PRICES AND INCOMES ACT 1966 (CONTINUATION OF PART II) ORDER 1969 (Hansard, 18 December 1969)

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH)
My Lords, I beg to move, That the Draft Prices and Incomes Act 1966 (Continuation of Part II) Order 1969 laid before the House on December 8 be approved. I think it would be difficult to avoid a sense of anticlimax after the debate which has just taken place. The effect of the Order which I am moving, if made by Her Majesty following approval by this House, will be to continue in force for a period of twelve months certain powers 1322 relating to early warnings and standstills in the Prices and Incomes Act 1966.
Under Part II of that Act the Secretary of State is empowered to require, by Order, notice to be given to the appropriate Minister of intention to increase prices or charges; of increases in company distributions; of pay claims and other claims made on behalf of employees, and awards or settlements relating to terms and conditions of employment. In addition, where a question concerning prices or charges, or an award or settlement, is referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, the Secretary of State is empowered, when making such a reference, to impose a standstill of not more than three months until the Board report.
The early-warning system in respect of both pay and prices has always in practice operated on a voluntary basis. The Government are grateful for the co-operation of industry, and hope that the voluntary basis can continue without the use of their reserve powers. Nevertheless, the Government think it necessary to keep this power to require early warning in reserve as a necessary reinforcement of the voluntary system.
As regards the powers of delay, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in his Budget Statement in another place earlier this year that the extended powers of 1323 delay of up to twelve months would be allowed to lapse at the end of this year, but that after that time the Government would rely on the provisions of Part II of the 1966 Act. This Order, if approved, will carry out that intention.
My Lords, the Government have announced that legislation will be introduced in this Session of Parliament to rationalise and amalgamate the Monopolies Commission and the National Board for Prices and Incomes. It is the Government's hope, and the Government's belief, that it will not be necessary to perpetuate the delaying powers of the prices and incomes legislation in the new Bill; and in this situation the continuation in force of the delaying powers in Part II is, I would emphasise, a bridging operation. It is certainly the Government's aim to move towards an effective voluntary policy, but we do not think it right at this moment to move from the stringent delaying powers of the 1968 legislation to a situation in which the Government have no powers at all, either in the field of early warning or in order to require a temporary standstill for up to three months while a case is being considered by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The risk of a wages and prices explosion in the coming months would otherwise be too great.
The emphasis is on giving to the Prices and Incomes Board a chance to influence the people concerned. After a three months' delaying period the parties will be free to take what action they see fit, although of course the Government hope that they will take into account the views of the Board. The delaying powers will be administered in the spirit, not so much of imposing solutions but of imposing choices on those concerned.
My Lords, the prices and incomes policy has rendered a service in contributing to our present economic improvement, but I think it will generally be agreed that it is for the convenience of the House that we should not on the present occasion embark upon a prolonged discussion. I have therefore been brief in moving this Order and have confined myself to the essentials of explaining its character and purpose. I trust that this will meet the convenience of noble Lords, and that in the light of the explanation I have given, they will approve the draft Order. My Lords, I beg to move.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, for his explanation of this Order. As the noble Lord knows, we on this side of the House think that the Government's indecisive attempts since 1966 to impose a compulsory, or semi-compulsory, incomes policy have been gravely mistaken. We believe that they [...]ave failed to curb inflation, and this Order we regard as the last feeble vestige of an unsuccessful and discredited record. However, we would not think it right to vote in this House against an economic measure which the Government consider to be important, and which was approved last night in another place by a small and reluctant majority. Nor would it be useful, I think, to debate the subject again to-night. I would therefore advise your Lordships to allow this Order to be approved. And may I take the opportunity of wishing Her Majesty's Government a very happy Christmas.

§ LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY
My Lords, I gave the noble Lord a few days ago notice that I was hoping on this particular Motion to make some extended comments on the appropriateness of taking labour relations and the whole business of restrictive practices and monopolies together. Obviously, however, after the importance of the debates of the past two days, this is not the moment to do that.
I am pleased that we shall have, later in the Session, legislation on this particular matter to which we can turn our minds, although I am gravely afraid that such legislation will not have the kind of provisions in it which I myself should like to see. I feel that the argument which should be in this question of prices and incomes is neither that which is being held between the Government and the Conservative Party, nor the one which is being held between the Government and their own Left-wing supporters. I believe that within the terms of the Government's whole approach to prices and incomes they are probably right to keep the sanctions which they are keeping. But 1325 I think—and my friends in both Houses think—that the approach is a very wrong one, and that we should approach the whole subject of prices and incomes on the basis that there is far less across-the-board, nation-wide bargaining and much more local bargaining.
Having said that, just to make our position clear that we are opposed to this Order, though not for the same reason as the Conservative Party are opposed to it, I would add that, like the noble Earl on the Conservative Front Bench, I do not think it would be right in any way to oppose the Order in this House. Nevertheless, I hope that we shall have an opportunity in the fairly near future, when there is more time, to discuss this whole subject in a different atmosphere.

LORD HAWKE
My Lords, I hope that we shall not regard the subject of this Order as a sort of anti-climax after the last subject. To my mind this is a far more important subject than the last one. We are now getting to a stage of industrial anarchy in this country, and I do not know whether this Order will make much difference to that. But we must find a solution, otherwise this country will sink; it will go the way that Italy went before Mussolini came on the scene. We must find some method by which organised labour is prepared to put its bargaining through the proper channels and accept reasonable and proper arbitration. Somehow or other, we must look at the various in-built advantages that the striker has to-day, whether he be official or unofficial, in the shape of refunds of income tax and various forms of grants from the social services. If a person, against the wishes of his union, wishes to go on strike he should at any rate be risking something. At the moment he does not risk as much as he ought to.

§ LORD DELACOURT-SMITH
My Lords, as noble Lords have indicated, this Order is closely related to a number of issues on industrial relations and aspects of economic policy. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, emphasised the fact that there would be legislation in due course, as I mentioned, which would cover, at any rate to some degree, the field of problems with which this Order is concerned. The noble Lord went on to make some observations about 1326 the value of local bargaining, which could of course lead to a very interesting exchange of views. However, I think it has been generally accepted that if there is to be a further debate on these topics before we come to the legislation in question that will be a matter for consideration through the usual channels.
In the light of the contributions made by noble Lords I think that there is nothing which remains for me other than to echo, but in a reciprocal sense, the greetings expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, wishing Her Majesty's Government the compliments of the season. I heartily reciprocate those to the members of Her Majesty's Opposition, to those who sit on the Liberal Benches and to noble Lords on the Cross-Benches.