it is certainly not a vote-catching Budget, to the forthcoming electors either of West Derbyshire or of West Middlesbrough.
I would congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the measures which he is taking regarding the Schedule A property tax. This is going to be of great value to property owners, of whom there are many in this country—not all of them wealthy people—and they are saving the local authorities a good deal of money. Whilst it is always possible to recoup a considerable portion of what one pays on Schedule A, nevertheless the outgoings can hit hard on many people, particularly those living on fixed incomes. So I congratulate the Chancellor on this proposal, and hope that vigilance will be exercised to make sure that the proposals are expedited.
Set against that there has been this tax on confectionery, ice cream and soft drinks. Being a non-smoker, I am fond of confectionery and, like the Chancellor, I have a daughter, who is only a few years younger than his. She is not entirely pleased at this tax. But the dentistry and medical professions have for a long time been concerned with the state of children's teeth, and I do not think that a child to-day will suffer much hardship from an increase of 1½d. on a shillingsworth of sweets, which is what this will amount to.
There was an interesting article in the Sunday Telegraph last week-end by Mr. Michael Woolf, who was discussing the financial cares of to-day's young man. This article instances how a young man of 18 spends his money. The youths who were interviewed in this particular
920
matter were all of about the age of 18; they worked on building sites and earned something like £20 a week. The article begins:
" I cannot live on £18 or £20 per week,' said a boy who had got into trouble with the authorities."
Much is made of the fact that young married couples have difficulty in setting up home; that mortgages are too high; that properties generally cost too much, or that land costs too much. But I suggest that perhaps, for these young lads, an expenditure of £3 10s. per week on entertainment is rather high, as is £1 10s. per week on cigarettes, even though the Chancellor may derive some benefit from this. In the criticisms being directed towards the Chancellor's Budget and the economic situation generally I think that there is some substance in questioning whether young people particularly are being hit as hard as people make out.
I was disappointed in the fact that the Chancellor had not given many concessions to the old people. I think the figure up to which an old-age pensioned couple can earn without being taxed is now £480 per year. I feel that that figure could have been raised. Another suggestion, made in a number of circles, was that the Chancellor could give tax relief to season ticket holders. I think there is some substance in that suggestion. Many people who have to travel to London to their place of work are not making much money per week. Again, many are living on fixed incomes. We are told, on the other hand, that there are too many cars coming into London with only one person travelling in each car. That is true; I think it is a fair argument. But the time will soon come when some concessions should be given to those who have to travel to London and to other cities from country areas. It is all very well to say that they can live nearer to or in London; but the price of property in these areas is very high indeed.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, what about the worker who does shift work, and therefore has to pay a high rent in order to live near his work and get to work at 4, 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning? Is he to be given tax relief on the excessive rent which he has to pay in

921
London, as compared with those who live 20 or 30 miles out?
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I think that those who hold early morning workers' tickets should get relief on them. I do not know whether that is what the noble Lord is suggesting.
LORD LINDGREN: Many workers in London do shift work, having to start at 4, 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning. They have to live in London. Their rents are excessive, compared with those of persons who start work at 9 or 9.30 and can afford to live 25 or 30 miles on either side of London. If tax relief is given on railway fares, it must be given on the excessive rents paid by those who have to live in London.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I can see the substance of the noble Lord's argument. But I would point out that, so far as wages are concerned, the people whom the noble Lord mentions are often a good deal higher paid than the insurance or the bank clerk. The noble Lord shakes his head, but that is a fact.
I think the City, where I have the honour to work, has behaved with great restraint over the past few years. The insurance companies are continuing to give good service and to earn more and more dollars. It is interesting to note that national savings are continuing to increase. The building societies are continuing to advance more money, despite the difficulty of mortgages. Nobody is going to pretend that the economy of this country is in wonderful shape, but. I often wonder as I listen to the speeches from the Party opposite—I listened to a number of them during the Budget debate—whether things are really as bad as they say, especially when one reads articles such as that from which I have just quoted in the Sunday Telegraph. I am not for one moment denying that many sections of the community, particularly the old-age pensioners, are not, in many cases, in difficult straits, although they have been given more benefits in the past five years than in previous years. But for young people, particularly, the years ahead are going to be years of some opportunity. In face of present circumstances, I think that the Chancellor has produced a courageous Budget.
7.40 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I regret the fact that I had not the privilege and the pleasure of hearing the earlier speeches, because I was engaged upstairs in a Select Committee, whose proceedings went on a little longer than I anticipated. This, of necessity, will narrow the range of my comments in this debate. At this late hour, I am sure that that will be appreciated by the House. In addition, I am anxious to ensure that I do not inflict any repetition of argument upon this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, says that he considers the Budget to be a realistic one. Well, we have had some very interesting and pleasant exchanges on the subject of definitions. I hope that I may have the privilege at some time of borrowing the noble Lord's dictionary, in order that I may be able to understand what he believes to be the meaning of "realistic". My own view is that the Budget was both pathetic and timid in its approach to the economic affairs of the day. If one looks upon it as a contribution made by the Government towards the stimulation of the national economy, I would go so far as to say that it was disastrous.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, have made reference to the taxation upon sweets, ice cream and soft drinks. There may be some justification for that on medical grounds. But if we look upon it from the point of view of a nation needing a vigorous approach upon the problems of the day, one can see that it is bad psychology that the Chancellor should concern himself with something of that description when what is required is something far more fundamental. Apart from the very necessary function of raising revenue, which we expect from a Budget, I would say that there are two fundamental requirements. One is to adjust the fiscal system to ensure that incentives are given where they have the greatest effect on productivity. In this Budget one fails to see any indication of encouragement in the way of incentives likely to stimulate productivity.
The second requirement, I would suggest, is to give an appearance of equity. In this particular Budget there is more

923
appearance than equity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may claim that he has done something to achieve this appearance of equity in his treatment of the speculative gains tax; but, quite frankly, it is merely a façade. He may have admitted the principle—and that I concede is tremendously important; but it is generally acknowledged, even by the financial Press, that this tax will have very little impact upon capital gains. So much then for the Budget.
Last July the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined several objectives. I want to deal with one or two of them in the light of experience over the past few months. His objectives were: to increase exports and industrial production; to reduce or curb the rise in retail prices; and to curb Government expenditure. In the light of experience over the past few months Government policy has been conspicuous by its failure.
Let me deal first of all with exports. I will not inflict on the House many statistics, because I am quite sure that other speakers have quoted them earlier, but, for the purpose of my argument, it is necessary to quote figures from the Economic Survey. They show that the value of exports has declined from £1,965 million in the first half of last year to £1,898 million in the second half. In total value our exports for the full year were £128 million, or 31 per cent. higher than in 1960. But in volume there was very little change between the first quarter and the end of the year. If we examine comparative tables which are quoted for the whole period of Conservative Administration, we see there that Britain shows the lowest increase in exports of any Western European nation.
My noble friend Lord Stonham referred to the Government's view, which was recently stated in another place, that if home demand is held in strict check industry will automatically seek additional export markets. I agree with the arguments that have been advanced by my noble friend, and indeed one can refer to our experience in 1957 when industry did not seek additional markets abroad and exports did not rise after 1957. They did not, in fact, rise until home demand started to go up and
924
expansion occurred again in this country. Over the last eight months this has again been true: exports have not responded to the check in home demand.
What has been the effect of the restriction of home demand? Production has fallen, and in consequence there has been a substantial increase in the unit cost of production. In my opinion the completely obstinate pursuit of what I believe to be the fallacious idea that there is a fixed (and I emphasise the word fixed) relationship between restricted home demand and export development is partly responsible for the difficulties we have experienced of late. I agree that there is no formula upon which the relationship between home sales and exports can be expressed, but it is certainly positive that an increase in exports is not in direct ratio to restriction of home demand. Because, as has already been said, the greatest single factor in the determination of our costs, which has a tremendous bearing upon our export capabilities, is our cost of production. That, in turn, is determined by the volume of production, which in its turn, has an influence upon the unit cost.
In support of this particular point, and also to draw the attention of the House to the policy of the Government, which has had an adverse effect on our exports, I should like to refer to recent statements made by the chairman of one of the leading radio manufacturers in this country on the subject of the influence of purchase tax upon foreign trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said recently that purchase tax leads to a distortion of the pattern of consumer spending, and hence of investment. That is perfectly true, and in consequence it is not without its influence upon exports. So far, I fail to see any indication in the policy of the Government that they accept that point of view. The statement of the chairman of one of the leading radio and television manufacturers, to which I have referred, and which I should like to quote to your Lordships, was that his industry
" has been one of the main targets for purchase tax, and the situation has become serious in recent years. Fiscal measures have been introduced by the Government which have had a paralysing effect on the industry. Purchase tax is not only a source of revenue but a means of regulating the economy. The changes in the rate have been violent and frequent."

925
He then goes on to say that
" most of the ups and downs, it is on the export market where most of the harm is done—by neglect."
A feature of purchase tax, he says, is that it has an effect on quality, and here again it acts as an export disincentive. He goes on to make what is, to my mind, a very important statement, when he says that manufacturers in this country have had to play down their sets to a price that will be acceptable to the public after purchase tax is paid. The only way to get them down to that price is to put in cheaper materials and minimal specifications.
But, my Lords, on the Continent high-quality finish is required, and generous specifications are vital. What is the result? According to this chairman, the consequence is that two production lines have to be maintained: one for the home market and one for the export market; and, as a result, costs are higher and there are less exports for this country. That again indicates that the Government itself has had a serious adverse effect upon exports, at least in that particular industry, although I aim quite sure that it could be applied also to many other industries. I could at this stage go on to make reference to the question of imports. Here again we see a substantial increase in imports which has worsened the situation. However, I will leave that, and will turn to the question of industrial production.
Measures suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the resuscitation of British industry, which were announced in the "little Budget" have meant not merely stagnation but an actual decline in our industrial production. When the Chancellor's measures were announced the Official Index of Industrial Production stood at 116 (I think the base was 100, in 1958) but by January it had fallen to 111, its lowest for 23 months. What is the position to date? No one can make political capital out of the situation to-day, but I quote from nonpolitical sources. The Economic and Social Review recently made the statement that it expects that spare
" Whilst the home market is able to ride industrial capacity will be as much at the end of this year as it is now, and that unemployment will be higher. It went on to point out that over the past two-and-a-half
926
years the growth of the United Kingdom economy was only 1½ per cent. per annum—lower than that of any other country in Western Europe.
I turn now to the Federation of British Industries, which could never be accused of putting forward arguments which, in their opinion, were calculated to support the opinions which we express from this side. Their recent inquiry showed that the present mood of industry is distinctly pessimistic. Their last survey showed that nearly 60 per cent. of the firms were working below capacity, mainly because of lack of orders. Steel industrial production is at 70 per cent, of capacity; and unemployment increased from 259,000 in July last year to 452,000 in March. Incidentally, that is not the full story, because I know only too well that many firms in this country are retaining a measure of labour for obvious reasons—for the time when there is an adequate supply of orders to keep them all busy. But this slowing down in the tempo of industrial production is even more significant than people realise; and something drastic must be done. It is not merely a question of declining wealth; it is also effecting a worsening of our relative competitive strength, as compared with other countries.
One can turn to prices, but I understand that those have already been quoted so I make no further comment on them, except to indicate that, following the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would endeavour to keep prices down, they have, in fact, risen. There was a more substantial increase between July and March than at any period since the inception of the Index. As regards Government expenditure, there again we have substantial increases, all indicative of the fact that, for some reason or other, the Government were unable to pursue a policy which would assist our own industry, although they declared only a matter of eight months ago that their policy was calculated to be of assistance in the development and resuscitation of British industry.
On all four counts the Government's economic policy has failed in its objectives. I know that the supporters of the Government complain that the man in the street does not understand what the

927
Government are doing; and they endeavour to secure some satisfaction from the fact that these policies must be right because they are unpopular. I have heard that view expressed many times. The Government seem unable to consider the possibility that they may be paying the penalty for doing the wrong things too often. I think that that idea has been reflected in more than one quarter to-day. It is my firm belief, my Lords, that the Government cannot understand the current mood of the British people. They fail to recognise the sign of injustice that is inevitably created by imposing, for instance, a pay pause within months of announcing a substantial surtax concession. How can they expect to stimulate and develop the interest of workers, to try to persuade them to work harder, when, at the same time, they pursue a policy of that kind?
I know that the Government have been successful to some extent in checking the rate of increase of certain incomes by setting aside established methods of negotiation, mutilating the authority of arbitration courts, and, in consequence, creating bitterness among teachers, civil servants, nurses and the like. Let me make it clear that many of us, including those of us on this side of the House, would endorse any effort that related income to productivity. That must be realised in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, made a good deal of reference to the question of profits and dividends. While he was speaking, I took the trouble of looking up the relation between the two. At a time when the Government have suggested that there should be some restriction on the upward trend of wages by means of the pay pause, what do we see with dividends? The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was probably expressing publicly what so many other people are thinking privately: that there should be far less restriction upon dividends. But whatever appeal has been made for restriction of dividends, what has been the experience? The Economic Survey itself states that dividends were 71 per cent. higher in 1961 than they were in 1960. The Financial Times, incidentally, does not agree with that figure; they say that they increased by 12 per cent. The Stock Exchange say
928
that the figure is 6 per cent. You take your pick. But, in any case, that shows quite a substantial increase. Who earns all these dividends?
One thing that can be established, is that dividends are 30 per cent. higher than they were two years ago. We are not going to grumble too much about that, except to say that during that same period production has hardly risen, and that is the real point at issue. It is not a fact that we deprecate an increase in profits. If profits are truly related to increased national wealth, to a welling-up of production, and to an increase in the general standard of life for the community, well and good. But here we are having evidence of increases in dividend payments at a time when the Government themselves will recognise that there is very little increase in general productivity.
Now dividends, like wages, must of necessity be related to production. There is clear evidence here that there is no question of any relation to productivity. I was very interested in the noble Lord's refreshing comment that the directors should decide in their own interests, even against the interests of the State, whether there should be restraint in profits and whether dividends should be abandoned. I wonder what he would think if that general principle found universal expression among trade union leaders. I am sure there would be a great outcry from the Government Benches. We get many appeals for a recognition of national loyalty, and an emphasis upon our need to recognise the interests of the State and the nation—which we do. Quite frankly, comments of that description are not likely to excite the interest of the worker; nor are they likely to encourage the efforts of some trade union leaders—indeed, many trade union leaders—who are just as much conscious of their national responsibilities, or more conscious of their national responsibilities, than those who express the statements that we have heard about this afternoon.
I would end on this note, my Lords. I feel that, to-day, one of the most regrettable political circumstances is the public confusion over planning. Years ago the Conservative Party successfully created the public illusion that planning was synonymous with irksome restriction and unnecessary control, and to-day

929
they are hoist with their own petard, because it is recognised—and recognised by both sides of the House—that there is an absolute necessity for the orderly planning of our resources if we are to develop this nation along proper lines. I would just say this: that, quite apart from the merits or demerits of the Common Market—and I make no comment upon that at this stage because, personally, I feel that before one makes any positive utterance it would be as well to know the precise terms of entry—there is a growing opinion among the people of this country that the Government are seeking an entry into the Common Market in the hope that they may find an escape from the chaos they have created at home: and that is not the sort of atmosphere in which one can impartially consider that most important subject. My Lords, I apologise for speaking at length, and I sincerely hope that I have not, because of the fact that I was out of the Chamber at the early stage, repeated any arguments that have been previously advanced.
8.2 p.m.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I will try to be brief, as we have already had a long debate this afternoon. I should first of all like to associate myself with what other noble Lords have said about how much we miss the late Lord Pethick-Lawrence. He was a person of great charm and kindness in debate, and when I first came to your Lordships' House and took part in these. debates I was always most grateful to him for the way in which he encouraged those of us who were new to the House. I should also like to say a word of congratulation to my noble friend Lord Reading on his maiden speech. It is a happy occasion for me to be able to do that, as we are first cousins; and I hope he will be heard in your Lordships' House very often in the future.
This debate has covered quite a large field, and I think a great deal of the criticism which has been levelled at Her Majesty's Government from the Opposition Benches, and to a certain extent from my own side of the House, has really been based on less than a fair assessment of the success of the Government's policy. When one looks at last year, 1961 (which is very fresh in everyone's mind because it was a year of crisis
930
and difficulty, a year in which there was a special Budget and a year in which new taxes were introduced in the middle of the year), I think one has to bear in mind that some of the things that caught up with the British economy during that period were not entirely of our own making or as a result of the success or failure of our own policies. It was a year in which the American dollar came under very heavy pressure. The dollar was weak; and, following on this, we had the revaluation upwards of the mark and, to a lesser extent, the guilder. This had a reaction on sterling which created a very severe, technically difficult position for sterling. As it happened, this was coupled at the same time with balance of payments difficulties of our own.
The Government were faced with what amounted to a severe crisis, and crisis measures were necessary to bring things under control. Whatever has been said in criticism of the Government, one must be clear that the measures that were introduced have been highly successful. First of all, the inflationary pressure inside this country was brought under control; confidence was restored in sterling; and we finished the year in an altogether more favourable balance of payments position than one could possibly have hoped for during the situation in the middle of the year. I think it is absolutely undeniable that the combination of strong fiscal policies in the field of taxation and the energetic use of the monetary controls was successful and entirely vindicated the way in which the Government handled the situation during last year.
Of course, the respite thus gained will be of little avail to us if steps are not taken to improve the longer-term trends; and this afternoon many noble Lords, particularly noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, have cast doubts on the Government's ability or intention to do anything effective about the longer-term position, and have compared our performance in an unfavourable light with that of other industrial countries. Now it was the Government themselves who pointed out last July that the respite they could gain by the severe measures then introduced would be effective only if they could improve the longer-term trends: and, of course, they have proceeded to do this very thing. I am

931
going to say a word or two about that in a moment; but, before doing so, I should like to refute some of the suggestions that have been put forward about the gloom and difficulty in which we now find ourselves.
Actually, my Lords, as a result of the stronger position in which we are and which I believe is very largely due to the wise and severe policies which the Government pursued during last year, the prospects now are really rather good. Our prospects for exports to Europe and to the United States and Canada look better for this coming year than they have done for some time; the earnings of the under-developed or the primary producing countries, the less industrialised countries, are expected to improve during this year, and therefore our export prospects to those areas are also likely to improve; and, finally, the basic balance-of-payments position, the overall position as disclosed in the statistics, looks as though it will improve in the course of the year. All this leads one to feel that the picture which has been painted of the economy staggering under terrible restrictions, of our position being almost untenable and of other countries around us in Europe overtaking us economically, really does not match up to the situation.
We have still a long way to go to get the balance-of-payments situation in an entirely satisfactory state, but, of course, this is not something which can be done quickly. We may need another decade to recover from all the difficulties of the post-war years. I am certainly not one of those who attach any particular blame to the management of our affairs by the Labour Party, particularly in the 1951 crisis, because I think there were events then (the Korean War, of course) and there have been events since which, from time to time, have made our position as the managers of the largest clearing currency of the world extremely difficult. Our reserves are insufficient: and I do not believe there is a short, quick solution to these balance-of-payments problems when they are constantly linked, as the noble Lord, Lord Mills, pointed out, with the problem of managing sterling at the same time.
Now, may I, for a moment, turn to the Government's proposals—and I will try here to be brief—as far as the Budget
932
is concerned? The Budget has been tremendously criticised as being uninspiring, neutral and failing to produce any new ideas or new incentives. I should have thought that this was exactly what was required at the moment. The measures that the Government have used to bring the economy under control and to improve the position have, as I said, been successful. For once we have used a combination of fiscal and monetary controls, and we have achieved quick and reasonable success. Surely it would be the very last thing for which anyone would ask that, having obtained some measure of success, we should immediately start relaxing and reinflating.
Noble Lords on both sides of the House have, for many years past now, constantly complained of the "Stop-Go" policy; and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has complained about the effects of that policy in regard to one particular industry. It seems clear that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's assessment of this coming year is reasonable, we are going to get a steady increase in consumption, in demand, and in production, without any steps being taken at this stage to produce greater demand by relaxing either in the fiscal or in the monetary fields. If we did relax at this stage, the chances are that, by the end of the year, we should once again be faced with the depressing and discouraging process of reimposing some form of restraint. Therefore, my Lords, I conclude that this Budget is absolutely what was required. I think it is also just about the easiest Budget there could be to criticise, because everyone has some theory or other as to how the situation could be improved a little, and if a Budget comes out which has nothing very startling in it by way of new proposals, or taxes, or incentives, or suggestions, then more people are disappointed by it than probably are when more interesting proposals are put forward.
I was going to say a little about export incentives, but I think it is too late to go into much detail. However, I would just say this. I am sure that the function of Government here should not be to try to find clever gimmicks and incentives for any particular part of the economy which they feel

933 requires stimulating. I believe that the function of Government should be to provide the financial and economic springboard from which the whole of the industrial and business community should take off. To try to find individual cures or stimulants for particular problems is, in the end, only going to create as many problems as are solved. The investment allowances are a case in point. The investment allowances have never persuaded anybody to invest. People invest in new plant or equipment because they think that, when they have built it, they will be able to sell the output at a profit. If you have some form of export incentive, people will not export as the result of that incentive; they will export if they can sell their goods in satisfactory markets overseas and collect the money which is owed to them. The incentive would be nothing more than something from which one would benefit if all the other factors necessary were present. If those factors were not present, I personally am doubtful whether the export incentive would really be of much avail.
Perhaps I may pass on from that to say a word about the O.E.C.D. Report. Many of your Lordships, and many people outside your Lordships' House, have read into this Report, or drawn from it, many conclusions which, frankly, I feel are quite unwarranted. I think that this is a very valuable document, and many of the comments and suggestions which are written into the Report are of the greatest value. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Poole, mentioned earlier this afternoon, they are, on the whole, an absolute vindication of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's and the Government's policy, both in general and in particular: in particular in the setting up of the National Economic Development Council, and in general in announcing that the Government are going to have a positive policy towards wages. I think it was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when speaking in another place on the Budget debate, who said that he felt this was one of the most important departures in general Government policy that had been made since the Government took the general responsibility for full employment at the end of, or just after, the last war; that this departure of
934
taking a positive policy attitude towards wages could be considered in the same light.
To turn back again to this Report, my Lords, the inference has been drawn that we are performing very poorly when compared with other countries. If noble Lords really wish to draw the inference that, because Germany and France (who I suppose are our two largest industrial competitors across the Channel) have increased their gross national product at a higher rate than we have during the decade of the 'fifties, therefore we are falling behind, then in looking at these tables they will be forced to the conclusion that the country we should fear most is Greece because in fact Greece is second in the league tables. Such a proposition is obviously perfectly ludicrous. What one has to realise is that these tables show the rate of growth of gross national product and they depend on the starting point. Obviously, Greece starts at a very low point.
Similarly, one noble Lord on the Opposition Benches (I am afraid I cannot remember who) quoted Ireland as leading in productivity. Of course, Ireland has done relatively well, and, I think, slightly better than we have; but anybody who knows the Irish Republic knows that the productivity per worker there must be very low. It is not an industrialised country but a country of small farms, and largely inefficient farms, and, of course, any increase shows up immediately. This is a point which seems to have been completely missed, and therefore I consider that the interpretation put upon these figures is most misleading.
So far as France and Germany are concerned, the German population to the extent of about 30 per cent. is still employed in agriculture. They have had a constant flow of refugee labour from the East. They have also had a major currency reform which gave them the starting point to this expansion. In France there are similar factors. They have a large agricultural population which is still only beginning to be drawn into industry. We were in a completely different position in 1950, the base year for these figures. I am not sure what the position was in 1950, but to-day we have only about 5 per cent. of our working population employed in agriculture,

935
and in the circumstances it would have been quite impossible to expect us to have performed at the same level of expansion as other countries.
Your Lordships will find that we have done nearly as well as the United States: the differences are very small. We have increased our gross national product to the extent of just under 3 per cent. per annum, and the United States. I think, have increased theirs by just about 3 per cent. Some of the more advanced Scandinavian countries, like Denmark. Norway and Sweden, have increased theirs by just under 3½ per cent. So the differences are very small. I think the indications, contrary to what some noble Lords have suggested, are that really we are doing extremely well—extremely well in view of the heavy defence burden which we carry as well as the major responsibility of managing the sterling area, and, of course, the fact that we also have a much larger investment programme overseas in our Commonwealth, in Colonial territories and in helping the underdeveloped areas.
I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer. However, I feel that to some extent an altogether too depressing note has been struck by some of my noble friends on this side of the House. I myself believe that, if the Government are open to any criticism, it may be the criticism which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye touched on: perhaps they have not put across their case quite as well as they might. I think they have a very good case, a good story to tell, and I look forward to this year being a prosperous one.
8.20 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords. I must confess that at this stage of the debate I feel very like the member of the American population described by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—that is to say, broken down by age and sex. I suppose that many of your Lordships will have the feeling that everything that has been said in the course of this debate has been said many times before on similar occasions over a number of years. Nevertheless, I am extremely grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for the contribution he made, in his delightfully phrased and informative maiden speech
936
this afternoon, because I think that the noble Marquess summed up perhaps better than anybody the situation so far as it concerns Government policy. The noble Marquess said that what is needed is new notions, and I find myself in the happy position of being, for once, in complete agreement with a noble Lord on the opposite Benches.
I should like also strongly to support the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that the Government should tell us precisely just how we are to become more competitive. Most of the methods that are advocated generally have been discarded, and we are left wondering what the recipe is to be. I myself could not help being reminded of one of the many occasions when the Government had been pressing for greater output—this was at a time when I happened to be a professor in the University of London. Conscientiously we held a departmental meeting to consider how we could increase our output. Three alternatives were presented. The first was that we should condense 10 per cent. more matter into each of our lectures. The second was that we should compress each of our lectures into 10 per cent. less time. And the third, and most popular, was that we should repeat ourselves 10 per cent. more often. Maybe the noble and learned Viscount who is to reply may have some more constructive proposal than any of those.
The noble Lord, Lord Mills, gave us what I might perhaps call a rather complacent picture, though in sombre tone, of what is sometimes described as the affluent society. Personally, I would rather describe it as the top-heavy society, for it is affluent only at one end. I think that the noble Lord drew this picture by the simple device of taking credit for all the good things that had happened and omitting to mention all the bad ones.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, surely this is only the obverse of the Opposition's case. They mention only the bad things and give credit for none of the good things. That is the game.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount is giving an excellent exhibition of a philosophy which I did not think he held—the Marxist contention that

937
truth emerges from the .synthesis of thesis and antithesis.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, but it was by Hegel, before Marx.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I am sure that we shall agree to give the credit to Hegel.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, carried this one stage further by mentioning some things—notably revaluations overseas—which he said were inevitable, while the good things were the product of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, for example, took credit for the extensive school building that has taken place in the years we have had a Conservative Government, but he omitted to mention the drastic cuts that are now being made in the proposals for school building, and the cuts now proposed in the expenditure on universities. He mentioned with some complacency our progress in exports, but failed to mention, as my noble friends Lord Walston and Lord Peddie pointed out, how we had fallen back in our comparative position, and I do not think that this falling hack is entirely answered by the comparison which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, used. He pointed out that if a country starts from a low level, it is in a strong position to make a large percentage increase, and quoted the example of Greece. That explanation does not explain away our failure to maintain our share in the total of world trade.
Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Poole (I am sorry that he is not now in his place) was disposed to take credit for the comparatively low level of unemployment which has prevailed now for over ten years. But he failed to mention that in Northern Ireland the level of employment runs consistently at four or five times the level in Great Britain. Either this is due to circumstances which are beyond the power of the Government, in which case they are not quite so efficient as they make out, or they are due to some extraordinary meanness which causes them to be unwilling to impart the secret of their success in Great 13ritain to their colleagues in the Government of Northern Ireland.
I think that far and away the best defence of the Government's policy came
938
from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, if I may say so. But he posed his defence mare in the future than in the past. He spoke not of achievements but of prospects. Jam yesterday and jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day! But Governments are judged by "jam to-day." But let us be honest. There is one new element in the Government's economics policy. Though perhaps your Lordships will forgive me, having said that, if I point out that it is not quite so new as some noble Lords opposite might like to claim. The new element is the proposal: that we should have a new incomes policy. If I may quote from a book which was published some seven years ago, we find this passage:
" The pattern of income distribution is essentially a political question. It embodies social valuations which affect the whole community and in which conflicting interests are involved, and the issues raised by these conflicts are germane to the differences which divide political Parties so long at least as those differences can claim to be the expression of alternative social philosophies or designs for achieving alternative social ends. The place for the discussion of wage policy is on the agenda of political conferences."
My Lords, when I wrote those words seven years ago I had the impression, from the reaction which was provoked, that I had, so to speak, used a dirty word; and your Lordships can therefore imagine the pleasure with which I welcome the publication of a Government White Paper actually entitled, Incomes Policy—for Government White Papers are not usually essays in pornographic expression.
We find reinforcement of this attitude in the O.E.C.D. Report, which has also called attention to the problem of evolving in this country
" a more permanent system for the determination of money incomes, which is accepted as just and reasonable by the community as a whole."
So we were full of hope, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place told us that this incomes policy was necessitated by certain facts about recent changes in distribution. He mentioned that between 1960 and 1961 there had `been a 5 per cent. increase in wages and salaries; a 6½ per cent. increase in other personal incomes; a 20 per cent. increase in gross dividends, and a 3 per cent. increase in production. He said, "These figures do not make sense." We on these

939
Benches would, I think, endorse that statement, though not necessarily for quite the same reason. So we embarked upon a pay pause—stage one of the new economic policy.
Credit was taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place for the fact that during the pay pause, from October to February, weekly wage rates rose by only 0·8 per cent. He did not mention that during the same period retail prices rose very nearly twice as fast, suggesting that this is not a very effective cure for inflation. Nor did he mention the fact that during the same period production had actually declined. I fail to see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so pleased with the policy of the pay pause, and, indeed, from his own point of view, so ready to abandon it in favour of the second stage. For, as the noble Lord, Lord Mills, said, the pay pause was to be only the beginning.
So we pass from the stage of the pay pause to the stage of the positive policy; and I think we all had considerable sympathy with the Chancellor in another place when he said that finding a positive policy was not quite so easy as it looked. A positive policy is described in the White Paper as the next step. Let us see what the positive policy is. The positive policy, the White Paper tells us, is not to take so much notice in wage negotiations of the cost of living; it is not to take so much notice in the determination of wages of shortages of labour in particular industries or firms: it is not to take so much notice of the comparabilities of one wage with another, although these have a part to play. We then turn hopefully to find what we are to take notice of; but at that point the White Paper comes to an untimely end. And when we ask what we are to do about other incomes—not wages or salaries—we find no mention of these until the final paragraph.
The essence of the policy seems to be, in fact, a standstill at, if I may so describe it, a slightly raised figure, to allow a kind of flat 2½ per cent. to 3 per cent. all round with no questions asked as to priorities or anything else. Today, in Question Time, the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, said—and I think we all accepted it—that it is not possible to translate a text that you have not
940
got. Nor is it possible to interpret a policy that you have not got. Yet, in time, I am sure we shall come to see that there is a place in this community for an incomes policy. A real incomes policy would be an extremely radical thing, and it would have to ask a number of questions and challenge a number of assumptions in our existing economic system. It would have to ask questions about priorities: about priorities within the professional field; about priorities as between the professional field and the manual working field; and about priorities, also, within the manual working field itself. It would not, I think, be content with the flat 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. all round, which simply means that existing relativities are standardised for ever and no one who has been unfortunate enough to get left behind in the race has any hope of making good.
The noble Lord, Lords Mills, spoke with pride and pleasure of the rising standard of living—and we accept with gratitude and share in his delight that the standards have risen most significantly in the period since the war. But a real incomes policy would raise the question whether we are content that, in spite of what is often referred to as the high level of wages, just short of 10 per cent. of the adult males who are in full-time occupation take home earnings of less than £10 a week: that, not 10 per cent. but 87 per cent. of the adult females who are in full-time employment take home less than £l0 a week; and that barely less than one-third of the households which are living in poverty, as we used to judge it—that is to say, slightly above the subsistence level—are households in which the head of the household is in full-time employment. In other words, there is a long tale still of low wages, which are to be frozen, apparently, by the universal formula of not more than 3 per cent.
I think perhaps we shall have to admit, too (I say this with some trepidation in the presence of my trade union friends), that a real incomes policy would challenge some of the assumptions of some of the doctrines that have long held sway in this country. It might have to challenge even the doctrine of the divine right of collective bargaining—or, perhaps I should say, of the divine rightness of every collective bargain. It might have to challenge the tradition

941
that has grown up in this country that in industrial arbitration we use not the common British judicial system, but the Chinese. This, I think, is now recognised in the White Paper, which suggests that we move from the Chinese to the British system. For I understand that when there is a dispute in China it is the custom not to try to settle it by having some objective standard of what is fair between the parties, but to cast around for something which will cause the parties to give up their quarrel, something to which they will agree.
But, above all, a real incomes policy must deal with the structure of incomes of all kinds from top to bottom and not simply apply to them a blank formula. Let me remind your Lordships that in the past ten years there have been most disproportionate changes in the total volume of different types of income, and it is quite impossible to contemplate an incomes policy Which deals with wages and salaries alone. In the past ten years the increase in total wages has been of the order of 87 per cent.; the increase in total salaries has been of the order of 119 per cent.; and the increase in gross dividends has been of the order of 145 per cent.
The Government's economic policy, as we have heard it to-day, is essentially restrictive, but it is effectively restrictive only in certain cases. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was very worried about what directors of companies were to do with the dividends which they did not think it honourable to distribute. But I do not think his worry is necessary. In the first place, there is very little sign that the occasion of this concern will arise, since there is to be, apparently, no effective restraint on dividends. But, if their consciences do prick them too severely, they can put their dividends away, thereby enhancing the capital value of the stocks of their concern, and thereby giving opportunities for capital gains which will escape the speculative gains tax.
The policy, as we have heard it, is not only restrictive but seems to lack any consistent leadership or direction. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, painted out, it is not even clear whether we are assuming commitment to the Common Market or whether we are still assuming that we shall "go it
942
alone". As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, pointed out, similar inconsistencies have pervaded the Government's attitude in the regulation of home demand, until unfortunate manufacturers are driven crazy by these perpetual changes in the taxation to which they are liable, and by the alternate expansion and restriction of their credit opportunities. It looks a little as if the policy Which we now have is that of a driver who gets into a cart and harnesses to it two horses, but unfortunately does not appreciate that the two horses are pulling, most of the time, in opposite directions. It also seems (I do not know whether it makes the situation better or worse) that each of the two horses is a little old and tired.
8.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Baroness who has just resumed her seat rather strangely referred to herself as broken down by age and sex. I think the whole House would agree that she is not broken down by age, and most of us find the other thing more stimulating than disintegrating. At any rate, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who, whatever may be said of my colleagues, certainly does not fall into the trap of vapidity, the criticism of which was levelled at us by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. She expresses herself charmingly and with great clarity and distinction of language.
After very nearly seven hours of oratory, I must, I confess at the end of the day, describe myself as "bloody but unbowed". The debate has been, I should have said, on the diffuse side. Every year we have a debate just after the Budget, and every year we have another debate when the Finance Bill reaches this House. It would be very nice indeed to debate with the Party opposite the factor of growth in our economy, the "league tables", and so on; it would be very nice to debate export with a number of noble Lords who have referred to it; it would be very nice to debate the actual Budget proposals with those who have discussed them; and the O.E.C.D. Report which has been repeatedly referred to in our discussions to-day would also be an

943
admirable subject for debate. But, like the character in the Beggar's Opera,
" When they all tease me together, to none a word will I say,
But fal-de-lal-de-la-dee."
I find it impossible, at this hour of the evening, to deal with so many different subjects and, therefore, I must select.
My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye said that it was on the whole desirable that the Government should be responsible for forthright statements. I agree with him. It is, of course, generally accepted as one of the more prized rights of the British to criticise their Government, but I have noticed that they are apt to be a little shocked when a member of the Government ventures to hit back. The attitude the public expects from its Governments is that of a spaniel rebuked by its master, on its back, paws up and bent, a general attitude of submission and ingratiation. But I do not feel like a spaniel.
LORD SHACKLETON: You do not look like one, either.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The House will forgive me if I do not adopt this supine position towards the criticisms which have been levelled at the Government. The first criticism I must answer is that which was levelled by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, at the speech of my noble friend Lord Mills. I happen to agree with my noble friend Lord Melchett, that the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition opened his speech in unduly sombre terms. He took too gloomy a view of the situation: he was painting too black a picture. Now, of course, one understands that in the fury of Party debate one is tempted to do that sort of thing. But if one takes too gloomy a view of the situation, one can neither diagnose the character of the disease nor hope to prescribe an adequate remedy. Therefore, it seemed to me that my noble friend Lord Mills was perfectly right to remind the House, as I shall be reminding it in due course, that there are in fact some very solidly bright parts of the present picture, and I think my noble friend Lord Melchett was perfectly right to refer to them.
It was a little less than just of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to say that that kind of thing made him almost despair.
944
You cannot have it both ways. You can charge a Government with being complacent if you like, but only if you have not overpainted the picture in dark colours just before you do so. It seemed to me that the speech of my noble friend Lord Mills was a useful corrective to the undue pessimism of the speech of the noble Viscount who introduced this debate.
The second criticism which is made was that my right honourable friend's Budget was a dull Budget—" almost meaningless "the noble Viscount called it;" uninspired "was another phrase which has been used. In one respect I sympathise with the critics. The annual Budget year by year has been built up into something bigger than it ought to be in our total economic policy. If I were working in the Treasury and valued the reputation of any Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would burn that box of Mr. Gladstone. It is the first thing I would do. Burn Mr. Gladstone's box, and you would get a lot less nonsense talked about the annual Budget. Each Chancellor of the Exchequer appears in a ghastly photograph holding the beastly thing up as if it contained the bequeathed goatskins of the Ark of the Covenant. It is the most frightful nonsense, because the Budget is a relatively small part of our national economic policy, important as it is. In the modern age this sort of thing ought to be brought to an end.
But I am bound to defend my right honourable friend's Budget against the charge of being dull. This, I think, is wholly to misunderstand the nature of the appreciation which he has made of it, and this appreciation has been rightly emphasised both by my noble friends Lord Poole and Lord Melchett in their respective speeches and, I think, by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in what I thought was a most effective and welcome maiden speech.
When the Chancellor brings in his Budget nowadays, he is not doing the kind of thing that Mr. Gladstone with his original box was trying to do. The rightness or wrongness of a Budget in these days depends less upon the merits or demerits of particular proposals than upon the correctness or otherwise of the Chancellor's appreciation of the economic situation as a whole. I feel

945
bound to say, in parenthesis, that if this Budget is to be attacked as a dull one, I have never seen a Budget which occupied more columns of the Press on the following day—a whole page in the Daily Telegraph. On the whole, newspaper men know what it pays them to put in their newspapers. I have never seen a Budget in recent years with better Press coverage. Even though it be dull, that does not seem to have been the appreciation of the Press. But its dullness or otherwise does not depend upon that. If the Chancellor considers the situation basically inflationary, he has to impose harsh measures of taxation and, maybe, supplement them by monetary or other controls.
Last year, for instance, the present Chancellor budgeted for a big surplus, and fortified his Budget with discretionary powers which he later used for imposing further imposts during the financial year. Mr. Thorneycroft and Mr. Amory, who succeeded him, pursued in many ways the same policy in 1957 and 1958. My Lords, a Chancellor who does this may not be popular, but he is seldom called dull. If, on the other hand, the Chancellor considers the underlying movement of trade is towards recession, he will, presumably, budget for a deficit; he will make numerous popular taxation concessions; he may even, in parallel, persuade the Governor of the Bank of England to reduce the bank rate and generally stimulate the economy. Mr. Amory (as he was then) did this in 1959, and to some extent in his previous Budget. A Chancellor who does this, in my experience is never called dull or uninspired. Indeed, in answer to my noble friend Lord Auckland, this is what I should describe as an inspiring Budget.
But it is possible, of course, that a Chancellor may think that neither of the two alternatives of restriction or reflation meets the needs of the moment. That is what my right honourable friend has done this year. Admittedly he thinks the total burden of taxation should remain approximately where it is, and, admittedly, if this basic appreciation of the Budget is wrong, the Budget is, of course, itself wrong. If what we want is reflation, the Budget is wrong. If what we want is a new dose of restriction to a greater degree, which would, I
946
feel, lead to deflation in the light of current demand, this Budget is wrong. But if my right honourable friend is right that the present situation must be held a little longer, then the Budget is basically sound and criticism is really limited to questions of detail. Complaints in this context that the Budget is meaningless or irrelevant are, to my mind, at any rate, futile and meretricious. The question is whether the appreciation upon which the Budget is founded is a sound one. If it is sound, the Budget is a good one. If it is unsound, it is not irrelevant but had. It is therefore this question which we must investigate a little further.
In passing, however, I make this comment upon some of the political judgments of the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition. He, at any rate, made the suggestion—although I think his noble friend Lord Stonham retreated from it—that these past Budgets to which I have referred have a direct relation to the sequence of General Elections which take place in this country every four years or so. It is said that in the year before an Election we have a favourable Budget, and that sonic time after we have an Election we have a Budget in which financial controls are imposed and taxation raised. I think I have been fairly close to the centre of things since about 1956, and I wish to give my own testimony that this charge is wholly false—as indeed I think the noble Lord. Lord Stonham, admitted it to be.
The short answer, my Lords, is that no Government, whether it is acting in the middle of a Parliament or acting at the beginning or end of a Parliament, likes to do unpopular things; and there can be no mistaking that even the very modest measures of control that we imposed in 1957–58, and again in the summer of 1961–62—very modest, that is, in comparison with those of the late Sir Stafford Cripps and his predecessor—have been very unpopular. In passing, may I say this: that whilst I associate myself very sincerely with all that has been said with regard to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, I myself could not help thinking in the course of the debate of the loss which the House has sustained in the death of the late Lord Dalton, the predecessor of Sir Stafford Cripps, to whom I was referring. The

947
functions of this House did not permit formal tributes, but I think that, when the time has come that this controversial figure can be assessed, he will be remembered as a man who loved youth and favoured learning. And these are qualities of which any man may be proud at the end of a long life of public service.
None the less, however little the Government of the day may appreciate unpopularity, when a Government has to choose between a run on the pound and its own popularity, it has only one choice it can make. It makes it unwillingly. It must face unpopularity; loss of by-elections; and even, if need be, defeat at a later General Election. This is the price of responsible government. And it therefore is a matter of great joy and hope, at any rate to me and I think to my colleagues, that the very unpopular policy which was referred to in many terms, beginning in July, 1961, and undertaken with great courage by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is already showing, as my noble friend Lord Melchett pointed out, many signs of success.
Numerous references were made to the O.E.C.D. Report. I shall be referring at a later stage of my remarks to the use made by various noble Lords of that Report, but it is strange, in view of the care with which they have evidently read it, that they did not, at the same time as they quoted other passages, mark the very favourable references to the wage pause at the top of page 31, in which both its success and the way in which it had been carried out were favourably commented upon.
Each time we have acted, we have acted against our will but out of necessity to deal with an economic situation which we had to face. When, in 1958 and in the early months of 1959, we acted to reflate the economy we were faced with what appeared to be a quite serious recession in world trade. The result was that we pursued the second of the two courses I have described. We did so because, first, at that time (that is to say in the early months of 1958) there appeared to be—and nobody was more ready to point it out than the Party opposite—the beginnings of what, by post-war standards, was quite sizable unemployment, partly a result of a world
948
movement of trade; and, secondly, because the policy of restriction which we had courageously, in my opinion, undertaken in 1957 had already restored confidence in sterling, as my right honourable friend's measures in July, 1961, have already restored confidence in sterling. We are (and, indeed, I think both sides of the House would support us in this) a Government of expansionists, and we restrict only to the extent that we feel necessary to combat inflation and to maintain the value of our currency.
Of course the crisis in 1961 was, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, just pointed out, sparked off by the revaluation of the mark, undertaken by the West German Government without a great deal of consideration for our vulnerable position. Let anyone who is interested in these things plot the flow of short money out of this country against the events of last summer in the international field, and he will not be disposed to blame that crisis on the Government, following as it did a year of rising pressure of demand, an excessive rise in money incomes and a weakened balance of payments. Our economy and currency are unduly vulnerable, for reasons which are not discreditable to us, to fluctuations in international confidence. But it is this very question of vulnerability which does concern us as a Government and as a nation.
It is true that our material prosperity is higher than ever before, but it is also too precarious; it is too dependent upon the will of others. A part of this problem is slowness of expansion, and the slowness of expansion and our vulnerability are therefore, in more ways than one, a function of our failure to achieve an incomes policy. Again, in passing, I think it is quite extraordinary that noble Lords opposite who have been so ready to refer to the O.E.C.D. Report did not, apparently, attach any importance to the diagnosis which that Report places upon this nature of our vulnerability. It said clearly that the principal cause of our vulnerability is the uncontrolled increase in money incomes, which had the effect of doing the very thing to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, drew attention—namely, to increase unit costs, so limiting our power to export. I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness who wound up the debate for

949 the Opposition—a voice, I fear, in that Party crying in the wilderness, but still a voice to which I pay considerable respect, and to which I attach a great deal of importance—admitting the necessity for a national incomes policy. In that the noble Baroness and I are on the same side of the barricade.
I am sorry to labour this point, as I am afraid I have now done in your Lordships' House since I first answered for economic affairs in the summer of 1957, but until it is accepted it cannot be too often said, The choice for this country lies between three policies: one is devaluation and dishonour; one is deflation and unemployment, and the third is a rational and just incomes policy, however many by-elections have to be lost in the process of achieving it, and however often we are driven by the non-co-operation of people who ought to know better—and some of whom certainly do know better—to impose for a short time, I hope very short periods of time, odious and at times unjust inequalities on groups and professions who deserve better of their fellow-countrymen.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may intervene, would the noble Viscount care to tell the House the names of the individuals he is referring to who are unwilling to co-operate with the Government?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think at this stage of the evening the best plan is "No 'names, no pack drill ". To them I would only say that we hate doing this only a little less than such groups hate being at the receiving end. Those who are most and worst affected would thank us little at the end of the process if, for the sake of satisfying them as groups, we were to commit ourselves as a nation to courses which led to devaluation or compelled us to adopt deflation as an alternative.
In answer to the noble Baroness, in her most interesting remarks upon the same subject, I would say that we do not for an instant believe or desire to insist that a flat universal and permanent figure of 21 per cent. or 3 per cent. should be imposed upon the population. What, however, we are bound to say is that until productivity does rise, then the aggregate amount of income which is receivable from all sources shall not
950
exceed the extent of the productivity. And, as I shall point out rather later in my remarks, that is precisely the conclusion of the Report from which noble Lords opposite have quoted.
It is in this general context, I think, that the Budget must be read. Of course, once one has accepted the general appreciation of the economic content one sees that my right honourable friend was inevitably limited to a small number of detailed proposals. But I should have thought that they were extremely interesting and imaginative proposals. In those circumstances, the Budget's theme was, of course, the gradual reform of our taxation system. There are many people who believe that our taxation system is ripe for reform. The Liberals, who I am afraid have not contributed to this debate to any very great extent, are, I believe, among their number. But no one who is at all acquainted with the immensely complex system that we have can fail to realise the truth of two propositions. The first is that a level of taxation as high as it is quite certain to be in the foreseeable future under any conceivable Government is quite certain to be complex. Only a low level of taxation can yield a relatively simple system, and this is because the anomalies, injustices and opportunities for evasion which a simple system yields are tolerable only when the rate is so low that anomalies and injustices are not resented and opportunities for evasion are not embraced.
The second proposition is that a change to a reformed system of taxation cannot be undertaken in a single step. Supposing, for instance, we wished to move, as many people urge, in favour of a few fairly obvious "starters" in the race for a reformed system; supposing, for instance, we wanted to introduce a consolidated single progressive income tax-cum-surtax in place of the two taxes which are now separately levied; supposing we wanted to move in favour of a consolidated corporation tax to include profits tax and company income tax; supposing we wanted to achieve some rational purchase tax to take account of the ordinary facts of family budgeting, as, for instance, allowed for in the cost-of-living index, instead of a system rapidly becoming irrelevant which attempts to distinguish between necessi-

951
ties and luxuries; and supposing we wanted to move, as some people do, in favour of a legacy or succession duty in place of estate duty, we should still have to go very cautiously at first to remove anomalies, and so build the foundation for changes, which at their inception would almost certainly involve us in serious losses of revenue.
The third general criticism which is levied against the Budget is that there should have been more about exports, more to encourage exports. As my noble friend Lord Poole, and, I think, my noble friend Lord Melchett, pointed out, this is a criticism which is really worthless unless it condescends to detail. The real arguments against export incentives which their supporters must overcome are not so much the international obligations which we have willingly undertaken but the absolute certainty of retaliation by countervailing duties and competitive subsidies by our commercial rivals if we embark on this course. In my opinion, at any rate, there is no easier way of throwing money down the drain than a competitive subsidy race. None the less, suggestions for fiscal reforms—and we have heard several from various quarters of the House during this debate: I think from the noble Lord, Lord Milne, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett among others—are always welcome. But if those who think that there is a future in what are euphemistically called "incentives"—because of course subsidies, which is the same thing, is a naughty word—would condescend to detail, I can asure them that there is one Minister at least who would look at them very carefully.
It must also he remembered that the recent Report by the Federation of British Industries which examined this particular subject found that it was to the interest of British business and industry to discourage these practices in other people. We can hardly do that if we are deliberately indulging in them ourselves. Unlike my noble friend Lord Conesford, I was personally delighted by the new Case VII income tax, and I have no patience either with those critics who deride it as nugatory or those who condemn it, as my noble friend did, as revolutionary or breaching what he described as a sound principle. It is some-
952
thing which has been recommended, in one form or another, as long ago as 1920, when the Royal Commission reported. I remember that when my father was Attorney General and concerned with revenue cases in 1925, he told me that something of the sort was then long overdue. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Reading endorsed this principle, although he criticised the detail.
I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Conesford that it breaches a principle. I do not consider that it taxes capital at all in that form; indeed, I would equally join issue, although from the opposite point of view, with the noble Viscount who opened the debate, who committed himself to the view that this was nothing better than an ineffective capital gains tax. In my view, it taxes income and not capital, and therein lies the secret of the Case VII and the justification for it. The difference between income and capital is one which has to be examined very closely in relation to actual practice before one claims that it is in any set of cases a matter of principle. If devices are discovered which can evade its spirit and not its letter, doubtless then the resources of civilisation are not exhausted to defeat them.
I was also delighted (in this I have the pleasure of agreeing with my noble friend) when my right honourable friend decided to tax sweets and soft drinks. I knew, of course, that an attempt would be made to work up some sentimental popular prejudice about taxing the kiddies' sweets; but if there is one thing as certain as that lung cancer is, or can be, caused by cigarette smoking, it is that dental caries is caused by excessive sweet-eating. It is no coincidence that our children have the worst teeth and the highest sweet consumption in the world It is a first-class measure of dental health—although I am afraid my noble friend was not so pure minded about that as I would have had him be.
I was glad that not one speaker in this debate criticised my right honourable friend for not increasing the tax on cigarettes. I particularly noticed that the official speaker of the Labour Party on television expressly supported my right honourable friend's decision in that respect. But I would make it quite clear that the fact that my right honour-

953
able friend did not accept this particular recommendation of the Royal College of Physicians does not mean that the Government are not as determined as ever to get across to the public the dangers of excessive cigarette smoking. Even now a careful investigation is being made of what can legitimately and usefully be done without paternalism.
think it is a little late to welcome the end of Schedule A, about which I thought that the noble Viscount opposite was rather at a loss to present reasonable criticism. I mention in passing the issue of profits and dividends, make no particular complaint of the fun which my noble friend Lord Conesford legitimately poked in my direction on this subject. I think his points were neither basically humorous nor merely stylistic, but they were concerned with genuine, logical difficulties with which, from time to time, I must tell him I have tried to deal in these debates. The truth is that when people talk about profits they are in fact referring to a number of quite different types of pecuniary advantage, different in every case from dividends, which are the distributed portion of trading profits, and all of which are quite different again in character and economic and social function from the wages, salaries and professional emoluments with which they are often emotionally and unthinkingly compared.
I do not in the least mind my noble friend's drawing attention to the nonsense, born of confusion of thought, which is often talked about those things—occasionally, no doubt, by Ministers, in common with other people—but I feel I must insist upon what is really a basic moral condition of an effective incomes policy, upon which I have often agreed that the Labour Party are entitled to insist, and that is that if you are going to ask people who derive their livelihood from wages, salaries or professional emoluments to exercise some restraint in what they get, there must be parallel action in other spheres, which affects in one way or another the effective incomes of those who derive their livelihoods from trading profits, capital profits or dividends.
It may be, and indeed is, the case that the field is much smaller. After all, wages and salaries count for, I think, the largest single part of all
954
income. I saw in another place when they debated this subject that 93 per cent. was mentioned as a figure. I could not necessarily endorse that. But it may be that the word restraint is not appropriate to both. It is certainly true, as I have repeatedly insisted, that the methods appropriate to one are inappropriate to the other, largely owing to their different character. But at the end of the day there is really no denying that the belief, often unfounded but always emotionally upsetting, that particular classes, such as land speculators, owners of investment income, investors in rented property, even those who enjoy profits by trading, are completely free from the consequences Government action, is one of the big practical bars to any successful incomes policy. In fact, of course, my right honourable friend is always seeking ways in which to achieve a more equitable arrangement.
At the moment I think the problem is not such a real one as my noble friend seems to have thought. No one, I believe, supposes that individual measures against particular businesses can be contemplated. Company profits have been falling almost continuously since 1960, and following the Government's present measures profits in the second half of 1961 have fallen 7 per cent. on those in the first half of the year and 12½ per cent. on those in the first half of 1960. But perhaps I should, in passing, deal with a question which I think was raised in one form or another both by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and by one other noble Lord, I think perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Peddie. In comparing dividends with wages it is not always useful to compare rates of percentage increase. Percentages are funny things to quote in statistics. If you have a dividend on £100 investments of £5 a year, and raise it up to £10 a year, your extra income is £5; but the rate of increase percentage-wise is 100 per cent. That is a very different thing from raising wages by £10, which of course is a quite small percentage rise in the wage level of the year. I think that noble Lords who quote these figures should be much more precise about the nature of the base upon which they are calculating their percentage.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I do not think the noble Viscount was in the Chamber when I quoted these figures. I gave a specific figure which was something like £700 million or £700-and-something million, up to £900-andsomething million. So I think that the particular error, which is common, was one into which, fortunately, I did not fall, in spite of the absence of the noble and learned Viscount.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I was not absent in fact when the noble Lord quoted the figures, but the only part of what he said that I managed to get down was 7 per cent. against 33⅓ per cent. I turn back again to the issue of expansion—
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, if my noble friend is leaving this subject, I should like to know whether he can answer one specific question I put to him on profits—namely, what do Her Majesty's Government wish a company to do which wishes to do what they want, and finds its profits in danger of increasing. That is the first question. The second question on dividends is, do the Government entirely reject paragraph 536 of the Report of the Royal Commission?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think I want to spend a great deal of time on this subject, because I think my noble friend was, with respect, making some difficulties for himself. First of all, the request for dividend restraint was, like the request for wage restraint, a temporary measure, and therefore the question does not arise as a permanent question. But I do not think my noble friend had really pursued this matter sufficiently far, or he would have reflected that there are things that you can do with profits other than spending them on dividends and even other than spending them on increased wages. You can build a new works canteen. I am not saying that this is, or is not, in any way a desirable thing to do. You could spend a little more on market research, especially in the form of a suggestion in the O.E.C.D. Report. You can reduce your prices,
as he has said. He claimed, I think wrongly, that that would have led me into an illogical difficulty by way of
956
redress, but I do not agree. If more profits are earned as the result of a reduction in prices, the prices can be reduced again. This might be a way of dealing with the subject. I do not think myself that the difficulty which my noble friend was raising was in fact as genuine as some of the logical difficulties he sees often are.
So I return to the question of expansion and I say, without qualification, as I said before, that this is by conviction a Government of expansion. It has been so since Mr. Butler announced his target of a doubled standard of living in 25 years, and the only priority we put above expansion in the ordinary field is the prevention of inflation, coupled with the achievement of a sound balance of payments. But I think we have to go a little more carefully since it is very easy to talk nonsense about expansion. It is easy to postulate an expansion which would lead us straight into Carey Street. You cannot talk simply in quantitative terms about expanding production without entering into a close discussion of what margin there is for expanding production, what qualitatively you are going to produce, where you are going to sell it and what you are going to get in return.
There seems to me to be some confusion about what growth really is. It is certainly not, as some people appear to think, pushing up demand so as to achieve the maximum ultilisation of all our productive resources, regardless of cost and efficiency in production. It is for this reason that, although I would count myself an expansionist, I have never wholly subscribed to what I can only call the growthmanship which is sweeping through the dry stubble of the economic underworld like a prairie fire, with this talk of league tables and a lot of other bunkum. It is no disrespect to a famous popular newspaper to say that I simply do not believe that the mere fact that on Saturday one prints ten more copies of the Daily Mirror or makes a couple of thousand more cigarette cartons makes anybody much better off, yet they undoubtedly enter into the figures of production.
Therefore, although I am an expansionist—and this is in answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inch-rye, was asking me—I should prefer to

957
raise the banner of efficiency and progress rather than of growth as such. Like so many other desirable things in life, I believe that growth pursued primarily for its own sake and all round is quite capable of leading to disaster. As I say, my view is that it is efficiency rather than growth as such that I should wish to see this country pursue; and being by conviction an expansionist, I believe that if we do in fact achieve efficiency the other thing that matters in this field, desirable growth, will be added unto us.
But it seems to me that we have a very long way to go before we achieve the kind of efficiency we are looking for. It means a very great deal more than expenditure on capital plant, as one noble Lord pointed out by drawing attention to the figures for Norway. It may mean closing down obsolescent plant and freeing labour for more hopeful products. It may mean deliberately contracting the inefficient. It certainly will mean a very different outlook towards apprenticeship and it will mean, perhaps, that fewer industries than heretofore will be able to look to taxpayers' money by way of subsidy. It will mean fewer restrictive practices. It will mean more aggressive salesmanship, a more scientific study of markets and the requirement of the consumer. It will mean a spirit of restless dissatisfaction in management and a little more willingness to face change in organised labour. A cold wind is blowing to sweep away some of the comfortable assumptions of economic life in this country. It is a wind which will blow equally strongly whether we are in, or whether we are not in, the Common Market. Old ways, old techniques, old plants, inefficient designs will be blown away in it and by and large those who look to protection from Government rather than their own efficiency will be disappointed.
This final point leads me to say something about the O.E.C.D. report, to which reference has been made by many speakers in the course of this debate. In common with Lord Poole the most startling thing that I have found in the debates following on the Budget is the use put by Opposition speakers elsewhere and in this House of this report on the United Kingdom economy. As my noble friend Lord Melchett said, this seems to me to be an admirably lucid
958
document. It accurately pinpoints the weaknesses of our economy; it diagnoses the fault and prescribes a definite remedy. The noble Viscount who leads the Opposition seems to me to have picked out from their context the phrases which pinpoint the weaknesses and to have ignored the diagnosis and the remedy; and he proceeded to draw a moral of his own which defies all the evidence and to prescribe a number of medicines which quite certainly would aggravate the complaint. With respect, this is partly due to the fact that the noble Viscount has unfortunately felt himself compelled to paint all the features of the situation black, and has been quite unwilling to take into account the favourable and hopeful features in the economic situation.
My Lords, quite rightly stressing the sluggishness of our rate of growth, the vulnerability of our balance of payments, it seems to me that noble Lords opposite ignore the fact that, despite these adverse factors we still maintain a higher standard of living than any of the countries which are held up as examples to us. The individual comparisons with Italy, France and Germany have often been exposed in debate, certainly by my noble friend behind me, and I myself dealt with these in the debate on the Queen's speech in November. These comparisons are inadequate, and Lord Melchett in particular pointed out the absurdity of the conclusion to which this childish reference to league tables really leads one. The truth is, as was pointed out by an honourable friend of mine in another place, Sir Alexander Spearman, that a true examination of the league tables, apart from other factors, shows two groups of countries: one broadly on the same scale as ours; and the other countries, like France, Germany, Italy, or even Greece, to whom quite different kinds of consideration really apply. I would go into those in greater detail if it had not been more fully done by my noble friends.
Our critics also ignore the added responsibilities which we bear: the difficulty, as Lord Poole said, of maintaining a world currency, of sustaining our Army in Germany, Government investment in underdeveloped countries, the inelasticity of our labour force, which cause

959
many of our problems and make many others intractable. The Report is sound on these points, but it comes down to a fairly clear diagnosis and offers a prescription for action which is in essence the same as that of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not wish to quote extensively from the Report at this late hour, but it does say that the slowness of our rate of growth and the vulnerability of our balance of payments are both related to the slowness in the rate of growth in our exports, and this in turn is due to the pressure for higher money incomes which has been permanent in the United Kingdom over the period of the 1950's and has resulted in increases which cannot be absorbed without increases in unit costs. The remedy prescribed in the conclusions is almost precisely the opposite to that prescribed by the Labour Party to-day and elsewhere. It is not controls; it is not even a reduction in Government expenditure, although that may be for other reasons most desirable. It is not subsidies or incentives to export. It is not in the Socialist sense planning.
Since the primary aim must be to strengthen our balance of payments, it is considered "unlikely in 1962" that the Government will be able "to relax the measures now restraining the growth of internal demand." That was the conclusion of the Report to which reference has been made, and this is the role of my right honourable friend's Budget, which is under criticism to-day from those who have quoted the Report; and the criticisms which have been levelled at it—that it is irrelevant, dull and unimaginative—have been cast at my right honourable friend's head precisely because he has pursued the remedy which the Report recommends.
It is true, of course, that the Report goes on to say that this is not enough; that escape from the impasse of the alternation of restrictions with inflation and balance-of-payments difficulties could lie only in the achievement, as it says, of
" a steady and significant export rise as the major dynamic element in new economic growth."
But it goes on to say that this rise in exports, demanded by the Report as the condition of escape from the impasse,
960
is to be achieved "in the first place" by requiring that
"money incomes should henceforth rise no more than the growth of productivity over the economy as a whole"—
in other words, my Lords, by the very policy of wage pause and wage restraint which has been so bitterly denounced, and not by the various quack gimmicks and panaceas being peddled from various quarters. My Lords, this policy is not, of course, part of the Budget, but it has been an essential complement to it. Therefore I wholly disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when he said that the Budget and the Government did nothing to improve expansion. Of course, the wage pause has come to an end—successfully, as the Report emphasises. But a more lasting policy must succeed, and this, as offered by the Report, is the precise policy of wage restraint now being advocated by the Government. It says "Such a system will entail that the Government adopt a more positive attitude than in the past to the process of income determination".
My Lords, I am sorry to have had to speak at such length. I spoke, to begin with, about the diffuseness of this debate. But it is easy to state a fallacy in ten seconds, it is rather more difficult to unravel the fallaciousness of the argument, and I felt that I owed it to the House to deal with some of these criticisms at length. The House will forgive me if I have made a rather firm answer to some of the criticisms which have been made this afternoon. I think that they reflect public opinion accurately. Public opinion is sometimes right and it is sometimes wrong, but my feeling is that there are only two things wrong with the British at the present time. One is the growing chips on their shoulders which ought never to be there, and the other is their inveterate habit of self-deception. One of the most dangerous delusions the British people harbour at the present time is that the economic and spiritual malaise from which they are currently suffering is the fault of the Government, and that it can be cured by fiscal and political measures of the kind called "bold and imaginative—"preferably at other people's expense. My Lords, we are becoming a nation of bellyachers, and what the country needs at the present time is not an excuse for political gimmickries but a renewed sense of

961
patriotism and individual responsibility. We shall not get that by peddling any changes in the Budget.
9.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we have had the type of oratory which is usual on such political occasions as we have been dealing with to-night. Much of it was sheer oratory, and, obviously, much of it had been prepared even before any speeches had been heard. Perhaps that is why at least half of my speech has not been answered. A charge has been made and no attempt even has been made to refute it. There is no need for me to start all over again, after that somewhat lengthy display of the noble and learned Viscount's natural oratory—and we always like to hear him speak. But I must say that I have never heard a more imperfect answer to the case which was submitted to be answered.
The only thing that remains to be said is this. I should like to thank, as we always do on such occasions, all who have taken part in the debate. There were speeches from the Government Benches, the Cross Benches, as well as from our side, and I am much obliged to all noble Lords. I am very grateful to my noble friends, and especially to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, for the way in which she has wound up to-night. I should like to
962
say this to the noble and learned Viscount about my colleague here: that she is perhaps one of the greatest economic brains in the country, but for many years now she has kept as far away from economics as possible because of her sociological urges to do something for the people. But I was so much in need of her services that she came in to wind up for me in the economic debate, and that is saying a very great thing. She is one of our great economists, and I expect that before very long I shall have her assistance again to refute some of the extraordinary things of which the noble and learned Viscount has made use to-night. In the meantime, I would thank everybody who has taken part in the debate and I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SCOTSWOOD BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before ten o'clock, until Tuesday, May 1, 1962.