§ 2.52 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYNMy Lords, as noble Lords will know, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a Statement in another place to-day. In view of the expected length of the Statement, and in view of its budgetary nature, it would not be appropriate for it to be, repeated in your Lordships' House to-day. However, as we are to debate the economic situation to-morrow, it has been agreed that it would be convenient if my right honourable friend's Statement was reproduced in our Hansard. This, with the leave of the House, I propose to arrange.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, if it is not a Budget secret to say what the length of the Statement is—and perhaps it is, so I will not say it—I may say that I entirely agree with the noble Earl. It would be impossible to have read a very, very long Statement, amounting almost to a Budget speech, and then to comment intelligently on it. Because of its budgetary nature, in this difficult decision, I think what is suggested is right. 11 But this gives rise to a further consequence. Since this is obviously going to be a very important Statement, might we discuss the possibility (I have not had a chance to do more than mention this idea) of whether, by arrangement, we ought not to let the debate run on to Wednesday, because there are so many speakers, and the traffic situation and getting home is pretty difficult these days? That is another reason for not taking up time to-day on this matter.
EARL ST. ALDWYNMy Lords, I have not had a chance to discuss through the usual channels the possibility of part or the whole of a second day being spent on the Motion. I have laid on that dinners should be available to-morrow. We have a number of speakers, but we must discuss this matter through the usual channels. I do not think we ought to commit ourselves at this stage.
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, could the noble Earl at least not issue the wording of the Statement to-night so that one can see it and prepare oneself for the debate to-morrow?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, if I might reply to that question on behalf of my noble friend the Chief Whip, I looked into this possibility and I understand it would be difficult to make full copies of the Statement available immediately after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sat down. If I can obtain copies by 6 or 7 o'clock I will certainly do what I can to place them in the Printed Paper Office.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House what might be regarded as a constitutional question? If the Statement to be made by his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is merely a statement of Government intention, that is one thing; but if it is regarded as a "mini-Budget", ought it to come before your Lordships' House at all?
EARL ST. ALDWYNMy Lords, not knowing the contents of this Statement I am not in a position fully to answer the noble Lord. In the ordinary course of events, I should have thought it would be quite wrong to repeat Statements of this kind in any form in this House. But it was purely for the convenience of the 12 noble Lords who are taking part in the debate to-morrow that they should have in their own Hansard a copy of what is said. It is only in exceptional circumstances such as this that I should have thought this course was right and proper.
§ LORD AVEBURYMy Lords, why is it necessary for the Statement to be repeated in our Hansard when we can perfectly well gain access to Hansard of another place? Is this not a complete waste of paper?
EARL ST. ALDWYNMy Lords, there are some who feel that what we discuss here is not unrelated to what appears in our own Hansard. One does not know what interruptions there will be when the Statement is made. This happens with Statements in another place, and it is surely more convenient for noble Lords to read the Statement in one piece rather than with a whole mass of interruptions.
Following is the Chancellor's Statement referred to by Earl St. Aldwyn:
Over the past week or so, many have described the situation which we as a nation now face as by far the gravest since the end of the war. They do not exaggerate.
The duty of the Government is to take whatever action the national interest requires, however severe, but equally to avoid measures which could make an already forbidding situation even worse.
Before I come to the measures which are immediately necessary, I must describe to the House the economic outlook against which the decisions have been taken.
During the past two months, a series of deliberate acts have been taken, both abroad and at home, which are at present starving this country of energy. The one over which this country has the least control, was the decision of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries on the 16th October to bring about by unilateral action an entirely new price regime for oil. As I have already made clear on a number of occasions, this change alone must inevitably make all oil-importing countries worse off than they would otherwise be, though, for reasons I shall explain, this change in the price of oil, without any other developments, would 13 not in itself have frustrated a policy of economic expansion.
But the subsequent announcements by some oil producers of their intention to reduce the supply of oil to the rest of the world to a level which is well below present requirements has created an entirely new situation.
Although the supply situation in 1974 is unpredictable, it is now only too probable that there will be an energy shortage in all the oil-importing countries leading to stagnant, if not falling, output accompanied by rising unemployment. In all these countries output is expected to fall faster than purchasing power, with consequent increases in demand pressures for goods and services. We will share those problems.
But in the case of our own country, these problems have been compounded by another factor, specific to the United Kingdom—the industrial action in the coal and electricity industries, and on the railways. This, at a critical time when we are expecting inadequate oil supplies, has cut down the availability of the primary alternative fuel, has diminished our ability to get available oil and coal to the right places for consumption and has also made it more difficult when electricity supplies diminish to ensure that essential services are not threatened.
At this immediate point of time, by far the greatest issue facing the nation is the fact that it is this industrial action, not the future shortage of oil, which has put British industry on to a three-day week and threatened the security of employment of so many of our people.
As far as the industrial situation is concerned, I must repeat what I have said before. In the general interest, it is inconceivable that any Government could agree to a dispute being settled by an offer outside the limits approved by Parliament.
Because this is the case, and because many milions of people are now beginning to suffer not just inconvenience and worry, but hardship and indeed, danger, I cannot believe that the sound common sense of the British people will not prevail.