HL Deb 12 July 1966 vol 276 cc70-2

2.48 p.m.

LORD CONESFORD

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. (1) whether they question the waste of manpower in the production of London newspapers revealed by the Royal Commission on the Press (Cmnd. 1811) and Report No. 2 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes (Cmnd. 2750);
  2. (2) how many modern printing presses, each needing not more than 3 operators instead of the 14 previously employed, have been installed by proprietors of London Newspapers and have been in use for some years; and
  3. (3) how many men are now being employed for each of the new presses.]

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION)

My Lords, the Government have no reason to dissent from the criticisms in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Press of wasteful use of manpower in the production of London newspapers. Report No. 2 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes is not concerned with the London newspaper industry, but with general printing and the provincial Press. The information asked for in the second and third parts of the Question is not available.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, may I thank the Minister for his Answer? While I regret that he cannot give the House the information for which I asked, may I ask him one question? Did the Government themselves make no inquiry to ascertain how many men were needlessly employed in this industry before deciding to give the employers a selective employment premium for every man they waste?

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, the last time we had this matter before the House the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, virtually gave me notice of the question which he has now raised, so I am not surprised by it. Regrettable as it may be that some establishments in industry will profit more than they should from the selective employment tax, it would not be possible to discriminate against them in the Selective Employment Payments Bill, and it would not be right to penalise a whole industry because of the shortcomings of some of its member firms. Neither would it be right to set up an enormous force of inspectors of some kind to ensure that firms were in fact making the most economical use of their manpower. I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to add to the bureaucracy that would be necessary if we were going to make this selection between various firms in the same industry.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, is the Government's view of the state of our economy that we can afford to spend money in encouraging the waste of labour?

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, this is the last thing that the Government would wish to do, but I think that the considerations I mentioned in my last reply must count in this connection.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, may I ask what the noble Lord means by the "shortcomings" of member firms in the industry? Is it not a fact that the responsibility for this waste of manpower lies very largely with the trade unions concerned?

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I think that that is partly the answer, and of course that is what is being inquired into at this moment. But I am not here to answer for the trade unions but rather for the Government.

LORD DERWFNT

My Lords, if I understand the first answer correctly, is the noble Lord saying that the selective employment tax is in no way selective?

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I thought that this was quite clear. The selective employment tax is rather a blunt instrument. We recognise this. It is inevitable in legislation of this sort. But we shall be engaged in the year in front of us in trying to sharpen the whole thing up. And, of course, this is something that we shall be discussing when this Bill comes before your Lordships' House.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I do not think that anyone has ever heard a defence of a tax of this kind given with so many apologies?

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, not with apologies but, I hope, answering sword thrust with sword thrust.