Sitting of 30 January 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Terry Walkerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider making his VAT regulations retrospective to people building their own homes, where the goods were purchased before his November announcement but their homes were not completed.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dr. John Gilbert): We considered carefully and sympathetically the operative date of the relief we are introducing under Clause 3 of the autumn Finance Bill, but we concluded that the provision should not have retrospective effect.
    Mr. Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that do-it-yourself builders need great encouragement from the Government as they are doing a first-class job? Will he make an assessment of the likely cost of such a concession to those affected by my Question? They are under considerable financial pressure, and any help that we can give them will be greatly welcomed.
    Dr. Gilbert: I thoroughly endorse the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. The reason why the relief was not given retrospectively had nothing to do with cost. It was merely that if we had done it in that way it would have been extremely difficult to preserve equity between individuals who started building their houses as long ago as April 1973. It would have been an impossible task for them to produce invoices going back that far.
    Dr. John A. Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend say how many people in total have been caught in this VAT trap while building their own homes? Is he aware that this is particularly important in rural areas, where a greater percentage of people become involved in this kind of activity? Cannot the Government be generous in these circumstances and give the people concerned a refund of the tax they pay?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the statistic for which he asks. I take his point that people in rural areas are particularly involved in extremely worthwhile activity of this sort. The concession is to some extent retrospective in that it is not confined to people who started building their houses after the date on which my right hon. Friend announced the concession. Anyone who is receiving supplies that would otherwise have been taxable after that date, even in respect of a house that had already been started, will receive the relief.
    Mr. David Howell: While I recognise the difficulties of conceding to the pressures that the Minister's hon. Friends are putting on him, is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have no one to blame but themselves if they are put under pressure to introduce further retrospection bearing in mind the extensive retrospective effect of a great many of their measures in the current Finance Bill?
    Dr. Gilbert: It is a little cool for that sort of comment to come from a member of the Conservative Party which suggests that we should be giving greater relief in this respect. Do-it-yourself builders are paying value added tax only because it was imposed by the previous Conservative Government. Relief is now being extended by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration has been given to relieving the bloodstock industry of value added tax.
    Dr. Gilbert: At a meeting which I had with the Bloodstock VAT Committee last April, I explained the difficulties involved in contemplating a concession falling in the area of discretionary

    591
    expenditure, but said that I would consider any "hard" evidence which the committee might put forward in support of its case for the zero rating of blood-stock. Although the further evidence produced did not advance the committee's case, I understand that the committee has been reconstituted to represent wider interests and that further representations are going to be made.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: While I am grateful for what the Minister has said and for the sympathy with which he is viewing this subject, may I press upon him the representations that have been made to me by trainers and owners in the Lambourn area of my constituency to the effect that the present rate of VAT is doing grave damage to the bloodstock industry? The industry is a vitally important foreign exchange earner. Even if the Minister cannot agree to zero rating, is he aware that at least some relief would make a great deal of difference?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the moderate way in which he has put his representations. I am sure he will acknowledge that the rate of value added tax bearing on the blood-stock industry is lower now than it was before. The officials of Customs and Excise have been looking into the technical matters which might give some marginal relief. I hope that it might be possible to make some progress in that direction. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any further encouragement.
    Mr. Wiggin: Is the Minister aware that a far greater threat to the bloodstock and racing industry lies in the capital transfer tax in the present Finance Bill? Has he given thought to a future situation in which all racehorses will be owned by the State, or does he have any other plans for ensuring the continuation of the racing industry?
    Dr. Gilbert: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the measures involving the capital transfer tax will be discussed in great detail in Committee on the Finance Bill. Possibly that discussion is better left to those proceedings.
    Mr. Monro: The Minister knows that I wrote to him about this matter last month. Does he accept that the
    592
    interpretation of VAT by the Treasury is much more rigid than that by the tax authorities in France, which consequently benefits our racing and breeding competitors in France? Does he realise that this greatly affects an industry already beset with financial problems? Will he go a little further than he has gone today—although I am glad that he will consider the matter again—bearing in mind that the industry in total is contributing approximately £650 million to the Treasury?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am well aware of the considerations that the hon. Gentleman puts forward. He will also recognise that there are many wider considerations that have to be taken into account. There are many other powerfully-argued cases for relief. This is essentially an element of discretionary expenditure. We are receiving powerful representations from all forms of sport, from the living theatre, from charities and from other organisations. It is a question of establishing priorities for relief.

    Motor Industry
    Mr. Madelasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for altering the present rates of taxation and hire-purchase rates in relation to the motor industry.
    Dr. Gilbert: Questions about taxation are matters for my right hon. Friend's overall Budget strategy, and the hon. Member will not expect me to comment at this time.
    Mr. Madel: As a number of smaller cars are about to be launched by British manufacturers at a time when there is an alarming increase in short-time working, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider acting now to help the industry in what are difficult home and world market conditions?
    Dr. Gilbert: My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am sure that his remarks will have been noted.
    Mr. Sedgemore: Is it not the case that unless and until the Government reflate the economy, short-time working and unemployment will increase in the motor car industry and in the country at large?

    593
    Can my hon. Friend confirm or deny suggestions that the Treasury now accepts that unemployment in excess of I million this year is inevitable?
    Dr. Gilbert: I certainly do not accept the suggestion at the end of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Not all the difficulties of the car industry are due to macro-economic factors. My right hon. Friend is aware of my hon. Friend's comments.
    Mr. Graham: When my hon. Friend is considering the aid that can be given to the motor industry, may I ask him to spare a thought for the retail distributive trade? Is he aware that the problem of short-time working in many of the industries producing consumer durable goods in Edmonton and Enfield is causing serious hardship? Will he give serious consideration to relaxing hire-purchase controls, particularly as they relate to deposits and the length of payment, because this would give a boost to employment and retail sales?
    Dr. Gilbert: My right hon. Friend will be considering very sympathetically all the points put by my hon. Friend.

    Company Taxation
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the difficulty and Civil Service manpower involved in separating the raising and spending of company taxation in England from company taxation in Scotland.
    Dr. Gilbert: The problems, from the point of view of both the Inland Revenue and companies, of trying to allocate company profits to different parts of the United Kingdom are so formidable that any attempt to do so would be quite impracticable.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does not that answer illustrate the impracticability of giving revenue-raising powers to a Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer responsible to a Scottish Assembly?
    Dr. Gilbert: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. I am sure he will be aware that the Kilbrandon Commission specifically said that corporation tax was not at all suitable for devolution to regional administrations.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that the problem raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is a symptom of the difficulties of the Labour Party in coming to any agreement on devolution? Will he accept that sooner or later we shall have to have separate taxation because there will be an independent State of Scotland?
    Dr. Gilbert: It is not for me to comment on the likelihood of there being an independent State of Scotland. If there were to be one, I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) would be a far more likely candidate than the hon. Gentleman for a Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    National Savings Stamp
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has now received regarding his intention to phase out the national savings stamp.
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the Government's decision to discontinue the national savings stamp.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. Edmund Dell): Since I announced the Government's decision to discontinue the national savings stamp we have received 256 letters, and I have received a deputation from the leaders of the movement for England and Wales.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the least we might have hoped that a decision would be forthcoming to reverse the previously announced intention to phase out the savings stamp? Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the large number of hon. Members from both sides of the House who have signed Early-day Motion No. 3 which has this aim in mind? In view of the announcement yesterday that television licence fees are to be increased and of the fact that old-age pensioners have used the savings stamp as a way of saving up for the licence fee, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think about this again?
    Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question shows that he cannot have studied in full what the Government are proposing. We are proposing

    595
    that before the stamp is phased out there should be a television licence fee scheme for the very purpose he has mentioned. As for reversing this decision, I do not think that would be sensible, because what has happened since the decision was announced is that the savings movement in England, Wales and Scotland has turned to the task of redirecting its efforts in what I think will be a much better route.
    Mr. Marshall: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the statistics he has given represent only part of the feeling on this matter? Is he aware that many of us are concerned about the way in which people who have used this useful form of savings are now to be deprived of it? Is he further aware that many of us feel that his answer does not accurately reflect the facts but rather reflects the switching which has been necessary because of the decision he has taken? Will he reconsider this matter and, if necessary, persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to accept the will of Parliament if this is brought before the House—as the right hon. Gentleman so signally failed to do last night?
    Mr. Dell: The stamp is used as a short-term budgetary device. It is not used for saving in the way that was originally intended. A small proportion of the stamps is used for that purpose. As a short-term budgetary device there are alternatives which are more secure, which do not involve the same dangers of loss as stamps and on which people can receive interest. I can assure the hon. Member that although there has been some feeling about this, which I can understand and with which I have sympathy, if the Government were to reverse this decision it would deflect the savings movement again from what are certainly more profitable directions which will encourage savings.

    Woodlands (Taxation)
    Mr. Martenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from forestry interests about the likely effects of his proposals for the tax treatment for woodlands on the capital transfer tax.
    Dr. Gilbert: My right hon. Friend has had representations on this matter from a number of sources. Possible effects of
    596
    the tax on woodlands will depend on the final form of the provisions in the Finance Bill.
    Mr. Marten: In the light of those representations, does the Treasury recognise the genuine concern about the effect of this tax? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind in Committee the damage which will be caused by premature felling to pay the tax? Is he aware that that will lead in turn to increased timber imports and to unemployment? If he can do nothing else, can he make a distinction between softwood and hardwood when he considers taxation rates?
    Dr. Gilbert: Only a week ago my right hon. Friend said that he had received many representations on this point and that he intended to take them very seriously. We hope to bring forward proposals later in Committee.
    Mr. Tom Ellis: Is my hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members believe that there is an element of over-kill in the proposal, which could have serious repercussions on many aspects of our national life?
    Dr. Gilbert: I note what my hon. Friend has said. Representations have been made to my right hon. Friend from representatives of all six parties in the House.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman pay particular regard to representations from national park areas such as the Lake District National Park, where the effect of premature felling and the abandonment of woodland would gravely damage the landscape and the environment which is so much enjoyed by so many?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. I certainly assure him that amenity considerations weigh strongly with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Canavan: If there is any danger of forestry workers losing their jobs as a result of these taxation measures, will my hon. Friend consult his colleagues about the possibility of the Forestry Commission, for example, taking over the management, or even the ownership, of privately-owned forestry to conserve employment and the environment?
    Dr. Gilbert: That question goes rather wider than my responsibility. I will see that my hon. Friend's comments are conveyed to my right hon. Friends.

    Inflation
    Mr. Rostasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied that measures introduced so far will achieve his stated objective of a 10 per cent. annual rate of inflation by the end of this year.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the progress of his policies to combat inflation.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): The success of the Government's counter-inflation policy depends above all on the effective working of the social contract. If we can achieve stricter adherence to the TUC guidelines over the coming months, we can get the rate of inflation down by the end of the year. I have never stated an objective of 10 per cent.
    Mr. Rost: As the rate of inflation—according to the Chancellor's own figures—has trebled since September from 8·4 per cent. to 25·2 per cent., will he explain how the allocation of further vast sums for indiscriminate food subsidies will help him to achieve his objective?
    Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. The allocation of sums to food subsidies will bring down the retail price index significantly, not only acting directly on the main indicator of inflation but reducing the rate at which settlements need to be reached.
    Mr. Skinner: If my right hon. Friend is to combat inflation more quickly than some people expect, does he understand that he will have to stop the bleeding that has occurred as a result of our entry into the Common Market? Does he understand these figures: a £2,000 million trading deficit in the course of two years, a 20 per cent. devaluation of the pound and a 33 per cent. increase in prices coupled with 750,000 men on the dole—and the number is rising? Does he realise that all those things are the result of our entry into the Common Market and that he would do well to advocate in the Cabinet that we should get out and keep out?
    Mr. Healey: I am afraid that I do not understand those things. I recognise that many unpleasant things have happened over the last three years, but I do not think they can all be attributed to our entry into the Common Market.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Will the Chancellor amplify his statement, which I think has been repeated by the Prime Minister, that 75 per cent. of wage settlements have been within the terms of the social contract? Does that 75 per cent. include the allowed exceptions and in what proportion are they? Does that statement mean that 75 per cent. of settlements have been within the rise in the cost of living at the time of the settlement? What does it mean?
    Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman has perhaps had an opportunity by now to read the various documents in which the guidelines for wage bargaining, which are part of the social contract, are contained. Seventy-five per cent. of the working people covered by settlements, not 75 per cent. of the settlements, are within those guidelines. Twenty-five per cent. are outside those guidelines, and I have said that that proportion is far too high.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Opposition Members want to do something to combat inflation they would have been well advised last night not to seek to increase the public borrowing requirement as such an increase is damaging to our campaign against inflation? Will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to ensuring that there will be increases in taxation, met by those with the greatest capacity to pay, to cover the cost of the decision which was taken last night?
    Mr. Healey: Unless Opposition Members, in the light of their action last night, have decided to withdraw them, there are some Questions on the Order Paper about the public sector borrowing requirement which I shall be pleased to deal with presently. In reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I am considering some very interesting proposals for raising the money which Opposition Members have added to the public sector borrowing requirement, and I shall announce them at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Robert Carr: To revert to the Chancellor's original answer, is it not a fact that in a public speech in September he told the public that he expected inflation to be reduced to about 10 per cent. by the end of this year if the social contract was adhered to? What has happened since September to change his view?
    Mr. Healey: First, I did not say that in a public speech. I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of my speech if he wishes. I made clear that if the undertakings given by both sides in the social contract were maintained, if world prices did not rise and if there was international co-operation in the continued growth of trade and output throughout the world, we could get the rate of inflation in Britain down near to 10 per cent. by the end of 1975. I made clear in my speech in the House on 18th December that some of those conditions had not been fulfilled. In particular, the increase in world prices envisaged in December was substantially higher than any of us expected in the middle of last year. Secondly, I regret to say that the world is now moving into a recession in which the level of trade and output will not be maintained to the extent I hoped it would be six months ago.
    Mr. Stanleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the rate of inflation over the past three months expressed on an annual basis.
    Mr. Healey: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General gave on 21st January to the hon. Member for Derbyshire. South-East (Mr. Rost).—[Vol. 884, c. 318–19.]
    Mr. Stanley: As the comparable figure in October was 8·4 per cent. and there has therefore been a dramatic increase in the rate of historic inflation, may I ask whether the Chancellor agrees that if the present rate of inflation continues there will be a remorseless and inevitable increase in unemployment? Does he also agree that there is an inescapable obligation on him to contain the rate of inflation, particularly wage inflation, to protect jobs?
    Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised that my answer is "Yes,
    600
    Sir" to all that he has just asked. There is no question that the rate of inflation is too high and needs to come down. One important component in bringing it down, as I said earlier, is to have a less flexible interpretation of the guidelines and a stricter application of them in making settlements. However, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this imposes responsibilities not only on trade unions but on employers. Some of the grossest breaches in the guidelines recently have been by bodies like the BBC and the clearing banks, which are always the first to criticise the Government for failing to ensure that the social contract is maintained.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend clear up this ambiguity about his interpretation of the contract? He goes on about the guidelines and says that wage settlements must do no more than equate with the rise in the price index, but will he clearly state whether he is talking of gross or take-home pay?
    Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. First, I believe, as does the TUC General Council, that the social wage must be taken into account as well as negotiated wages. Therefore, it is settlements in relation to the past movement of the RPI. I strongly endorse the clarification by the General Secretary of the TUC last week that unions should relate the settlements and the claims they make to the past movement of the RPI, not to what they imagine may happen in future.
    Mr. Robert Carr: Reverting to the original Question, may I ask the Chancellor to confirm that the annual rate of inflation over the last three months, on the same basis as he told the country it was 8·4 per cent. in September, is now 23 per cent. and to explain why that change has occurred?
    Mr. Healey: The main reason for this change is that in the last three months the index has reflected 11 threshold payments which had to be made under legislation introduced by the Conservative Government. Groups of workers who had been held back unfairly under statutory control—for example, nurses and postmen—had to be allowed to catch up. I am not aware that the right hon. Gentleman disagreed with that course. But now that thresholds are out of the way and the catching-up process has

    601
    taken place, it is very important that we achieve a lower rate of settlement and a much smaller rate of exceptions to the guidelines than in the last few months.
    Mr. Pardoe: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in his first five months as Chancellor he reduced the three-monthly annual rate of inflation to 8½ per cent.? How much of that was his own work? Does he accept that in the following four months he increased it to 23 per cent.? How much of that was his own work? Looking to the future, does he accept the estimate of the research department of my union, ASTMS, that the rate of inflation over the next 12 months will be in excess of 23 per cent.?
    Mr. Healey: Like all hon. Members, I respect the hon. Gentleman's industrial and union experience, but I do not agree with the estimate he has quoted. He asked how much of what happened last year and this year was the effect of Government policy. There is no question that there will be some increase in the RPI this year resulting from Government decisions which, I think, are supported by Opposition Members: first, the decision to relax price controls to prevent mass bankruptcies and unemployment and, secondly, the decision to increase petrol prices and to have realistic pricing for the nationalised industries to reduce the consumption of energy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who on most occasions is a fairly objective fellow, will endorse both those elements in our current policy.
    Mr. Stanley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Chancellor's reply, I wish to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Indexation
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to index the tax system, with special reference to the rates of income tax; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dell: The effects of inflation on the tax system are kept under continuing review by the Treasury and Revenue Departments.
    Mr. Lawson: I am glad to hear that, but is it not the case that the present rate of inflation, coupled with a non-indexed taxation system, has a profound and capricious effect both on the pattern of taxation and on the real incidence of taxation, including in particular an increase in the real burden of income tax without the sanction of Parliament? Now that the Treasury has at last yielded the principle of indexation by indexing savings bonds—which I welcome—is it not high time to extend indexation to taxation? Will the Minister appoint a full committee of inquiry into this important and urgent subject?
    Mr. Dell: What the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his supplementary question is true. Inflation affects the real burden of taxation under our present system. On the other hand we have frequent opportunities in at least annual Budgets to review the level of allowances, and my right hon. Friend has indicated that he will be reviewing the level of personal allowances in his next Budget. I see no point at the moment in a committee of inquiry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Sandilands Committee is looking at one aspect of the problem, and we shall study what the committee says.

    Government Borrowing
    Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the Government's borrowing requirement for the year 1974–75; and what steps he is taking designed to reduce it.
    Mr. Gowasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement for the current financial year has increased; and, if so, by what amount since his Budget Statement on 12th November 1974.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, and by what means, he proposes to reduce the public sector deficit of £6,300 million.
    Mr. Healey: It is not customary to give forecasts of the public sector borrowing except at Budget time.
    Mr. Lamont: Regardless of whether it is customary to give such estimates, is the Chancellor satisfied that he knows

    603
    what the increase in the borrowing requirement might be? Does he recall that during the debates on the Finance Bill in July, when we were arguing about public expenditure, he maintained that the increase in the borrowing requirement was only a few hundred million pounds and that four months later it was revealed to be more than £2,000 million? Did he not know at the time, or was it not politic to tell the House?
    Mr. Healey: I am staggered at the effrontery of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman asked me to predict the borrowing requirement this year. Yesterday he and his right hon. and hon. Friends increased the borrowing requirement by £240 million. They are seeking in Committee to reduce the Government's revenue by reducing the rates of taxation and thereby again to increase the borrowing requirement. There has been a series of Questions on the Floor of the House this afternoon seeking to reduce the revenue from taxation. I cannot predict how far the irresponsibility of the Opposition will go.
    Mr. Cant: May I ask my right hon. Friend, purely academically and without wishing to bring politics into it, whether he agrees that, as domestic credit expansion is increasing at twice the rate of M3, the public borrowing requirement—as well as the increase in wages—is having an inflationary effect?
    Mr. Healey: No, Sir, I do not, because the public sector borrowing requirement adds to the money stock only to the extent that it is advanced in sterling through the banking system, and all the indicators show that the monetary pressures adding to inflation are not increasing. Substantial increases in budget deficits are now occurring all over the world as the result of recent oil price increases and the need to counter recession. The United States Secretary of the Treasury announced recently that the central Government deficit alone in the United States will amount to $85 billion over the next 17 months—that is, £35 billion. The West German Government recently announced that they expect their central Government financial deficit this year to amount to 50,000 million deutschemarks—that is, £10 million. Opposition Members, who are doing everything they can to seek to
    604
    increase the Government's borrowing requirement, would have done well to take the oportunity to keep their mouths closed on this question this afternoon.
    Mr. Gow: Has the Chancellor's attention been drawn to the views of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry about the bad effects from the point of view of national sovereignty of British membership of the EEC? Does not the Chancellor agree that Oriental borrowing on a massive scale from the Shahanshah of Iran and the King of Saudi Arabia—who are not happy bedfellows with the right hon. Gentleman—puts in hock our own foreign policy? Will he address himself to this matter?
    Mr. Healey: I do not think that the faintly ridiculous and outdated chauvinism displayed by the hon. Member will commend itself to either side of the House. I would remind him that the borrowing of which he complains was begun by the Conservative Government before we had an oil deficit.
    Mr. Biffen: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify one simple point: is it his objective to reduce the level of the public sector borrowing requirement?
    Mr. Healey: Let me say, Mr. Speaker, "You, too, Brutus". [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am quoting, Mr. Speaker, as you recognise, and not addressing myself directly to you. Of course I should like to see the public sector borrowing requirement less high than it is, but it is even more important to avoid mass unemployment. At the moment we have a choice. That choice is not made any simpler by the fact that the hon. Member and his Conservative colleagues last night, and continuously in Committee at present, are seeking to increase the borrowing requirement by forcing on the Government unwanted increases in the public sector and are seeking to reduce public revenue.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Will my right hon. Friend make it abundantly clear, so that there can be no misunderstanding in view of the general concern about the public borrowing requirement, that following the decision taken by the Opposition last night the Government will tackle the consequences of that vote not by cutting public expenditure but by raising taxation in another area to compensate for the decision that was reached?
    Mr. Healey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I made that very clear, and I am now studying various interesting possibilities to ensure that the cost of the decision forced on the Government last night by the Opposition is borne by those who are capable of bearing the cost.
    Mr. Robert Carr: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that what the House decided last night, with the co-operation of Labour Members, is unwanted expenditure to help old people? Secondly, he made the claim that it will increase the borrowing requirement by £240 millon. In view of the fact that his arithmetic has no precedent and knows no bounds, will the Chancellor publish in the Official Report how that calculation is made?
    Mr. Healey: I recognise that many items of public expenditure are desperately wanted by many people, including that which was voted last night, but in the circumstances of the time choices must be made—and choices have been made by the Government. I find it odd coming from the right hon. Gentleman, who has pledged himself to support any attempt made by the Government to keep public expenditure under control, that he should have supported that increase by his vote and also by what he said a moment ago. Secondly, on the question of how the sum is made up, if the right hon. Gentleman had been here during yesterday's debate he would have heard a detailed account of the sums given in the speeches of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security.

    Balance of Payments and Reserves
    Mr. Douglas-Mannasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the reserves, and for the balance of payments deficit over the last 12 months.
    Mr. Healey: The level of the official reserves at the end of December was $6,789 million, about £100 million more than at the end of the previous year. The deficit on the current account of the balance of payments in 1974 is estimated to have been £3,730 million.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Despite the slight recent improvement, does my right hon.
    606
    Friend agree that we are tackling a Dunkirk situation by "phoney" war methods? When will the Government accept that we need a major curtailment of private consumption, through taxation or other means, particularly of consumption that is expensive in energy and imports, and that we need full employment maintained by a corresponding increase in public expenditure, particularly in house-building and other social services that are not expensive in that way?
    Mr. Healey: I do not agree with the final part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, and I do not believe that we advance the solution of our problems by the use of tired metaphors from 1940.
    Mr. Hordern: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the converse of the balance of payments deficit is the borrowing requirement? Since the borrowing requirement in the course of six months increased by over £2,500 million, when on the Chancellor's own reckoning the inflation rate was proceeding at 8·4 per cent., will he let the House know the present rate of borrowing requirement? If we are to have a Budget every three months, which is the present going rate, why cannot we have these figures produced much more regularly?
    Mr. Healey: If the hon. Gentleman could give me a firm prediction of the extent of the Opposition's responsibility in increasing public expenditure in the course of six months, I might be tempted to follow his advice.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is it not time that my right hon. Friend used methods already adopted by other countries, whose deficits are not as bad as ours—namely, to control imports—and also asked the Secretary of State for Defence to reduce the £300 million a year deficit incurred by the British Army of the Rhine in a country which has the largest trade surplus in the world?
    Mr. Healey: I do not believe that our economic prospects would be advanced at this time by controlling imports. Secondly, there is a relationship between the public sector borrowing requirement

    607
    and the external deficit, but it is noticeable that the Federal Republic of Germany, which in the last year has had the largest external surplus in the world, also expects this year to have the largest public sector deficit in Europe.
    Mr. David Howell: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of what is happening upstairs in Committee on the Finance Bill? Does he realise that in the Committee the Opposition are pressing that the capital transfer tax should not be brought in, and that by his own admission the capital transfer tax will produce a lower yield than that of the existing estate duty? Therefore, it is the Government and not the Opposition who are pressing measures that will increase the Government deficit in terms of borrowing requirement.
    Mr. Healey: I do not know how far the hon. Gentleman follows the speeches made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who, if I may use the word, is the hon. Gentleman's mistress in the Finance Bill upstairs and who has stated on behalf of the Opposition that they wish to retain estate duty but to introduce a relief in respect of legacies to wives and spouses, which is part of the capital transfer tax. In that case the revenue from estate duty would be substantially lower than that anticipated from the capital transfer tax. I hope the hon. Gentleman will have the honesty to admit that he misled the House unconsciously in pretending that the situation was other than it is.

    Taxation (Sex Differentiation)
    Mr. Hall-Davisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those tax provisions which differentiate between men and women or husbands and wives in the taxation of income and capital and in treatment as regards the offsetting for tax of charges and allowances.
    Dr. Gilbert: The Taxes Acts do not in general differentiate between men and women. They do in certain respects distinguish between married and single women as a result of the normal income tax rule that the income and gains of a married woman are aggregated with those of her husband. Since the husband is responsible for paying the tax on their combined income he normally receives
    608
    the allowances and reliefs appropriate to them. Some of the minor tax allowances—those, for example, for a housekeeper, for a dependent relative or for a daughter's services—also depend to an extent on the sex of the claimant or of the dependant.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: May I declare an interest which I have registered with the Table Office. Is the Financial Secretary aware that the Treasury's January Economic Progress Report gives great prominence to the Government's intention to promote a Bill aiming at equality for women? Would it not demonstrate a desirable consistency in Government policy if the Chancellor were to introduce amendments to our tax legislation where, to quote White Paper Command 5724,
    "The grounds for less favourable treatment are sex or marriage"?
    Dr. Gilbert: I have already made clear that the discriminations work both ways in our present tax system. There are some minor anomalies to which I have drawn attention.

  POPULATION
  Dr. Edmund Marshallasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between Ministers responsible for carrying out Government responsibilities in respect of population trends.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I have been asked to reply.
  Yes, Sir.
  Dr. Marshall: As the birth rate has steadily fallen from 18·8 per thousand in 1964 to 13·9 per thousand in 1973, and in view of the importance of this trend for the work of most Government Departments, may I ask what research is being undertaken by the Government into the factors now influencing the average size of families in this country?
  Mr. Short: My hon. Friend is quite correct. The increase in the growth of population has fallen in each of the past eight years, but the population is now almost stable. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is stepping up its research effort into population trends,

  609
  aimed particularly at increasing knowledge and understanding about the factors influencing child-bearing.

  ECONOMIC POLICY
  Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will now assume overall responsibility for running the economy.
  Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister whether he will assume overall responsibility for running the economy.
  Mr. George Gardinerasked the Prime Minister if he now assume overall responsibility for running the economy.
  Mr. Hurdasked the Prime Minister whether he will now assume direct control of the Government's economic policy.
  Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
  As Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, my right hon. Friend already has that responsibility.
  Mr. Adley: Did the Lord President hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer just now to the question about unemployment? Will he tell us whether the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are prepared to reject or to agree with the view expressed by the Tribune Group in the Morning Star recently that the Government's present policy towards unemployment is unacceptable?
  Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer accurately expressed the Government's view both here and in his speech in Leeds.
  Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties in running the economy is the requirement for higher incomes to combat the increasing cost of food? Has he noticed that last Thursday the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), pointed out that the cost of cheese and butter from New Zealand to the consumer was £600 whereas the transfer to the European Economic Community was about £300 in taxes?
  Mr. Short: Yes, I noticed that answer. However, the overall effect on food prices
  610
  of being in the Market is that they are slightly lower now than they would have been if we had been out of it.
  Mr. Roberts: Now that the Price Commission has made it clear that the all-important causal factor of inflation is wage increases, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon said that a less flexible attitude is required towards the guidelines, may I ask why the Government and the TUC do not get together to tighten those guidelines?
  Mr. Short: The report stated that there are still some external factors in the pipeline affecting prices. However, we should be clear that from now on the major factor affecting inflation will be pay settlements.
  Mr. Atkinson: When the Government refer to pay settlements and state that they must equate with the rise in the price index, are they referring to take-home pay or to gross pay?
  Mr. Short: I heard my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer answer that question a few minutes ago.
  Mr. George Gardiner rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when the original answer was given.
  Mr. Gardiner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gardiner.
  Mr. Gardiner: Since the right hon. Gentleman says that the Prime Minister has overall responsibility, when will he start exercising it? When will we get some action from him to back up the words that he utters periodically in speeches?
  Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend exercises this responsibility all the time. If the hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to look at the Chancellor's Budgets he will see that there is a strategy for tackling inflation, which is beginning to have effect.
  Mr. Noble: In view of my right hon. Friend's statement, accepting on behalf of the Prime Minister responsibility for running the economy, and in view of the concern expressed on all sides about inflation, will he impress on his right hon.

  611
  Friend the fact that we are shortly to have an injection of inflation through Government action—the defreezing of business rents? Would my right hon. Friend accept that it is not yet too late to prevent this?
  Mr. Short: I am sure that the Prime Minister reads everything and will notice my hon. Friend's supplementary question.
  Mr. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley)? What is the position of those Ministers who are members of the Tribune Group and, therefore, associated with the recent savage attack on the Chancellor's policies? Will he confirm that the Prime Minister is now presiding over the collapse of collective responsibility, not only on Europe but right across the board?
  Mr. Short: Fortunately I have no responsibility for the Tribune Group, but, as I have said, the views expressed by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor accurately reflect the Government's view.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the attitude of those Ministers who are members of the Tribune Group, as well as all other Ministers and Labour Members, is one of quiet confidence in the Government's economic policies?
  Mr. Tugendhat: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can answer this question. If the Prime Minister is in overall charge of the economy, what is his view of the Bank of England's purchase of the unpledged shares in BP, which used to belong to Burmah Oil, at vastly below the market price and at great disadvantage to the shareholders, without consulting the shareholders? Is this fair dealing by the Government?
  Mr. Short: This is a very complex matter which no Minister could answer off the cuff. But the hon. Gentleman is asking for the Prime Minister's view, so I suggest that he puts down a Question to him on it.
  Mr. English: Has my right hon. Friend any explanation of the discrepancy between the comments of Conservative
  612
  Members and the obvious confidence of the Stock Exchange in the Chancellor's policies?
  Mr. Heath: As the Lord President has now told the House that the Prime Minister has overall responsibility for running the economy, will he also assure us that in future Questions directly relating to the economy put on the Order Paper to the Prime Minister will be answered by the Prime Minister and not transferred to the Chancellor by his private office? It is an important constitutional matter that the Prime Minister should answer Questions directly relating to the economy.
  Second, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the First Lord of the Treasury to ascertain the facts about the earnings rule regulation which was carried last night by the House? He will then find that the cost for 1975–76 is £60 million, of which the Treasury will have to contribute only £9 million, but it will gain £15 million in tax. There will therefore be a net gain for the Exchequer over 1975–76 of £6 million. What, therefore, is this futile and bad-tempered threat from the Chancellor about excess taxation?
  Mr. Short: On the second point, the facts about last night are well known. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues voted together for something on which they had done nothing in three and a half years of government. Their vote was sheer hypocrisy and irresponsibility. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it makes utter nonsense of trying to find priorities in government if an amendment of that kind, involving a great deal of public expenditure, is passed in that way at a stroke. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for his action. It was sheer, utter humbug and irresponsibility on his part. I am afraid that I have forgotten his first question.
  Mr. Heath: If I may help the right hon. Gentleman, the first part of the question was whether the Prime Minister, since he now has responsibility for the overall control of the economy, will answer Questions relating directly to the economy.
  Mr. Short: On that, the right hon. Gentleman is the very last one to talk. He transferred Questions right, left and

  613
  centre when he was Prime Minister. He knows, of course, that the Prime Minister and every other Minister have the right to transfer Questions.

  SOCIAL CONTRACT (CHANCELLOR'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Lawsonasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech at Leeds on 10th January by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the economy, unemployment and the social contract represents Government policy.
  Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
  I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) on Tuesday 28th January.
  Mr. Lawson: If the Lord President has finished abusing Parliament for exercising its free right last night in deciding issues of importance for the nation, will he give a simple "Yes" or "No" answer to the following question? Will he confirm that strict adherence to the terms of the social contract necessarily implies for the majority of people a decline in real standards of living over the forthcoming year?
  Mr. Short: It does not necessarily do so, but we hope very much that trade unions and employers—it takes two parties to make an agreement—will adhere to the social contract during the coming year.
  Mr. Loyden: Referring to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at Leeds, may I ask the Lord President to take into account the fact that the decisions taken in the last Budget were allegedly designed to offset the possibility of high unemployment and that unemployment running at a level of 750,000 is a completely unacceptable figure? Will he bring it to the attention of his right hon. Friend that the Labour Party manifesto was designed to combat the problems that the Budget evidently has not combated?
  Mr. Short: The unemployment figure in Britain is the lowest in the developed world and it is rising much more slowly than anywhere else. As to the Budget, my right hon. Friend took massive steps
  614
  to prevent unemployment this year. He will have increased consumer demand by the middle of this year by about £600 million and he gave enormous help to firms with cash difficulties.

  STRETFORD
  Mr. Churchillasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Stretford.
  Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when, at the time of the last election, the Prime Minister came to speak for me in Stretford, he made all sorts of glib remarks and gave all sorts of assurances about unemployment? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment in my constituency has risen by approximately 50 per cent. since his Government came to office? Is he further aware of the gross unfairness being perpetrated under the so-called "social contract", which is nothing but a cloak for a wages free-for-all in which the bully boys reap the bonuses? Last year average earnings increased by 28½ per cent. Since many workers obtained substantially more, inevitably many millions had to make do with much less. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many millions of workers got nothing like that?
  Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman has put his supplementary question with his usual objectivity. I went to Stretford as well, and I certainly did not speak for the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman very nearly got beaten. He will be beaten next time. The unemployment figure for Stretford is 2·9 per cent., which is only marginally fractionally above the national level. I agree that it is too high a figure. But once the present Government's policies have worked through, and when this Government have mastered inflation, as they will, the unemployment in Stretford, as elsewhere, will certainly fall.
  Mr. Skinner: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent speech of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) in

  615
  which he was speaking about the forthcoming ballot for the Conservative Party leadership—this rather curious ballot—and in which he said he believed that the present Leader of the Opposition could survive if he could get back to the sort of 1970 vintage? Has my right hon. Friend also heard of the possible injunction that may be sought against this particular ballot, as it is asking for a 65 per cent.—
  Mr. Evelyn King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I submit to you that what has already been heard in respect of this question is out of order and has nothing whatever to do with the Question on the Order Paper?
  Mr. Fernyhough: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Over recent years the Chair has constantly ruled that points of order arising during Question Time must be taken at the end of Question Time.
  Mr. Speaker: The Chair has always said that it would prefer points of order to be raised at the end of Question Time. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) certainly was going fairly wide. I hope that he will conclude.
  Mr. Skinner: I was asking my right hon. Friend whether he had heard of the rumour that an injunction was to be sought against the conduct of that ballot in view of the necessity of a 65 per cent. majority—
  Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Skinner: —which is against democratic principles.
  Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the end of the supplementary question. Does the hon. Member wish to raise a point of order?
  Mr. Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware that this supplementary question by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has anything whatever to do with a potential visit by the Prime Minister to Stretford.
  Mr. Short rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. One of the troubles is that supplementary questions very often are far away from the original Question.
  Mr. Short: You took the words out of my mouth, Mr. Speaker. I was about to say "Nor has the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill)", but as he asked it I would not dream—
  Mr. Churchill: I asked about the unemployment figures.
  Mr. Short: Given the unemployment figures, I would not dream of commenting on the difficulties of the Conservative Party. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman's speeches are not essential reading for me.
  Mr. Peyton: May one congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his discretion, because he already has his hands well filled with his own difficulties? If he will look behind him, and particularly to his right, he will find plenty.
  Mr. Short: I thought that when the right hon. Gentleman got to his feet he was going to ask me for the reply to the question he put to me last week when he challenged me to publish the figures about the relative efficiency and productivity in publicly-owned industries and privately-owned industries. I have given these to the Press. I shall not give them to the House now. They are now with the Press.
  Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that kindness forebade me even to refer to so meagre an answer?
  Mr. Short: In view of that, Mr. Speaker, I really feel, with permission—[Interruption.] The net output per employee between 1963 and 1973 has risen by 158 per cent. in public corporations.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House really is behaving extremely badly—both sides of it. Noise from one side leads to noise from the other side. My purpose is to get as many Questions asked and answered as possible. That has not been possible this afternoon.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the

  617
  Leader of the House to give an answer to a question which has not been asked?
  Mr. Short: The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) asked the question, so I was going to help him—[Interruption.] In the 10 years between 1963 and 1973, net output per employee—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) raised a point of order. In fact, the Chair has no control over a Minister's answer. He can give the answer he wishes.
  Mr. Short: Net output per employee has risen in the public corporations by 158 per cent. and in private corporations by 98 per cent. In 1973 net output per employee was 31 per cent. higher in public corporations than it was in private industry.
  Later—
  Mr. Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have your guidance? At the end of Question Time the Lord President made a statement which presumably was not related to any Question he was answering. Therefore, it must have been an official Government statement. It contained a statistical matter which was not only inaccurate but misleading, and which appeared to distort the position of the public sector as opposed to the private sector. May we have your guidance as to when we may cross-examine the right hon. Gentleman? As it is not a matter which is within his own ministerial responsibility, it will presumably not be possible for us to put on the Order Paper further Written or Oral Questions to the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, the only appropriate time appears to be now.
  Mr. Short: Further to that point of order. Perhaps I can help you, Mr. Speaker. The figures I quoted were from the Department of Industry survey "National Income and Expenditure 1973".
  Mr. Thorpe: Further to that point of order. No one asked the right hon. Gentleman where he got his figures from. Surely it is unprecedented for a right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench to throw out a challenge to a Minister, who then, about a week later,
  618
  without notice, comes with a piece of paper—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Thorpe: —proceeds to read an answer and then sits down. Surely we should either have a statement—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Thorpe: I can manage without the hon. Lady's assistance.
  Surely the Leader of the House himself would be the first to agree that it makes for orderly business if we either have a statement on the usual basis on which statements are made, with questions allowed from both sides, or a Written Answer or something quite different—namely, a speech. But this is the most extraordinary thing. Who will next appear with a piece of paper to say that somebody asked him something six months ago and that he has just found the answer?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that there was any breach of order. There is nothing in the Standing Orders which was offended against. I think that it was partly the fault of the House, because there was a great deal of noise, provoked from one side or the other and responded to by one side or the other. Therefore, I did not hear what the Lord President of the Council said. I rather understood that he was being coaxed into his reply by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). But as the House was making so much noise I did not hear what the Lord President said. Anyway, the Chair has no power to control a ministerial answer.
  Mr. Peyton: I should like to apologise for any contribution I made to your embarrassment and difficulties, Mr. Speaker. At the same time, I should like most warmly to congratulate you on not having heard the contribution of the Leader of the House, which was totally superfluous, quite unnecessary and, in so far as it contained information, quite misleading.

TRAWLER "MORENA" (LOSS)
Mr. Higgins(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further information he has regarding the missing trawler "Morena".
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. JAMES JOHNSON: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade whether he proposes to order an inquiry into the loss of the fishing vessel "Morena".
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): With permission, I will answer this Question and Question No. 74, for Written Answer, together.
I much regret to have to inform the House that the search for the "Morena" was called off at dusk on 28th January and it must be assumed that the vessel and her crew of three, one of whom is British, have been lost. I understand that before starting her voyage the "Morena" had been purchased by a person understood to be a Danish citizen, and it was, therefore, struck off the United Kingdom register on 9th January 1975. None the less, since witnesses to the circumstances of the disappearance may be found in the United Kingdom, I have ordered a statutory preliminary inquiry to be held under Section 464 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.
I am sure the House will wish to join me in extending sympathy to the relatives and friends, both in this country and abroad, of those who must be presumed to have lost their lives.
Mr. Higgins: The House will, naturally, wish to join the Minister in his expressions of sympathy. Is he aware that his statement on Monday regarding this matter gave some cause for concern? He suggested that the aircraft search was not asked for earlier because the position of the fishing vessel was not known and because some 20 vessels were already looking for it. Surely in these circumstances there would be a stronger case for an aircraft search rather than a lesser one.
Second, the Minister indicated that alarms of this kind were being raised about every month or so, and clearly, in these circumstances there is some danger of cries of "Wolf" and reactions being correspondingly slower. Will he consider looking into the question whether the radio equipment on board such vessels should be raised to a higher standard?
Third, on the question of timing, it would appear, again from the Minister's
620
answer on Monday, that there was a delay of at least one and a half hours. If that had not happened, it might have enabled some search to be made about 14 hours before it was actually made. While in no way diminishing the splendid work done by the rescue services, may I ask the Minister to look into this point very carefully and to consider what improvements can be made, particularly on the question of communications, in situations in which obviously time is very important?
Mr. Davis: I must preface my observations on the hon. Gentleman's question with the inhibitions I mentioned in relation to the other matter about which we were being questioned on Monday: that once a form of inquiry—a preliminary inquiry or a formal inquiry—is set afoot, there are difficulties in going into the merits of the matter. However, subject to that, the hon. Gentleman has asked whether there is a stronger case for aircraft search where a number of vessels are already searching for a missing vessel. The presence of a large number of vessels can inhibit a search by aircraft. There is the difficulty of identifying the missing vessel. I do not wish to reflect upon the Opposition attitude in this specific case, but one must take account of visibility and weather conditions, the possibility of a false alarm, and so on, before embarking upon a search by air.
We have to take account also of the people who are directing operations on the spot. We do not want to impose upon them some stereotyped form of approach from Whitehall which may have no relevance to their problems.
As for radio equipment, on 1st January we introduced new radio rules for fishing vessels. These will require a considerably higher standard of radio installation in fishing vessels, although, of course, this particular vessel may not have been covered by the regulations since they apply only to vessels of 24·4 metres and over in length. There will have to be a transitional period to enable these new rules to become effective, but I think that they represent a substantially important part of the provisions that the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) is seeking.
The question of the delay must be a matter for the preliminary inquiry.
Mr. James Johnson: Although the men concerned are not my constituents, may I, by courtesy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), be allowed to voice my deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of the missing men? The fishing community of Humberside is at one in this matter; both banks feel together about it.
Will my hon. Friend confirm, in spite of criticisms from the Conservative benches, that this is a matter for the preliminary inquiry? If the Minister orders a formal inquiry the facts will all come out then. As for the weather, is he aware that skipper Kjeerguard of the "Andolas" was fishing at this time and was in touch with the "Morena"? He says that he has never seen such weather conditions in 20 years in the North Sea. He was 150 miles off shore, and in his words it was
"sheer murder with waves over 60 ft high."
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Humberside coastguard and RAF Leconfield and other stations have a wonderful record of rescue at sea, and I wish to pay tribute to those who have done this work. I have been in touch with Hull, and I may say on behalf of skippers and seamen that they feel that any measures that could have been taken were taken.
Mr. Davis: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) will appreciate the observation that my hon. Friend has made on his behalf. I do not want in any way to criticise the hon. Member for Worthing, who made perfectly proper observations from the Opposition Front Bench in seeking information from me about this unhappy episode.
Undoubtedly the weather was appalling, and that fact made the search that much more difficult. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks and the appropriate tribute he paid to the coastguard and to those who are involved in the difficult enterprise of trying to save life at sea. It may be appropriate for me to add to that tribute by saying that the number of persons assisted last year was 6,760 compared with 5,060 the previous year, and that in its own way pays sufficient testimony to the invaluable work of these people.
Mr. Warren: Will the Minister bear in mind that this is not the only loss of its
622
kind that we have heard about in the House over the last several years? Would it not be helpful if every fishing vessel carried a survival rescue beacon of the kind which is available to every pilot who has to bale out over the sea? It would operate on a frequency which could be picked up by the Royal Air Force immediately. As I understand it, the principal problem in these searches is to locate the last known position of the vessel, and this could be done quite readily with equipment which is already available.
Mr. Davis: I announced quite recently that this subject is under inquiry by my Department. [An HON. MEMBER: "Speed it up."] It is not easy to come to a quick decision about technical matters of this kind. We want to ensure that the best equipment is installed in vessels and that we do not rush into something we might regret later.
Mr. Spriggs: Will my hon. Friend take measures that would provide prevention rather than a cure that comes too late? Will he take into account the fact that masters of vessels, no matter how small the vessels, determine for themselves whether the vessel shall put to sea and whether a fishing vessel shall remain fishing in heavy weather? Will he take special measures to consider these points and to provide that there should be a definite rule that when weather warnings are given a master must run for shelter?
Mr. Davis: It is extremely difficult to prescribe specific rules to deal with a situation of this kind. We are dealing here with the competence of a master to adjudge a particular situation, and it may be that a number of them fall down on their job. If they do and if a tragedy occurs, it is a little late in the day to complain and criticise. By and large, however, it would be unfair for the House to give the impression today that there is a wholesale abandonment of the proper discretion exercised by masters of vessels of this character.
Mr. Spriggs: They are fishing in heavy weather.
Mr. Watt: When will the proposed regulations on safety at sea be published, and when will the House have an opportunity to debate them? It is too bad that it requires a tragedy at sea to bring

623
these safety matters to the attention of the House.
Mr. Davis: I cannot give the hon. Member an answer because matters of safety of life at sea cover a very wide area. It is within the hon. Member's ability to apply for a debate at a given time if he wishes to raise a specific matter.
Mr. Stott: Has it not now become apparent, with the loss of the "Lovat" over the weekend and the assumed loss of the "Morena", that there are understandable difficulties in co-ordinating an air-sea rescue service? I make this point seriously as an ex-seaman. I am trying to convey the fears which are now felt by my colleagues in the industry. Is it not now time for my hon. Friend's Department to consider seriously the possibilities of creating an air-sea rescue servcice under a statutory marine authority which would be able to deal with the position of ships which are faced with these prevailing conditions at sea?
Mr. Davis: My Department is considering the subject. I do not think that the answers are very easy, although the question is an easy one to ask. There is no assurance that even if we had a substantial department or organisation handling this matter we would necessarily overcome the problems we already experience from time to time. However, I am certainly not seeking to give the impression that I set my mind against the concept of a marine authority. The pros and cons will be very carefully considered within the course of the next month.
Mr. Churchill: Can the Minister say what individual has the responsibility in such circumstances of initiating an air search and deciding whether it is a bona fide case which merits a Nimrod being sent? He will recall that in his statement to the House on Monday he said that one of the reasons why a Nimrod had not been sent was that the position given for the "Morena" was inaccurate. How can he be sure of that, as no search was being made?
Mr. Davis: The coastguard has the prime responsibility for co-ordination in these matters.
624
In his second question the hon. Gentleman was asking me to comment on a matter which clearly falls within the ambit of the preliminary inquiry.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House kindly give us as accurate a picture as he can of the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3RD FEBRUARY AND TUESDAY 4TH FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on Devolution, which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
At the end on Monday, there will be a motion relating to the Import Duties (General) (No. 5) Order, 1974.
At the end on Tuesday, there will be motions on EEC Documents on Agriculture (R/27/75 and R/82/75).
WEDNESDAY 5TH FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Bill.
Second Reading of the District Courts (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 6TH FEBRUARY—Supply [9th Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on Housing.
Motion on EEC Documents on Doctors and Dentists (COM(69)127 and R/2610/74).
FRIDAY 7TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 10TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' motions until seven o'clock. Afterwards, Second Reading of the Export Guarantees Amendment Bill.
Mr. Heath: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if right hon. or hon. Members wish to speak about the general subject of devolution in the debate on Monday and Tuesday they will be able to do it on both days, as the debate is on the motion for the Adjournment? Some may wish to speak about it in connection with their own areas, but others may wish

625
to speak about devolution in respect of the United Kingdom as a whole. It would be difficult to try to divide the two days into particular aspects of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman now be a little more specific about a foreign affairs debate? Many hon. Members are worried about events in Cyprus and the Middle East. Considerable dissatisfaction was expressed on Monday on Foreign Office Questions. It would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman could be more specific now.
Thirdly, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is considerable anxiety in the country as well as in the House about the statement reported to have been made by the Government's industrial adviser, Sir Don Ryder, that another major company was in serious financial difficulties and in need of assistance. Can the right hon. Gentleman get this cleared up by a statement from the Secretary of State for Industry?
Mr. Short: With regard to the devolution debate, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be inappropriate to try to divide the two days, so both days will be open for debates on the subject generally.
I am sorry that I cannot yet be more specific about a debate on foreign affairs, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary wishes to make a statement on Cyprus next week.
I am told that Sir Don Ryder denies having made the statement of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. He says that he knows of no firm which is in difficulties of the kind described. He made the point that if inflation continued at the present rate many firms would be under considerable pressure, but he entirely denies making the statement attributed to him in the Press.
Mr. Faulds: Is it within the Lord President's powers to do something about the steep decline in the performance of the telephone service in the House from what was not a very good level?
Mr. Short: I shall look into that. As far as I am concerned, it works excellently—much better than it has ever done. I think that there are fewer complaints
626
than there have been in my 25 years here.
Rev. Ian Paisley: As the report of the Gardiner Committee has now been published, and there has been no statement of the Government's intentions, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we may expect a Government statement and a debate upon what is a very important matter in the present grave situation in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Short: I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the hon. Gentleman said. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members will want time to read the report, which is a very important document. However, I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Prescott: Will it be possible to provide time to discuss the recommendations of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, in view of the establishment of another Select Committee to look into the affair of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) and the reports in the Press that organisations are being set up to inquire into the financial interests of hon. Members in order to blackmail them?
Mr. Short: We have not had the report for very long. I have now studied it carefully and hope that we can have a debate on it before long.
Mr. Mates: Is the Leader of the House aware of Early Day Motion No. 212, which stands in my name and in those of 60 other hon. Members from all parts of the House? Is he further aware that I am most grateful for his reply during points of order last Monday, when he indicated his sympathy with my predicament?
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider further the matter of the Farriers (Registration) Bill, which I am seeking to introduce, since it has the support of every organisation in the country concerned with the welfare of the horse and the future of the trade of farriery? May I suggest that there is a way in which he could, if he felt so inclined, bring this whole unfortunate incident to a close, which is to indicate that the Government will not oppose the Second Reading of

627
the Bill when it comes up again tomorrow? If he feels able to do that, my hon. Friends and I, who are sponsoring the Bill, will be prepared to meet all the objections raised by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department during her speech last Friday. We do not seek to have the Bill passed in the face of any opposition from anywhere. All we want to see is a piece of well-thought-out legislation put on the statute books.
[That this House notes with dismay the circumstances in which the Farriers (Registration) Bill failed to get a Second Reading on Friday 24th January due to the tactics of the Government; recognises that Private Members' Bills make an important and valuable contribution to the work of this House; and requests that the whole issue of Private Members' Bills and the devices for blocking them he referred to the Select Committee on Procedure forthwith.]
Mr. Short: As I said last week, I have sympathy with the hon. Member's difficulty. However, he has no prescriptive right to get his Bill through. Had he ensured that he had the right number of hon. Members here last Friday, he could have got the Bill through. The Government did not oppose it. If the hon. Gentleman had done his work previously he would have got his Bill through. However, other opportunities will arise shortly, and the hon. Gentleman will have to do his best.
Mr. Terry Walker: May I draw the Lord President's attention to Early Day Motion No. 207 drawing attention to the deteriorating position in the footwear industry? Will he please arrange a time for this matter to be debated as soon as possible?
[That this House, mindful of the deteriorating position of the British footwear industry, seeks a broad-based and urgent Government inquiry into every aspect of footwear with the objective of stopping this decline and safeguarding employment.]
Mr. Short: I am afraid that I cannot offer any time in the near future for a debate on the footwear industry. However, I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and for Industry to the motion.
Mr. Rathbone: Is the Lord President of the Council aware—I hope he is—of the Price Commission report which was published last week? Is he prepared to allow time for the House to debate the now-established weakness in the social contract, in that inflation is now being powered almost entirely from locally manipulated wage increases?
Mr. Short: I cannot offer any time in the near future. However, there will be a debate on the Price Code after 10 o'clock tonight.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Leader of the House try to get the Secretary of State for Trade to make a statement on Monday concerning his truly magnificent efforts during his recent visit to Iran, from which he returned today? Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to explain how it is that he was so successful when we were told that, if we were desirous of coming out of the Common Market, it would ruin all our possibilities of trade? How has that affected his efforts?
Mr. Short: The House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend. I can do better than my hon. Friend suggested. My right hon. Friend will be making a statement tomorrow.
Mr. Henderson: Has the Lord President's attention been drawn to the motion lodged in the names of some of my hon. Friends and myself to amend Standing Order No. 62, concerning the nomination of Standing Committees? Has he received the representations which I made to him in that regard, asking for this matter to be discussed? Is he aware that many people in Scotland consider scandalous the way in which membership of Committees of this House dealing with Scottish legislation totally fails to reflect the balance of parties within Scotland? In view of the Government's determination to establish a Scottish Assembly, is not this an appropriate time to make the amendment to the Standing Order?
Mr. Short: I have seen this proposal and have considered it carefully. I will look at it again and perhaps discuss it with the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, if any change is to be made to the basis of selection, it will have to be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure. I shall

629
be very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about it.
Mr. Frank Allaun: May we have a statement next week on the supply of military spares to the Armed Forces of South Africa, which is contrary to the policy of the Labour Government and the Labour Party since 1968?
Mr. Short: Not next week, Sir. However, I am sure that if my hon. Friend has any specific points which he wishes to be considered, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be happy to talk to him.
Mr. Fry: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we may expect the reintroduction of the compulsory seat belts legislation? That legislation appears to have a somewhat lower priority in the Government's programme. In view of that, is there a possibility that we shall not see the reintroduction of this Bill?
Mr. Short: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself a little longer, he will be gratified to see this Bill coming forward again.
Mr. Atkinson: Will the Leader of the House be more specific about the statements next week? Is the House to assume that the Prime Minister will make a statement on Monday following his visit to the United States and Canada? Will the Leader of the House therefore request the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on Thursday? Presumably the Foreign Secretary will want to make some comments about the discussions he has had with Ivor Richard, at the United Nations. In view of the impending initiatives to be taken by the United Nations in respect of Resolution No. 353, will my right hon. Friend now give some assurance that we shall be able to debate the statement made by the Foreign Secretary and not merely leave it as a statement to the House? I say that because the last time we had a chance of doing so was on 31st July 1974.
Mr. Short: That is not strictly correct. There was an opportunity, on the Gracious Speech, to debate foreign affairs. Indeed the Foreign Secretary asked to be allowed to make a speech on that occasion. The only statement I have announced for next week is that which I
630
understood the Foreign Secretary wished to make. However, I shall call my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the Leader of the House accept that I am delighted that he is coming to my constituency tomorrow, notice of which visit I received only five minutes ago? While he is there, will he be good enough to inquire into the reasons for the unemployment rate of 5·3 per cent. in Lancaster and draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the absolutely vital importance of maintaining the Heysham-Belfast ferry, and of making an announcement in the House during the coming week that he will maintain this ferry, which is vital not only to employment in my area but also to Irish-English relations?
Mr. Short: I shall inquire into the subject of the ferry when I visit Lancaster tomorrow, and all the other relevant matters.
Mr. Urwin: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the large numbers of people who have suffered financial loss in forfeiture of holidays as a result of the Court Line disaster. Bearing in mind the large number of inquiries which hon. Members are receiving now from the unfortunate victims of that tragedy, will my right hon. Friend exercise his influence on the Secretary of State for Trade and ensure that legislation is brought forward at an early date to deal with the matter?
Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. We are doing all we can to expedite that. I understand my right hon. Friend's feelings in this matter. A great many hon. Members have received letters about it. Therefore I shall do all I can to expedite the matter.
Mr. Mather: Is the Leader of the House aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) is most disappointing? Far from being a prescriptive right for back-bench Members, the situation came about as a result of a mean strategem by the Govment. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that back benchers on both sides of the House are not prepared to be ridden over roughshod?
Mr. Short: I well understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about when he says that. All Governments have taken views about Private Members' Bills. There is no harm in the Government having an attitude towards a Private Member's Bill. On this occasion the Government did not oppose the Bill. I have said that I have a good deal of sympathy over the difficulty in which the hon. Member finds himself. He is a new Member. I am not saying this in any patronising way, but I think that, if he had had a little more experience he would have ensured that he had the right number of Members present. He will have a number of other opportunities before the time runs out for Private Members' Bills. He must work at it, as do all other hon. Members.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night managed to find about £200 million worth of spare taxable capacity in the rich with which to abolish the earnings rule? If that is the case, will he therefore seek extra spare taxable capacity among the rich so that we can eliminate the burden put upon the school children of this country by the Conservative Government when they introduced discrimination and the ending of free school milk? Will my right hon. Friend have consultations with the Chancellor and the Secretary of State—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must be related in some way to the business of the House.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend have consultations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Education and Science with a view to bringing in early legislation for the reintroduction of free school milk?
Mr. Short: I shall pass on that suggestion to my right hon. Friends. But, bearing in mind the borrowing requirement that we inherited—[Interruption.] I do not know what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is laughing his head off about. We inherited a borrowing requirement of £4,000 million, and it has necessarily gone up this year to more than £6,000 million. In view of that, the stratagem adopted by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends last
632
night was sheer irresponsibility as well as being humbug.
Mr. Peyton: The Leader of the House in that last answer neglected the one item of growth for which this Government have been responsible. May I put three matters to him about the business for next week? First, will he bear in mind that, generally speaking, statements on Fridays are a source of inconvenience and that it is very much better that they should be made on other days? It is much more for the convenience of the House.
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman prevail upon the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement next week about the acquisition by the Bank of England of the Burmah oil shares in BP?
Thirdly, may I ask him to be a little more forthcoming to my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates)? He has a very worthy measure which a great many hon. Members would like to see on the statute book. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Government have not opposed it. I hope that he will take an opportunity, which is after all very much more easily available to him than to my hon. Friend, to see this legislation on its way.
Mr. Short: Dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's first point about statements on a Friday, I remind him that right hon. and hon. Members constantly complain about statements not being made in the House. There are so many statements to be made that it is necessary to have some on Fridays occasionally, otherwise the remainder of the week would be cluttered up with them.
As for Burmah Oil, I have said already that because of the complexity of the matter I suggest that a Question be tabled to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy or to the Prime Minister. But I will pass on the right hon. Gentleman's request to the Secretary of State for Energy.
There is nothing else that I can say about the Farriers (Registration) Bill. A great many hon. Members have Private Members' Bills, both Ballot Bills and Ten-Minute Bills. The hon. Member for Petersfield must work on it and take his chance like everyone else.
Mr. Skinner: In relation to next week's business, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a number of Government supporters from this side of the Border are a little concerned about the fact that we seem to be overloaded with matters affecting the Celtic fringes? In view of that, would not it be sensible to take note of Early Day Motion No. 152, which by tomorrow morning will have about 80 signatories, concerning the Shrewsbury pickets and the fact that they have now been languishing in gaol for a consider-sable time? Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that there are many Government supporters who, although they have not signed the motion either because they are Government Ministers or perhaps because they think that the sentences are not excessive, nevertheless have a great deal of sympathy with the motion, and that perhaps a debate would be conclusive on this matter and would possibly secure the immediate release of these men?
[That this House calls for the immediate release from jail of the Shrewsbury trade unionists.]
Mr. Short: On my hon. Friend's point about the Celtic fringe, we have not yet debated the Kilbrandon Report. I felt that it was proper to have a debate. I was asked for a two-day debate, and I agreed to that request. I hope that it will provide an opportunity for a debate on the whole question of devolution.
I am afraid that I cannot give any satisfactory answer to my hon. Friend's second question. The responsibility is wholly with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and he has already answered a number of questions on this matter.
Mr. Peter Morrison: In view of the fact that the unemployment figures continue to rise, will the right hon. Gentleman make time available for a full debate on the unemployment situation?
Mr. Short: That would be an appropriate subject for a Supply Day.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.
With regard to the business for next week, I hope to be able to make a statement on Monday about the Committee
634
of hon. Members to examine the Compton Report.

WATER RATES (NEWPORT)
Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter of which I have given you prior notice. It concerns Parliamentary Question No. 15 on Monday of this week addressed to the Secretary of State for Wales in which I asked about the proposals of the Welsh National Water Development Authority to increase water charges to the borough of Newport by 142 per cent. and sewerage charges by between 150 per cent. and 200 per cent.
I was told by the Under-Secretary of State that no representations had been received from the borough concerning these proposed charges. I have discovered that this is not true and that the borough has made the strongest possible representations. It would have been failing in its duty to the people of Newport if it had not done so. I can assure the House that there is very strong feeling in the town about this matter. I may say that during the past few hours I have received a written apology from the Under-Secretary. But in view of the importance of this matter, I feel that the records of the House should be corrected.
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Edward Rowlands): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret that there was a factual error in my reply last Monday to my hon. Friend's Question on this local matter. However, as soon as I discovered the error, I apologised personally to my hon. Friend, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have now also written to my hon. Friend repeating my apology and correcting my error.
Mr. Speaker: The point of order has been made, and the record has been put right.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund Act 1975.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Ordered,
That the draft Noise Insulation (Scotland) Regulations 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments—(Mr. Thomas Cox.)
Ordered,
That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Mr. Thomas Cox.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PRICES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you consider giving further guidance to the House as to its opportunities sometimes to debate amendments tabled on Second Readings and similar occasions by minority groups on both sides of the House, especially as to how the Chair might be released from binding constraints which derive from very different parliamentary considerations? The matter arises today in respect of the amendment tabled last Friday by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party and other Liberal Members.
  Mr. Speaker: I have sympathy with this point of view. It is a matter which is being looked into by the Committee on Procedure.
  Today it is not a question of debate, because everything that might be said about the Liberal amendment can be said in the debate on the other amendment. It is more a question of voting, and I have no power under Standing Orders to allow a vote after 10 o'clock on a second amendment. I felt it right to select the official Opposition amendment. I am afraid that that must remain the position until there is some decision altering Standing Orders to enable me on occasion—I would not dream of doing it always—to call another amendment for Division as well as for discussion.
  4.19 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The main purpose of this short Bill is to enable food subsidies to be continued into the year 1975–76. It still remains our intention eventually to run down the programme, but the timing of any running down of the food subsidy programme must be related closely to the introduction of appropriate social benefits. I have said

  637
  this on frequent occasions, most recently in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) on 11th November, when I said:
  "I have always made clear that in the long run our hope is that we might be able to phase out subsidies in the interests of other kinds of social expenditure."—[Official Report. 11th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 8.]
  The House knows that a number of proposals have been put forward by the Government in respect of increases in the value of pensions and other related social benefits, a new scheme of child and family benefits, and help for the aged. But for a number of reasons, some of them administrative, these social benefits cannot all be paid immediately, and therefore the Government feel that if they are to assist the less-well-off and the most vulnerable groups in the community it is appropriate to do so through the mechanism of food subsidies until such time as they can be assisted in other and more long-term ways. That remains the view of the Government.
  Subsidies are part of a wider policy which includes such matters as the control of rents, assistance given to domestic rates, the establishment and continuation of the Price Code and some tightening with regard to the three-month freeze and to reference profits. It is also part of the Government's intention that subsidies should be very much directed towards some redistribution of income and wealth in the community.
  I shall deal with all these points one after another and also with what has emerged as the repeated—indeed, parrotted—argument about food subsidies, that they are indiscriminate, do not help the poor, are expensive, and so on. Almost none of these criticisms stands up to careful investigation.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright rose—
  Mrs. Williams: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow himself to come in on that part of my speech because it would be better if first I put before the House the details of the Bill. I will come back to the point in which the hon. Gentleman is interested and will then give way.
  Broadly, we are at present subsidising six basic foods, two of which were subsi
  638
  dised by the Conservative Government in one form or another. These were milk and butter, on which the Conservative Government accepted the Community's FEOGA scheme, which I shall say more about later.
  We chose four additional products for subsidy—bread, cheese, flour and tea—both because of their importance to the budgets of low-income families and not least of pensioners, and because in every case the elasticity of demand is low—that is to say, a reduction in their price leads to a very small and, in some cases, almost infinitesimal change in demand. Indeed, it is fair to say that the National Food Survey has shown that the elasticity of milk demand is about one-tenth of 1 per cent. in respect of every 1 per cent. change in price, and that with butter the difference is about one-third of 1 per cent. for every 1 per cent. change in price.
  I will also come back to this point, because it goes a long way to show that the extreme comments and predictions that subsidies would cause shortages, made by the Opposition when the Prices Act was going through Parliament last spring, have not been borne out in practice. Before doing so, I should say something about expenditure on food subsidies.
  During the current financial year, expenditure on food subsidies will amount to £510 million. The reason why it is not the full annual figure is that some subsidies started after the beginning of the financial year. As I told the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) in reply to a Question this week, the cost will be £580 million in a full year to subsidise the six products at the present rate. However, I must make it clear to her that the actual expenditure in 1975–76, short of any changes in the rate of subsidy, will be £550 million or thereabouts, because there will be a reduction in the subsidy for milk, largely owing to an increase in the price of milk for manufacture.
  Therefore, in each case I make it clear that the subsidies I am talking about are on the basis of the present rate of subsidy continuing on the six products, and do not, of course, deal with any changes which may arise as a result of alteration in costs or decisions that the Government may make.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Could the right hon. Lady make it clear that the figure she has just quoted is with regard to maintaining the present levels of subsidy and not to subsidising at the same rate if inflation were to continue at the same rate in the coming year?
  Mrs. Williams: I thank the hon. Lady for that comment. I thought that it was what I was trying to say. But, fair enough. No one, as the hon. Lady appreciates, can predict what may happen with, for example, wheat prices, where almost everything will turn on the size of the harvest next summer.
  The effect of the subsidies has been to keep the food index down by just over six points and the retail price index down by about 1½ points. Perhaps it is more understandable to the public to say that the overall effect has been a reduction in the cost of the food shopping basket of 7p in the pound.
  But I think it is as important to point out that in the year January 1973 to January 1974 the food index rose by just over 20 per cent. at a time when no food was subsidised, whereas in the the past year the food index has risen at the rate of 16.3 per cent. Although I wish that the rise were lower, there has still been a helpful reduction in the increase in the food index, and a great many people appreciate what is being done to assist them.
  Mr. Dan Jones: The House would benefit tremendously if my right hon. Friend would tell us, on the question of food subsidies, of the relationship to other subsidies which have been paid by successive Governments, and try to compare the values.
  Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend has great prescience. I think he must have known what I was going to say in the next 10 minutes. I will gladly give way to him again when I reach that point.
  The Conservative Party has always been highly ambivalent on the subject of subsidies. In this respect, the Liberal Party has been more consistent. The Conservative Party, as recently as four months ago—it may wish that it were quickly forgotten and some of its Mem
  640
  bers wish that it had never been said—stated in its election manifesto:
  "With the urgent need to stabilise prices we accept that it will be necessary to retain these subsidies for the time being."
  I do not think that the electorate thought that the Conservative Party meant a period of only four months. I should imagine that the electorate expected that the period would be at least a year or so. But the switch in the Conservative Party's attitude, evident in the amendment, suggests that it never meant what it said in its manifesto.
  I shall show just how ambivalent the Conservative Party's attitude to subsidies has been. What has marked it throughout has been belief in some subsidies and not in others—above all, a belief in subsidies which benefit the better-off and not the less-well-off. One of the main attacks on the Prices Act and on subsidies was based on the argument that there would be major shortages in conquence. The then Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) said, on Third Reading of the Prices Act:
  "I believe there are signs that food subsidies are in danger of leading to shortages in shops. There is already said to be a shortage of liquid milk which will lead to a shortage of cheese."
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) said:
  "It is quite clear that it will cause some shortages."—[Official Report, 12th June 1974; Vol. 875, c. 1745 and 1757.]
  But the truth of the matter is—and I urge it upon those who are really interested in the matter and are not simply making a party point—that there has been almost no movement in the consumption of subsidised foods of the kind that the Opposition constantly feared.
  The average consumption of milk has gone up a little, from 4·67 pints a week in the third quarter of 1973 to 4·76 pints a week in the third quarter of 1974. That is a moderate movement, but one which I think we should welcome because of the high nutritional value of milk. The consumption of cheese has not moved at all, unless one regards as a movement a rise in average consumption from 3·84 ounces a week to 3·85 ounces. The only substantial movement has been from margarine to butter, and they are in direct

  641
  competition. But here again there has been substantial saving in the imports of raw materials for margarine to offset against imports of butter.
  The overall effect has been that no serious shortages have emerged. There was some tightness in the supply of liquid milk, but those interested in agriculture will be aware that this arose not from a change in the pattern of consumption of milk but from the fact that the farmers saved on expensive dairy concentrates and the yield from dairy herds fell. But there were no shortages. There were shortages of sugar and salt, and during the last election but one there were shortages of lavatory paper. All were in the private sector. None of these was subsidised, and all these shortages arose for a variety of strange reasons, including, as the House knows, in the case of salt the extraordinary rumour that there was a strike in the Siberian saltmines and that consequently salt would be short.
  It has been argued most recently in an article in New Society by a Reading university lecturer, Mr. Ritson, that the nutritional consequences of subsidies might be bad, but I must tell the author of that interesting article that he has not been able to study the most recent facts available to us. In the National Food Survey just published, which deals with the period to the third quarter of 1974, what has emerged most clearly is that families have been able to save on subsidised foods and have increased their expenditure on meat of all kinds, fresh vegetables, fish and those very items in the household budget that are most nutritious. The savings that have been made have been almost wholly in the field of convenience foods, and this is a favourable move towards which subsidies have contributed.
  I would like to say a little about some of the detailed provisions of the Bill but I would assure the House that before sitting down I intend to come back to two of the major arguments used against the subsidies: first, that they are indiscriminate and secondly, that they do not assist the less well-off—because I do not believe either argument stands up for a moment to any careful study of the facts. Let me first turn to some of the details of the Bill. In Clause 1 some changes are made, in my power to pay food subsidies
  642
  under Section 1 of the Prices Act 1974. I would draw the attention of the House to the main change, which is that Clause 1(1)(c) raises the financial limit on food subsidy expenditure from £700 million to £1,200 million. I mentioned earlier that the rate of expenditure subject to there being no change in rates in the current year is likely to be about £510 million this year and £550 million next year. I would like to make clear that there is no question of going beyond that unless we get from the House a further extension of powers.
  With regard to the question of a further increase in the financial limit, therefore, nothing further can be done before 1st April 1976, and that would require an order which would be subject to affirmative resolution of the House. With regard to the milk and butter subsidies, we have taken the opportunity, and I believe the House will think it sensible, to bring these in line with the overall subsidy requirements, and, therefore, the guarantee arrangements with regard to liquid milk and the arrangements for butter are both being extended at the same time. The milk subsidy has been extended to the Scottish islands. As the House will be aware, because of a technical defect in the Prices Act 1974 we have had to rest this on the authority of the Appropriation Act. I believe all sections of the House would consider it wrong not to make subsidies available to the remoter parts of Scotland, and, as we promised, we have now brought this within the specific legislative authority of the Prices Bill.
  Clause 2 extends and improves powers to provide for price regulation and the provision of displays. Under this we have made two changes which I believe will be welcomed by the House. We have agreed that, at present at least, we shall not use Clause 2 of the original Prices Act as long as the voluntary agreement is in being. That expires in March, and we shall be discussing with the trade what steps we shall take to succeed that voluntary agreement. I shall come back to discuss that with the House but I thought I ought to make clear that Clause 2 remains in suspense only while the voluntary agreement is operative and the clause will still be in force under the terms of this Bill.

  643
  With regard to price regulation orders, the House will welcome the fact that after full consideration we have agreed that the prices of the most widely-demanded product lines must be displayed in every shop, but that those of all other product lines, including the more rarely purchased lines, shall be available on request. My Ministry intends widely to publicise that fact. We accept the view of the trade and consumer organisations that probably that will be more effective in informing shoppers about those lines more widely bought in clear, well-illustrated and well-displayed fashion, and to make all other prices available to them on request.
  I also want to make clear that it will be made known, I hope, in individual shops as well as in other ways, that shoppers have a right to inquire as to the maximum prices of those other ranges. I would like to thank the food trade for the help it has given us in working out these display provisions. I recognise that it does not particularly like having to take on this extra burden, but I am grateful to it for assisting us to bring through these display orders, many of which are now going into operation.
  I would also like to thank a very large part of the trade, if not every large firm, for the way it has tried to maintain the voluntary agreement. Our most recent monitoring showed that items in the voluntary agreement had reached only half the level of those outside, and I pay tribute to the trade for carrying out what it promised.
  Finally, with regard to the duration of price regulation powers, the position is that the powers in Section 2 of the 1974 Act, which were due to expire on 31st March 1975, are now being extended and, therefore, subsection 1(1)(c) of the Bill repeals the restrictions of the 1974 Act with regard to the duration of price regulation. I have spoken on the display requirements and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with any questions rising on that point from the House later in the debate.
  There are only two other technical points that I want to bring before the House with regard to the Bill. The first concerns record-keeping. We are asking shopkeepers to keep records so as to
  644
  make the task of the enforcement officers easier. We shall be grateful to them for agreeing that records in this form should be kept. As for price consent, we have taken power to give that in very rare cases so as to exceed the figures in the Bill, but I can assure the House that that power will be used only in an instance, like the recent sudden increase in the price of sugar, where the position is one requiring very immediate action.
  I turn now to the main arguments that have been advanced against subsidies. I have dealt with one—that subsidies create shortages. I believe one can see that if items for subsidy are carefully chosen there is very little in that argument.
  I turn now to a second favourite argument advanced by both major Opposition parties, to the effect that subsidies affect rich and poor alike. There is one sense in which they do. They are universally available. We have never tried to argue otherwise. Those who argue that subsidies benefit rich and poor alike are simply totally leaving out of account the fact that subsidies are essentially based on a give-and-take scheme. They are financed out of taxation, largely out of direct income taxation, and this direct increase in taxation intended to finance subsidies was introduced at the same time as the subsidies programme itself; namely, in the last spring Budget.
  The increase in taxation fell far more heavily on those households having an income of over £60 a week. Indeed, something like four-fifths of the increase in direct taxation fell on this group. But the effect of subsidies goes right across the ranks and, therefore, there comes a point, which is at a stage a little below the average wage, where the net benefit of subsidies is overtaken by the net contribution to taxation.
  There is no additional contribution to taxation at all by lower-paid people but they get a disproportionate benefit from subsidies. Old-age pensioners on single pension and pensioner couple households benefit to the extent of about £13 a year, with a benefit of about £11 for individuals in all households. But, in addition, they do not contribute additional taxation towards that benefit.
  There is, however, another major redistributive factor within subsidies, that

  645
  the other major beneficiaries, as well as old-age pensioners, are families with many children. This is a very important point, and I would ask the House to consider very carefully the argument that I am going to put, because it is one that has persistently been misunderstood. It is an argument with which Mr. Ritson deals effectively in an article in New Society.
  The House knows—or ought to know—that the poorest households in Britain—those with incomes of less than £23 a week, to take a family expenditure survey definition—are largely one- and two-person households. I repeat that we are talking about households and not about individuals. The poorest household is one with only one or two people in it. Above all, the poorest households are those with no wage earners at all—the pensioner living on his or her own, the pensioner couple, or the widow or deserted wife with a child who is not able to go out to work. Those, as we know, are the poorest households.
  But there is another group of households which, though they are given in the statistics as middle income households—by which I mean people who rejoice in a massive income of between £23 and £40 a week—are, in practice, poor. These are families which, while they may have an income of between £23 and £40 a week, have several children. A relatively limited income has to cater for all dependent mouths, yet in the family expenditure survey statistics they count as middle income households. If they were taken on a per capita basis, they would be poor households.
  One of the effects of subsidies is to redistribute wealth from the one-person or two-person households, unless they are in the poorest group—the pensioner group—to the family. A household with two working people both paying tax but having no children will gain much less from subsidies and pay much more in tax than a family with one breadwinner and three or four children, because each of these children will eat food and will benefit from the £11 a year subsidies on food, and yet the breadwinner will pay less tax because he has three or four children. Quite simply, a four-child family in which the husband is working will benefit to the extent of £66 a year from subsidies and will pay very little
  646
  extra in tax—indeed, none in direct taxation if he is within this £23 to £40 band. In short, he is gaining a substantial net sum from subsidies.
  I apologise to the House for dealing with this in detail, but it is consistently missed in the statistics. The reason is that the statistics are for households, and when they are used, as they often are—by Opposition spokesmen it ought in all fairness to be made clear that they distort the position because they talk not about people—and it is people who count—but about households, where the comparison cannot be exact unless one mentions the number of people in a family.
  In his article in New Society Mr. Ritson explains this as follows:
  "The explanation for this is quite straightforward"—
  he is talking about statistics which show what proportion of subsidies go to poor households—
  "Although pensioner households do not pay very much income tax, they consist in the main of one or two person households and therefore receive a proportionately smaller amount of subsidies than the three or four person households which make up the bulk of the middle income groups."
  Pensioners do better than any other group in the community, and I am referring to pensioners living on the State pension or on supplementary benefits.
  But there is another question which the Opposition are reluctant to answer. What alternative ways can they produce to protect the more vulnerable groups in our society—pensioners and poor families—from inflation? I quote what they constantly urge. They say that the benefits should be what they call discriminatory, by which they mean means-tested. Again and again the House has had evidence of how low is the take up of means-tested benefits. The Conservative administration brought in the means-tested butter subsidy—the social butter scheme. The take-up as we know, even after considerable advertising, was about two-thirds, and many of my hon. Friends will know that the scheme was resented because it named the poor. That is why we refuse to limit the social beef scheme to supplementary benefit pensioners and insist that it must go to all pensioners alike.
  But there is another instance, and it is one that it is fair to mention to the House.

  647
  It is the instance of the United States food coupon scheme which was introduced to ensure an adequate diet for the needy—I use the term used by the Federal Government. It costs $4 billion in the present financial year, and is therefore broadly comparable to our own food subsidies scheme.
  According to a survey by the Food Action Centre of New York—and as far as I know this has not been challenged by the Federal Government—out of 37 million people who are eligible, only 15 million, or rather less than 40 per cent., take advantage of the scheme. It is criticised for stigmatising the poor, the elderly, the unemployed and the black. It is much closer to what the Opposition would like to see in this country than the food subsidy scheme brought in by the present Government.
  Mr. James Dempsey: My right hon. Friend made an interesting statement. She said that two-thirds of those eligible are taking advantage of the butter scheme. What I did not hear her say was what proportion of those eligible take advantage of the beef scheme. I should like that information, because I want to discover whether having to pay 20p to obtain the benefit of the coupon is having a deterrent effect by making old people decide not to take advantage of the scheme.
  Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is too early to have adequate figures for the beef scheme, but we shall give them to him as soon as we are able to do so. The response from pensioners' organisations leads us to believe that because the scheme covers all pensioners it is much more acceptable than the butter scheme, which distinguished between supplementary benefit pensioners and other retired people.
  I now turn to the other example of means-tested benefit brought in by the Conservative administration. I am referring to the private rent allowance under the Housing Finance Act 1972 for unfurnished tenants, which was extended to furnished tenants in 1973. The House will know that unfurnished tenants are among the poorest people in the community and are far poorer than either owner-occupiers or the average council house tenant. However, of the 600,000 people eligible for
  648
  private unfurnished rent allowances, so far only 130,000 have claimed the allowance. That comes to a take-up of between 20 and 25 per cent.
  There is, in practice, no way round the argument that virtually any form of means-tested benefit—a discriminating subsidy, if one likes to call it that—does not go to many of those whom it is intended to reach and is much resented by those whom it is intended to help.
  There is one final argument about it, and it is the most final argument of all. Every means-tested benefit deepens the poverty trap. It makes it more and more unproductive for a man or woman to earn more, to get a better job, to do overtime or in any other way to improve his or her circumstances. In recent years, means-tested benefits have dug the poverty trap so deep that many people in the £25 to £40 band find they lose more in means-tested benefits than they gain if they increase their income by even £1.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: The right hon. Lady began with a catalogue of possible alternative social security benefits for the future. Will she say something about the possibility of legislating for statutory minimum weekly earnings?
  Mrs. Williams: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman and his party take an interest in that subject. He will appreciate that it is a matter that comes within the sphere of another Minister. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pursue it with the Minister concerned.
  The third argument—it is the one that is most frequently used by the Opposition—is that subsidies are indiscriminate. I am bound to say that it does not lie in the mouth of the Conservative Party to talk about indiscriminate subsidies. The last Conservative Government introduced a massive programme of subsidies for nationalised industry products. When we came to office those subsidies were running at £800 million a year and were due to rise to £1,200 million a year for the current year. But—and this is not a point that has been made to the House before—the truth is that when they introduced those subsidies and allowed them to rise to figures twice that of the food subsidy programme they made no attempt to ensure that they benefited the less well off.

  649
  We have carried out a study of the effect of subsidies on the domestic prices of nationalised industry products over the period of the last Conservative administration. It has been a study of the effect of subsidies on only domestic supplies—for example, domestic coal, domestic electricity and domestic gas. If we included industry the figure would be much more telling. The effect of the subsidies was to redistribute two to one in favour of higher income groups. I am referring to the subsidies to electricity, gas, transport and the Post Office. In no case was any effort made of the kind that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is now making to alter price structures so as to benefit the small and the poor consumer.
  The subsidies of the last Conservative Government benefited the better off, the over £60 households, to the extent of two times over the benefit derived by the less-well-off households. What an astonishing course of redistribution through subsidy. If ever there was an indiscriminate subsidy, it was the sort of subsidy introduced by the last Conservative administration.
  More than that, it may be within the recollection of the House that during the last election the Conservative Party, in the person of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), came forward with another indiscriminate subsidy namely, the proposal to spend £180 million in pegging owner-occupied mortgage rates at 9½ per cent. while withdrawing the subsidy from council house tenants. I quote the right hon. Lady's own phrase:
  "To reduce the mortgage rate from 11 per cent. to 9½ per cent. would cost over £180 million per annum. This is the sum that must be set against the funds now going to municipalisation and the new large annual subsidies for new council houses to rent."
  In short, the right hon. Lady was not attacking subsidies. She was certainly not attacking indiscriminate subsidies. She was merely suggesting that a subsidy for the middle income groups would be a good idea instead of a subsidy for the less well off.
  As I have already pointed out, we have succeeded to some extent in mitigating the effect of the rise of the food index through food subsidies as against the position in 1973. I wish that we
  650
  had been able to do much more, but at least we have done something. Above all, we have done something in respect of pensions. The pensioner index—that is the index of goods bought by pensioners and weighted for their budgets—has risen by 13 per cent. That is only two-thirds of the overall rise in prices. That, too, was what we intended by our programme of subsidy and rent control.
  I now quote from the low pay unit study that was undertaken by the Child Poverty Action Group. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may have seen the study. It says:
  "The cost of living of the poorest 5 per cent. has risen considerably faster than the average … while that of the richest 5 per cent. has risen somewhat slower."
  It is referring to the period from 1970 to the present time. It continues:
  "This has been an accelerating trend. Our estimates suggest that the gap between the richest and the poorest in terms of cost of living increases widened to nearly 3½ per cent. since 1970 while the gap which opened in the period between 1964–1970"—
  that was the period of the last Labour Government—
  was only just over 1½ per cent."
  That indicates that the gap widened more than twice as fast. The study then reads:
  "During most of 1974, however, the gap began to close again and this may be attributed to the maintenance of food subsidies and rent controls. Since last January"—
  that is January 1974—
  "the prices of food and housing have risen somewhat slower than those of non-essential goods with the result that, despite the unabated acceleration of fuel bills, the advantage is being pushed back towards lower income groups."
  I am authorised today to quote the Child Poverty Action Group. It has said to me that it has changed its attitude to food subsidies because of the findings of the study that it carried out. It earlier took the view that the money spent on food subsidies was not an effective way of helping the poorer groups in our society. The CPAG now believes that the subsidies have a valuable rôle until such time as an adequate system of family support for low income groups can be introduced. I say "amen" to that.
  I commend the Bill to the House on the following grounds. First, it discriminates, Secondly, it assists the poor. Third, and

  651
  above all, it is an effective way of trying to mitigate the effects of inflation upon those whom the House, and above all, my party is committed to assist—namely, the most vulnerable, the poorest, the oldest and the weakest in our society.
  4.46 p.m.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  this House, believing that indiscriminate food subsidies have proved an extravagant way of helping those in need, are liable to create distortions and shortages, and conceal rather than deal with inflation, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails sufficiently to secure their progressive reduction.
  We are today talking about an important Bill. This is, therefore, an important debate. We are talking about the possibility of spending an additional £1,000 million of public money. In effect, £500 million will be spent over the coming year and £500 million more from April 1975. This allows for the continuance of subsidies at at least their present level in money terms.
  We have today the White Paper on public expenditure. We have not had the advantage that the Government have had of having time to peruse it. However, it is clear that in money terms the present rate of expenditure will be maintained. As subsidies are not fixed to a particular' year, it is difficult to say exactly how much can be spent in a year, but the Bill would allow up to about £120 million extra over the coming year assuming that the present rate of spending of some £580 million is maintained.
  For the year from April 1976 there will be £500 million plus whatever is left over, which at the present rate of subsidy will again be about £120 million. In theory the subsidy could go up in money terms by some £40 million in 1976–77. I recognise that in real terms it may be less. It is difficult to argue the matter in full at this point. I am saying that there is nothing in the Bill which indicates that over the next two years a serious attempt will be made on the part of the Government to cut the rate of food subsidies.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman
  652
  tell us the level of expenditure on indiscriminate nationalised industry subsidies in the last full year of the Conservative Government and what it would have increased by in the next financial year?
  Mr. Raison: That is an irrelevant remark. The Secretary of State has said in the House today that she does not want subsidies to be a permanent part of the scene. She said on 11th November:
  "I have always made it clear that in the long run our hope is that we might be able to phase out subsidies in the interests of other kinds of social expenditure."—[Official Report, 11th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 8.]
  Last night the House gave some hints about other kinds of social expenditure, and the right hon. Lady has confirmed today what she said earlier. We share those views, but we go further. We believe that now is the time to start the process of phasing out or, as the amendment puts it, "secure their progressive reduction." We have tabled a reasoned amendment, and I propose to try to argue a reasoned case.
  It is a case which I suspect the Secretary of State to a great extent accepts. There was a very odd feature about her speech today. She spent a great deal of time arguing the merits of subsidies and yet she still affirms her desire to get rid of them. The more she went on arguing the merits of subsidies the more I wondered why she has affirmed her desire to get rid of them. We believe that they should disappear gradually over the course of the next few months.
  During the course of her speech the Secretary of State, not surprisingly, referred to the position of the Conservative Party. It is true that we did not vote against the last Prices Act, and it is true that we said in our manifesto in October that it would be necessary to retain these subsidies "for the time being". The Secretary of State kindly gave a gloss on that when she said that we were thinking in terms of a year or so. I should add that we stressed the ineffectiveness of subsidies as a means of concentrating help on the poor. I will confirm that we do not wish to see them removed overnight and that a year or so is a reasonable assessment.
  We take this view for several reasons. First, the House will remember that last

  653
  April, when the Prices Bill was introduced, the newly elected Government had come in with a particular policy. They did not get much support from the electorate but it was enough to come into power. They had a policy to deal with prices. We felt that in the immediate wake of the election it would be wrong to go all-out to defeat the Government. I do not think that was discreditable on our part. We made it clear how dubious we were about the merits of the policy but at least we gave the Government a chance to try it out.
  Secondly, and this is most important, the economic picture was different from the picture today. We were in a period when our great concern was with the rate of price increases. Goodness knows, we are still concerned about that today, but what has happened since then has been that the rate of wage increases has overtaken the rate of price increases. There is a quite different situation.
  Thirdly, by the time of the autumn election we had got into the position which had always been prophesied by opponents of subsidies. Opponents have always said that subsidies are hard to get out of because expectations are aroused and it is difficult to dash them overnight. This has always been—and we can go back to the 1950s for this argument—one of the strongest objections to the use of food subsidies.
  We believe that the time has come for a planned rundown. There are several reasons for this. The first is that the theoretical objections to them, which have been held for a long time—their wastefulness, their liability to distort, the increase in bureaucracy they entail, are being borne out in practice. Secondly, we have a different situation from that of last summer. In particular, we have had the dramatic shock of the Chancellor's autumn Budget, when he revealed this enormous, soaring increase in the public borrowing requirement, from £3,000 million or so to well over £6,000 million. That is a factor of crucial importance.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that those borrowing powers, which were extravagantly large, were due mainly to the rise in the price of oil?
  Mr. Raison: No. There were a lot of factors which came into the story. Whatever the reason for the need to borrow money, the fact remains that the Government have embarked on a policy which needlessly adds to that borrowing requirement.
  Thirdly, incomes have outstripped prices. It is true that many people today, because of the rate of increase in their real earnings, do not need subsidies to maintain their standard of living. This does not apply to all people, because, as the House is aware, it is an important part of our case that there are better ways of helping the community than those proposed by the Secretary of State.
  I can further argue that subsidies may help to conceal from people the fact that the Government are shirking part of what is absolutely necessary if we are to beat inflation; namely, the attempt to match living standards to real wealth. There is one particular danger about subsidies at this time, of which we saw a hint in the latest bread subsidy. It is that subsidies might be used directly to pay for wage increases.
  It would be absolutely disastrous if that were to happen. I know that the Secretary of State, in announcing the latest bread subsidy, made the point that it is to be only an interim subsidy. At the least we are entitled to ask the Minister of State, when he replies, to explain just what is meant by an interim subsidy. How long is it expected to last? We are entitled to an absolute confirmation that it is not the Government's policy to use a subsidy to pay for wage increases.
  Perhaps we should be grateful that so far nothing has been done to meet another commitment of the Labour Party which was derived from the TUC-Labour Party document on which the social contract is based, "Economic Policy and the Cost of Living", which said that special measures would be taken to deal with increases in the prices of, among other things, sugar and potatoes. We do not seem to have seen many signs of those special measures. I am not grumbling about that. I would like to know, how-over, what is the position about that statement.

  655
  Let me go through, in a little more detail, some of the arguments for a planned programme of reduction of subsidy. First—and this is inescapable in spite of what the right hon. Lady has said—subsidies do not help those who are most in need of help. It is now agreed that they do not go more particularly to those who are in need than to the population as a whole. I do not think that the House was impressed by the torrent of argument we had from the Secretary of State on this subject this afternoon.
  Perhaps I can take up the Secretary of State about the way in which she referred to an article by Christopher Ritson in New Society of 23rd January. She seemed give a misleading impression of what he was saying, not that just one middle-income group, to which she referred, was benefiting from subsidies, but also the middle-income group above the one to which she referred; namely the £41 to £70 a week group. The right hon. Lady might have said that. The position was made clear by the Under-Secretary in his answer to a Written Question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on 19th November, when the hon. Gentleman said:
  "The estimated cost of food subsidies in the current financial year is £500 million. On the basis of patterns of consumption recorded in the 1973 Family Expenditure Survey—the latest available—it is estimated that about 33 per cent of this expenditure will be received by households with an income of less than £40 per week, which contains about 32 per cent of the population. About 52 per cent. of the expenditure will be received by households with an income above £50 per week, containing about 52 per cent. of the population."—[Official Report, 19th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 403.]
  I am not denying that there is something in what the Secretary of State said about the distinction between households and individuals. I accept that that is a valid part of the argument. But if we look at those figures there can be no doubt that it is still true that a great deal of help is going to families, households, individuals—whatever they are called—who, frankly, are not in need.
  The Secretary of State has argued on several occasions that food subsidies are redistributive because they come out of direct taxation. On 16th December she said:
  656
  "The changes in direct taxation introduced by the present Government are ensuring that the cost of food subsidies programme is borne by households with incomes of over £50 per week.… The additional taxation on those earning more than £60 a week is greater than the benefit from subsidy."—[Official Report, 16th December 1974; Vol. 883, c. 1095.]
  The right hon. Lady reiterated this kind of argument today. She was being a little less than her usual scrupulous self. In his Budget speech last March the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated quite explicitly that subsidies would be paid for by wide-ranging increases in indirect taxation. He said:
  "I deal first with indirect taxation. Here my aim is to help pay the cost of reducing the price of the more essential goods by increasing the tax on the less essential."
  The Chancellor then illustrated the changes in indirect taxation that would be necessary for this purpose. He announced his intention to extend VAT to soft drinks, confectionery, potato crisps and ice-cream, to apply the standard rate of VAT to petrol and other road fuels, and to impose increased duties on spirits, beer, wine, tobacco and off-course betting.
  Summing up the proposals, the Chancellor said:
  "The total yield in a full year from all the changes in indirect taxation I estimate at £680 million.… This goes a long way to cover the demand effects of the increases in food subsidies and represents a shift of price from essential to less essential goods which I hope the House will approve."—[Official Report, 26th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 308–11.]
  Since the election the Chancellor has confirmed that food subsidies are paid for by indirect taxation. On the Thames Television programme "People and Politics" on 26th September he said:
  "I had to increase in my opinion, excise duties … in order to find the money to subsidise basic food stuffs."
  These higher indirect taxes do not fall exclusively on the rich. As the Chancellor said in his March Budget speech:
  "the proposals I have already announced in the field of indirect taxation will bear on people at all income levels."—[Official Report, 26th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 321.]
  I accept that in the July Budget the VAT was cut, but the extent of the cut was only £140 million in the current year. It is not worthy of the Secretary of State to argue that the money is all coming out of direct taxation when we have such conclusive evidence from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was

  657
  thinking in terms of raising the money through indirect taxation.
  If my hon. Friends the Members for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) were here—I am sad that they are engaged on the Finance Bill—I have no doubt that one or other, or probably both, would rise at this point to make a statement which commands a great deal of truth, to the effect that the subsidies are financed out of neither direct nor indirect taxation but out of the public borrowing requirement. We cannot get away from that.
  In Questions to the Chancellor this afternoon we heard a lot about the public borrowing requirement. Whenever the Opposition suggest an increase in spending—as we did last night, with the help of some worthy hon. Gentlemen on the Government side—the Government say that the public borrowing requirement will have to be increased. Why does not the same argument apply to food subsidies?
  The Government seem to be taking a different line on nationalised industry price subsidies. As the Chancellor in his November Budget speech said on nationalised industry subsides in compensation for price restraint:
  "I have set it as my objective to phase out these subsidies completely as fast as possible."—[Official Report, 12th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 268.]
  Why, we ask, is the same principle not being applied to food subsidies? Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that much more concern is expressed to them by old people and poor people in their constituencies when the coal and electricity bills shoot up than when the food bill shoots up.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: As I introduced the nationalised industries argument earlier, will the hon. Gentleman have the courtesy, as I did, to acknowledge that it is relevant?
  Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman wants me to talk about the Conservative Government's policy on nationalised industry prices. We were engaged, as are the Labour Government, in a desperate attempt to try to contain inflation. It is arguable whether the policy we adopted did not go too far. I am not concerned to defend it. These are difficult matters. What we are talking about now is the right thing to do in face of the present
  658
  economic situation. I believe that the right thing to do is to run down food subsidies over the next year or so.
  For the sake of argument, let us suppose that we can afford this next £1,000 million—or at least this extra £500 million which the Government propose to add immediately to the bill. Does anyone seriously suppose that there are not many better ways of using it than on the political battle of trying to keep the index of retail prices down by 1½ per cent.? The House last night gave a strong indication of one way in which it would rather see that money used. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a great song and dance about where the money would come from. We can tell him quite simply this afternoon. The food subsidy bill would be one way of finding it. We all have our own ideas, and I shall not go through a list of the different ways in which the money would be better spent to help the people in need.
  Mr. Dan Jones: I wish the hon. Gentleman would.
  Mr. Raison: I can give one or two. I represent a constituency in Bucking-hampshire which is acutely hard pressed by the cost of the education service we provide and is faced with the prospect of the rates soaring again this year by about 40 per cent. I am interested in education and believe that one way in which the money would be better spent is by helping out the school programme. That is my personal view, but I am interested in several other subjects—for example, the state of the social services and the hospital service. Can anybody deny that there is a desperate need for more money there, and that the money would be better used in that way rather than in this profligate form of public expenditure which we are discussing? I do the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) the credit of thinking that he knows in his heart that my argument is right. If the money is available—and that is questionable—it could be spent to far greater effect.
  I come to my argument that subsidies tend to distort. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  "If we are to correct the large structural distortions which have affected our economy over recent years, with too much going into consumption and too little into investment and exports, it is inevitable that from time to time steps should be taken which will raise

  659
  consumer prices."—[Official Report, 12th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 279.]
  The Chancellor was right. We believe that that must apply to food subsidies.
  There is a distortion of demand, and it is particularly evident on the dairy side. It is clear that the milk subsidy has stimulated demand and that this in turn has led to a shortage of British dairy products, especially cheese. We have had to import more cheese and more butter, and over the Christmas period we had to do something which is very unusual—import cream. In the Financial Times of 24th January there is an estimate by the dairy industry that the consumer subsidy on milk will mean that an extra 50 million gallons will be drunk, leaving 50 million gallons less for dairy products.
  As the Financial Times also argued on 24th January, there are beginning to be signs that the subsidy may help to stimulate the demand for tea. After a period of decline, the demand for tea has been picking up, and there is a fear that if demand is stimulated it will help to put up the price at which we have to buy the commodity from abroad.
  Let me fill in the picture of the distorting effects of subsidies more fully and take another example—bread. The consumption of bread in the first nine months of 1974 compared with the same period in 1973 showed an increase of 1·8 per cent. according to the National Food Survey. That is a significant increase, particularly as the consumption of bread had been declining. There was a drop of more than 12 per cent. between 1968 and 1973 in the demand for the large white sliced loaf, which, mysteriously to me, is the most popular with the public as a whole. There was an increase in the first nine months of 1974 of 11 per cent. It is quite clear that food subsidies are having an effect on demand, and if that is carried far enough it can eventually lead to shortages.
  To go back to the dairy position, one big food retailer's estimate, confirmed by independent research, of the increase in the national consumption of butter over recent months is 14 per cent. The National Food Survey showed that in the third quarter of 1974 the increase was 7 per cent. For margarine the National Food Survey shows a 10 per cent. decline in the third quarter, while
  660
  current estimates indicate a decline of over 20 per cent. Some may say that the swing between margarine and butter does no harm, but it means that the cheaper product which has been relied on by many poor people is proportionately less cheap. There is no subsidy on margarine.
  More importantly, there has been a substantial increase in butter imports. The import of butter in October 1973 was 18·2 thousand tons; in October 1974 37·2 thousand tons; in November 1973 19·9 thousand tons; in November 1974 32·2 thousand tons. There has been a dramatic increase in the amount of butter that we have had to bring in from abroad. The production of home-produced butter has declined substantially.
  In addition to these distortions there is—as it has always been known there would be—endless bureaucracy and endless paper work, though perhaps I should add with some degree of gratitude our pleasure at the fact that the campaign led by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) to get rid of many of the absurd maximum price notices has met with some success.
  I was disappointed to hear from the Secretary of State this afternoon that the campaign has met with less success than we had hoped and that maximum prices are still to be applied to some products. If the Bill gets into Committee it is a point which we are likely to pursue. We have had some success, and perhaps that says something for the efficacy of parliamentary Prayer. I suggest that the right hon. Lady drops the cheese order which awaits discussion and against which we have also prayed. I am sure that her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would be grateful if she took that step.
  The logical case against continuing the food subsidies at their present level is formidable. However, we must look at the matter not only from the 'standpoint of logic but as a matter of politics. We believe that, by fudging the issue and adding to public spending, subsidies help to create an illusion that things are not as bad as they really are. That illusion was carefully fostered in the pre-election days by the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, inevitably, by the Prime Minister. At times we detect a little more honesty on the part of the Government in the post-election world.

  661
  On the other hand, the Government's overall policy for prices and incomes still rests on one grand illusion—namely, that of the social contract. The reason why we have the present Bill before us is very much more to do with the social contract than with anything else. A voluntary incomes policy, in my view, would be far more likely to succeed if it proceeded through honesty rather than through bluff. It would be far more likely to succeed if all sides of industry, the consumers, and even Parliament were allowed to have some say in the social contract rather than that this should be arrived at via a private deal between the Labour Party and the trade union movement. An honest policy would answer the question: "Why spend another £1,000 million on reducing the cost of living for people who, in many cases, are receiving increased incomes in real terms when the country cannot afford it." Why not use such money to meet real needs?
  We shall press our amendment to a Division, and in Committee—if the Bill gets a Second Reading—we shall put forward our ideas about how subsidies can be progressively phased out.
  We accept—as we always have done—that it is not possible to wipe the whole lot out with one blow, but we want to aim at this happening over the next year or so. We are strongly opposed to the clause which says that the level could be raised by order rather than by an Act of Parliament from £1,200 million to £1,700 million from 1st April next year.
  By supporting this reasoned amendment, the House has a chance to restore some sanity to one area of our beleaguered economy.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. Dan Jones: It must be agreed immediately that no responsible man or woman, and certainly no Member of this House, would want subsidies as of choice. Personally, I would dearly like to see an end of these subsidies. But, at the same time, for Conservative Members to talk about subsidies as though they were some kind of economic innovation imposed by a Government just for the hell of it is too pathetic for words. I hope in my remarks to show quite clearly how the Conservative Party and its leaders have made subsidies an absolute necessity—and, say what we may
  662
  about them, subsidies will go on for some years to come.
  Having said that in opening I believe it is incumbent upon me to offer substantial evidence to prove that point—and I think that I can prove it. It is always characteristic of members of the Conservative Party that whenever they mention food subsidies and the necessity for reducing them, they talk as though the cause of our difficulties lies always with one section of society and in the wage increases paid to people who work in industry. That argument is trotted out regularly by Conservatives. On that controversial issue there is nobody on the Conservative benches who has done as much as I have to restrain wages in industry—[Interruption.] Conservatives may laugh, but they have not the moral courage to go out on the factory floor and talk as they do in this House.
  When the document "In Place of Strife" was brought out in 1968, I was in the forefront of the arguments that continued until late in 1969—and I am sponsored in this House by a trade union. If that is not an example of moral courage, I do not know what is. How many Conservatives, on an issue as acutely vexatious as this one, have taken similar action? I do not want to pursue that matter, but simply say that I went through hell in my constituency and with my own trade union. I believe that there must be this form of restraint, and that it is inevitable, but at the same time I believe that it is only one part of the contribution and not necessarily the most important part.
  The surprising allegation has been made by Conservative spokesmen—they include the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—that the social contract is an agreement between the trade unions and the Government.
  Mr. Raison indicated assent.
  Mr. Jones: I notice the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. I do not know whether he wants a lesson in reading to get the facts straight, but all responsible newspapers, including possibly the most responsible of all, The Times, have made copious references to the various discussions which have taken place on this topic—and even within the last fortnight

  663
  the CBI, the TUC and the Prime Minister have had a long session at No. 10.
  Mr. Raison: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it a tiny bit odd that if one wants to read the social contract, one does not go to the Vote Office and ask for the publication but writes to Transport House to ask for a copy?
  Mr. Jones: That is where the hon. Gentleman's lack of imagination shows—[Interruption.] Conservatives seem to think that that is a source of merriment. Of what value is any contract if exclusively organised by the CBI? The most important part affects the TUC. That may be a matter of opinion, but it is the view I take. Any agreement with industry which does not include the trade unions is valueless. One has to deal first with the people principally involved. Surely I do not need to persuade the Opposition who are the people mainly involved in the social contract. That is my contention, and I say it quite definitely.
  I should like to draw attention to one observation made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in introducing the Bill. Did she not say that the cost of living in the period up to this year would have tended to decrease had it not been for the tremendous increases in fuel costs? I think that she did. If I am wrong, I shall give way to my right hon. Friend. I definitely understood her to say that. I want to come to the question of fuel later. I should like to think that my facts are reasonably accurate, so I shall repeat that had it not been for excessive increases in the cost of fuel the cost of living factor would have tended to stabilise or even to show a slight decrease.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I was quoting from the low-pay study by the Child Poverty Action Group, which stated that even with the increase in fuel bills, food subsidies and the rent freeze had brought down the relative cost of living for the low-paid. Obviously it would have gone even further down if fuel costs had not been increased.
  Mr. Jones: That is the point. I do not think that we want to go into minute details.
  On fuel costs, I should like to draw the attention of the House to an article in The Times of 28th January. I want to
  664
  engage the attention of the Opposition Front Bench who are now engaged in a private sub-committee meeting. After all, we listened to them and they are expected to listen to us.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the Chair. I am listening patiently all the time.
  Mr. Jones: It may be that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not need to be convinced, but they do.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair does not need to be convinced of anything. It is impartial in listening to both sides as they deliver their addresses.
  Mr. Jones: Certainly. If I have in any way offended you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not in any way implying that the hon. Member has offended me. I am simply pointing out that if he addresses me he will not notice the Opposition Front Bench and will get on with his speech.
  Mr. Jones: All right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will proceed.
  I had reached the point—I should at least like the Opposition Front Bench to listen—where I was about to refer to a statement regarding fuel oil. In The Times of 28th January there is one of the most remarkable statements relative to the cost of living that I have had the displeasure of reading in many years. It is written by Sir John Foster, whom I remember over many years in this House as an estimable parliamentarian. He has written to The Times supporting the nomination of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) for the position of Leader of the Opposition in the ballot which is to take place. I shall not be greatly daring by interfering in any way with the election that is about to take place. Indeed, I hope that the best man wins, even if the best man happens to be a woman. However, I think that the Opposition must take seriously—I do, at any rate—the observations made by Sir John Foster. As this will be a lengthy quotation, I shall resume my seat

  665
  immediately I have made it. Sir John Foster writes:
  "I hope also that when he is elected"—
  he is recommending the right hon. Gentleman for—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this lengthy quotation from Sir John Foster dealing exclusively with the election of the Leader of the Opposition?
  Mr. Jones: No, it is not.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope not, because it would be strictly out of order.
  Mr. Jones: With respect, I think that this letter deals exclusively with fuel and fuel costs. I have already intimated to the Chair that I believe that fuel costs are instrumental in the increase in the cost of living that we are now enduring.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is quite in order.
  Mr. Jones: I think that I have made that point, so, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall proceed.
  Sir John Foster says:
  "I hope also that when he is elected his supporters will warn him that he only has their support for a year if he does certain things. The first and most important being that he must listen—not necessarily take other people's advice, but listen and consider it, make inquiries, ask comparative opinions. I quote here from a memorandum"—
  Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, on the Second Reading of the Prices Bill, to quote from a letter by Sir John Foster about the forthcoming election for the leadership of the Tory Party?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman would know, if he were present, that I raised the question whether what we were about to hear was in order. This is merely the preamble to the question of the effect of fuel prices on the cost of living. I dare say that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) will come to it in due course.
  Mr. Jones: You may rest assured of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that before seeking to quote this letter I took constitutional advice in this Chamber on whether it was
  666
  in order. I am assured that such is the case. If hon. Gentlemen opposite attach the importance to this debate that it deserves they might at any rate listen to what this esteemed parliamentarian has to say about fuel prices. I think that should be done, so I will continue.
  "I quote here from a memorandum I wrote on oil prices in December 1971. Notice the date. Two years before the crisis in oil pricing broke out I pointed out that the OPEC countries would raise the price of oil against us.
  I made a Kissinger-like suggestion, long before Kissinger, that the consuming governments should band together in a united front to stand up to the oil producers while the oil companies took a position behind the western governments.
  The third point I made was that Her Majesty's Government should spend lavishly in searching for new sources of oil and further productive sources of fuel.
  Here are the relevant extracts of the memorandum I sent to Mr. Heath, copy to the Think Tank, in December 1971.
  'Inevitably the OPEC countries will raise the price of oil consumed by the Western world. At the moment, even with the temporary glut of oil and the tremendous fall in tanker rates, the consuming countries are inordinately dependent on OPEC sources and especially on the Middle East, including Iran. In my view the oil companies are too weak to stand up to the producing countries, who are the real negotiating parties. In any case the extra price is passed on to the consumer and the oil companies have no overriding interest to stop the escalation. It is therefore necessary, I think, to put the governments in the front rank.
  'There should be an intimate relationship between consuming governments to constitute a united front to the OPEC countries. The western governments have more cards to play than the oil companies—alliances, armament deliveries, protection against enemies, etc. The impression given by those oilmen who do not negotiate with OPEC is that the oil negotiators do not have the stature, the will or the means to stand up to the pressure of the OPEC countries.
  'In my opinion the western governments should be in the front line—certainly in the case of their opponents the governments are the prime movers. If the governments do come to the front in the oil negotiations care must be taken that the oil situation should primarily be taken into account in co-ordinating Her Majesty's Government's policy.
  'In negotiations the interest of the United Kingdom in preserving our oil supplies must be paramount and subordinated to political advantage, especially if this political advantage turns out to be nugatory. The other conclusion to be drawn from the OPEC threat is that Her Majesty's Government should incur lavish expenditure in finding alternative sources of supply and alternative sources of energy.'"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member will agree that we have listened patiently. He has made the point about the effect of the increased cost of fuel. He is now going on to deal with the question of fuel. This is a debate on food subsidies, not on fuel. I regret to say that nine-tenths of what he has said has been out of order.
  Mr. Jones: If you rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of course that is the end of the matter, but I began by saying, and I persist in saying now, that the food subsidies are related to the cost of living—and who can deny that oil has a substantial effect on the cost of living?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is absolutely in order.
  Mr. Jones: Then I shall proceed for a minute or two longer. I take this subject very seriously, and when I make my speech I do not give a damn what the reaction is. I wish that Conservative Members would devote similar attention to it. The quotation goes on:
  "'The other conclusion to be drawn from the OPEC threat is that Her Majesty's Government should incur lavish expenditure in finding alternative sources of supply and alternative sources of energy. This is a technical field of which I have no knowledge—whether coal, solar energy, nuclear energy should be encouraged. It would seem common sense to offer the most generous terms to encourage North Sea exploration and production and also on United Kingdom land. It may be that Shell and BP would welcome Government money for exploration elsewhere.'
  I was sent a message that my memorandum was unfounded. I did not ask Mr. Heath to believe me but to check with the Foreign Office, intelligence sources, Arabists, the oil companies, etc., when he would have found out that the situation already then in 1971 was very serious indeed."
  Whether the Chair agrees with me is a matter for the Chair, but I am convinced, when our friends talk so glibly about subsidies for food being closely allied to the cost of living, that, whatever we do, while oi' prices are soaring we shall be faced with food subsidies.
  This is a message not only for the Leader of the Opposition, who neglected it. If he had acted on that message, he might have prevented the astronomical increase in oil prices, with the result that the cost of living would have been far lower and the need for subsidies equally
  668
  lower—[Interruption.] Do the Opposition think that there is something to laugh at in that? I believe that even now there is a message in that statement for the present Prime Minister.
  My own humble recommendation is that at this moment we should be taking Kissinger's advice, that there should be a stand against the Arab countries on the question of oil. If we fail to do that, we can do what we like internally but we shall face subsidies from now until we do it, and do it effectively.
  5.44 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: The lilting bravura of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) in his magnificent series of concluding remarks accentuates, unfortunately, the sadly low-key speech of the Secretary of State. Gone is her gaiety of last spring and summer, when she cheered us on to assault the peaks of inflation—the temporary peaks of inflation as she once described them—with short, sharp subsidies. Today we heard a very defensive speech—a negative speech, and one which ended on a very cruel note, harassing the Conservative Opposition with the shambles that they are well known to have made of their opposition to food subsidies—opposition on a Monday and Thursday, very lukewarm support on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, with the weekends optional. The right hon. Lady's attacks on the Tory Party were quite out of character for a member of a Government pledged to introduce a measure banning cruelty to hares.
  The right hon. Lady began with an attack, for which there is no authority, on Mr. Ritson's scholarly article in the current number of New Society. I can only think that to make an attack so devoid of foundation sprang from offence that Mr. Ritson may have given to the Government Front Bench by his reference to one of the attractions of food subsidies being their capacity to attract votes. On that, I entirely agree with Mr. Ritson. I congratulate the Labour Party on the skill with which they presented food subsidies as an undoubted political attraction.
  But when the Secretary of State accused Mr. Ritson of saying that food subsidies had a bad effect on standards of nutrition, she was inventing something

  669
  which is nowhere to be found in his article. In a most scholarly article, the furthest he goes is to say:
  "It is difficult to make out a case for subsidising food prices on nutritional grounds."
  That is a thousand miles from what the right hon. Lady alleged.
  More serious than that—I shall not spend long on this point, because I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—the Secretary of State performed an extremely amateur and ineffective conjuring trick by trying to lead the House to suppose that food subsidies are necessarily and logically paid for out of direct taxation. There is no warrant at all for such an assertion and she was unable to produce any evidence. We do not have appropriated revenues in this country, so one simply cannot point to a particular form of taxation and build an alleged argument on the idea that benefits are paid for by a particular tax. Certainly, to argue about who pays for subsidies without reference to the burden of VAT is to invite people to take part in a great game of magic.
  At another point, the Secretary of State seemed almost to complain that, in respect of food, Government statistics deal mainly with households rather than individual mouths. That is not our fault. I do not see why the Secretary of State should suddenly take exception to the form of Government statistics which she is happy to use when they suit her case.
  The reason that I found her speech and the Government's attitude on this matter particularly disappointing is that she was less than frank about the prospects of phasing out food subsidies. When, very temporarily as it turned out, inflationary pressure relaxed a little during last summer, the right hon. Lady, in some of her public pronouncements when the House was in recess, was almost euphoric about the chances of phasing but subsidies. On television on 9th August, she said:
  "As the prices of commodities begin to fall, we would seek to phase the subsidies out. The subsidies were meant to take the peaks off inflation."
  Talking to Carolyne Morehead of The Times just before the last election she said
  670
  "They will go on until eventually inflationary pressures move on to a plateau and then we will slowly phase them out."
  But since then, the inflationary pressures have returned, and I have no doubt that one factor which contributed largely to the low-key and sad mood of the Secretary of State was the latest report, published last week, of the Price Commission. This draws attention in the most sombre terms to the mounting inflationary pressures. Decent candour requires that, faced with the return of inflationary pressures, before this debate is concluded this evening we should hear from the Government Front Bench just what their new strategy is in regard to the duration of food subsidies.
  In any case, however long food subsidies are to last under the new strategy which has so far been shrouded from us, it is very important that the House should have some evidence that the Government are beginning to consider the enormously difficult task—perhaps this may be reserved for a future Government of another colour—of eventually changing gear from massive and extremely expensive food subsidies to more discriminating cash benefits.
  Mr. Dan Jones: May I invite the spokesman for the Liberal Party to tell the House now whether he expects the inflationary tenancy to decrease while the price of oil will increase?
  Mr. Wainwright: I am not prepared to pronounce on that. I do not regard myself as an authority, and I do not have the prophetic powers which may have been given to the hon. Gentleman. What I do say—I hope that I am in sympathy with him here—is that with devastating factors such as the present monopoly price of oil about in the world and menacing us, it is important that the Government should not go on wittering about what will happen when inflationary pressures cease but should be more realistic and say how long they intend to continue with these massive subsidies, assuming that inflationary pressures continue. We expect a degree of frankness with the House before the debate is concluded.
  It is also important that we should be given some idea of how Whitehall, at any rate—even if Westminster and Downing

  671
  Street have no time for these matters—is preparing to change gear from this policy of subsidies to the more discriminating cash benefits, which the Government have from time to time said they look forward to substituting. It will be an enormous task. The impact of phasing out food susbidies on the family of the earner of a medium-sized wage who has three or four children will be very substantial. They are not the sort of people who will benefit from the substituted cash benefits.
  I presume that this is still Government policy, because as recently as 12th November, in his second Budget Statement, the Chancellor used these memorable words:
  "the best way to help pensioners is to increase pensions."—[Official Report, 12th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 255.]
  I take it that it is legitimate to infer from those words that the Government also believe that the best way to help children is to increase family allowances, and I hope that the Government mean that the best way to help those who earn their poverty by working a normal week for intolerably low wages is to introduce some statutory minimum earnings level. We have heard nothing about that from the Government.
  I want to enter a plea here—not for the first time—that when we have debates which concern virtually every home, and certainly every needy home in the country, Ministers should not put themselves in a position in which they can shelter behind the strict limits of their ministerial responsibility. During this debate we should hear from one of the other Secretaries of State who has some responsibility for the income side of people's household accounts; otherwise we are participating in a largely meaningless exercise.
  I was disappointed when, in answer to my intervention, the Secretary of State, rather uncharacteristically for her, sheltered behind the strict limits of her ministerial responsibility. If we cannot discuss intelligently across the Floor of the House in a debate such as this the alternatives to food subsidies, we might almost as well go home and merely leave Conservative Members to move some amendment or other without daring to vote against the Bill.
  I come briefly to the argument in which I profoundly believe—that on the whole
  672
  the evidence is overwhelming that the people who come out best from this improvised policy of vast subsidies on certain foods are the middle-income groups. Not a word that the Secretary of State said convinced me to the contrary. The typical middle-income family comes out best—without in any way seeking it. I make no accusations of greed. These people were not consulted. They did not petition the House to have their food subsidised. The people who come out best are those in receipt of rather more than average wages, who have a strong negotiating union behind them—good luck to them—and who have four or five children. They have a household of, say, seven mouths. That is seven beneficiaries from the food subsidies, but they make nothing like a full contribution in taxation to pay for them—unless they are extremely extravagant at the shops and pay an enormously above-average amount in VAT. This is not of their seeking, but this is what happens.
  In order to sustain that argument, it is necessary to comment on the extraordinary amount of weight which the Secretary of State placed on a mere assertion from the Low Pay Unit. She did not quote the unit's evidence. She relied, to an extent which I find astonishing for a senior Cabinet Minister, on an assertion from this body—for which body I have a good deal of respect. She also made a mistake. She seemed to think that the Low Pay Unit and the Child Poverty Action Group were in some way one and the same thing. I hope that she will take it from me that that is just not so. There is one eminent authority who is connected with both, but the existence of the CPAG owes nothing to the Low Pay Unit.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: The same director.
  Mr. Raison: The same office.
  Mr. Wainwright: Not the same office—if I may respond to the intervention of the hon. Member for Aylesbury. The Low Pay Unit is at No. 9 Poland Street; the other is in Macklin Street.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: The same director.
  Mr. Wainwright: Having cleared up that small but important matter, let me go on to say about the Low Pay Unit, on which the Secretary of State relies so much, that in spite of its excellent work,

  673
  in which I am happy to assist in a small way, from time to time, it is obsessed not with absolute poverty, which is the grim thing which concerns my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, but with issues about differences between the material standards of the top-notchers, income-wise and the material standards of the lowest income groups. It is obsessed with the gap. The gap, however, is one of the least important things. What really matters is the absolute standard—which so urgently needs improvement—of the lower earners and the lower benefit people in our community. On that matter I do not believe that the Low Pay Unit has yet contributed anything of value about the effect of food subsidies.
  So far—although there is still time—nothing has been said to show the efficacy of food subsidies, and taking account of inflation, on the Secretary of State's own admission, the redistributive effect is very modest, The right hon. Lady makes no claim that they have any great effect on the public standard of nutrition, but, worst of all, we have had no indication how this allegedly temporary policy of subsidies will lead on eventually to a sensible system of humane and properly administered benefits so that those who need them should be able to acquire them without serious trouble.
  Unless we hear convincing arguments before the close of the debate my hon. Friends and I will not be content with any kind of half-and-half amendment, but will go into the Lobby, I hope with support from other hon. Members, to oppose the Second Reading.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: I intend to begin my speech on a non-contentious note and express a welcome, which I am sure is felt on all sides of the House, to Dr. Michael Young, who is to take over the rôle of director of the new National Consumers' Council. The council will be very much concerned with prices, food subsidies and the rôle of the consumer in the community, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a very good appointment.
  I want to deal first with a series of small points that I raise on behalf of the co-operative movement, whose interests I have the privilege to represent in this House. I then want to move on to general
  674
  comments and thoughts about the Bill and the issues which surround it.
  We in the co-operative movement support the Bill and its general intentions, but our reservations are related to the administrative details and the additional cost which it may give rise to without substantial benefit to consumers. On the question of the display of prices for subsidised foods, we accept that it is of great importance that the subsidy is seen to reach the consumer. We have been concerned all along that the subsidy should not disappear in the form of higher prices for producers or higher profits for distributors, and I know that concern is shared by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We suggested to the Department that it might devise an advertisement which could be displayed in shops and which would meet the requirements of the Act.
  I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend was moving towards that objective in her speech. I understand that in prior discussions the idea was turned down. We should be glad if she could look at it again in view of the burden it will impose on shop staffs when changes are made which in practical terms might involve a member of the staff searching in a drawer for a grubby piece of paper which might or might not be there—a search by an assistant who might go in only on Saturdays and not know where it is. I do not believe that it will provide an effective enforcement of the Act or the price regulation orders which my right hon. Friend introduces from time to time.
  I do not think, either, that the bureaucratic notices, which look a little like those notices in some major public places of employment about the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, are the answer. Surely, something more imaginative can be done on this front to give consumers the facts about prices and have their attention drawn to the range of products covered by subsidies and to the voluntary agreement with retailers on the keeping down of prices.
  The second point I wish to raise on behalf of the co-operative movement is the general and vague reference in the Bill, which has not yet been explained, about the need for shopkeepers to keep records and the taking of powers to enforce that provision. We are not told

  675
  what form these records will take, for how long they will have to be kept, or for what purpose they are required, other than the general statement of the need for enforcement. We are not told, either, who will pay the cost of keeping the records. These are matters of very great importance, particularly for the small neighbourhood shops. The co-operative movement, contrary to most other multiple chains, is most reluctant to close small shops even though they may be uneconomic in terms of the overall operations of individual societies. Additional burdens of this kind do not help in that development which I hope my right hon. Friend wishes to support and encourage.
  On the principle of the Bill, I agree with my right hon. Friend that it ill behoves Opposition Members to criticise the measure in general terms. Consistent carping criticism by Opposition Front Bench Members, coupled with the lack of courage of their convictions when it comes to going into the Lobby or writing a manifesto for an election, puts them in a poor position to criticise the Government's actions on this front. As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), it ill behoves one of the greatest subsidising governing parties of all time—a party which indiscriminately subsidised nationalised industry prices with no concern for which part of the community benefited—to tell us that we are the subsidisers, the wasters and the Government who are throwing public money away, when we have carefully chosen a narrow range of products for subsidy which are important in the budgets of the poor, the pensioners and the disabled. Their position is without moral or logical substance, and it was not supported in any credible way by the Front Bench contribution this afternoon.
  I want now to deal with the general question of the inequality of the impact of inflation. This is at the heart of the argument. Opposition Members have failed to grasp it and even the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) has not yet understood it to quite the extent I would have hoped. I rely for my evidence on the family expenditure survey and some calculations based on it which were made not only in New Society but by the Low Pay Unit and the Child Poverty Action Group. I
  676
  rely, too, on the article, which I commend to hon. Members, which appeared in the Economic Journal last March, pointing out just how the family expenditure survey underestimated the spending problems of the poor.
  My right hon. Friend is right to say that the impact of inflation must inevitably be greatest on those groups whose budgets contain large proportions of goods which have risen fastest in price. I should not have thought that we needed to re-establish repeatedly in this Chamber the fact that the poor are the people who do that. The poor are those who spend a larger proportion of their income on necessities. The Conservatives have been talking about the differences between raising money by direct and by indirect taxation. I cannot help feeling that these two systems have one thing in common—they do not fall on necessities. Indirect taxes have never been levied on necessities, and successive Governments, for example, in their relationships with the EEC, have made a great point of not allowing that to happen.
  It is not true, therefore, to suggest, even by inference, that the poor pay for the subsidies they are getting through indirect taxes. That is not true in any meaningful proportion.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is the hon. Member asking the House to accept that the poorer family does not spend a larger proportion than the better-off family on such things as crisps and soft drinks, on which they have to pay a high proportion of the indiscriminate indirect taxation?
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member well knows that that does not represent the bulk of purchasing by poor families. Food is an important item in the poor family's budget, of course. For a three-child family with an income between £20 and £30 a week, in the last year for which statistics were collected, about a third of that income was spent on food. The hon. Lady cannot seriously suggest that any meaningful proportion of that expenditure was on food that is taxed. She knows that it is not true.
  Similarly, the hon. Lady knows very well that a high proportion of expenditure by these groups goes on housing—25 per cent. for the group to which I have referred compared with just over 13 per cent. for the average family. Hon.

  677
  Members know my interest in fuel, and the problems of subsidy and the price structures for electricity and gas where there is a similar situation. The necessities of life for the less well-off rose in price much faster between 1970 and 1974 than the items on which VAT and other taxes are paid in large amounts. In that four-year period food prices went up by 61 per cent. The cost of fuel rose by 30 per cent. and the cost of housing by 50 per cent. Yet the prices of consumer durables—colour televisions, hi-fi equipment, washing machines—went up by only 29 per cent. Drink, particularly alcoholic drink, rose by only 16 per cent., and tobacco, whose consumption should be discouraged by the taxation and pricing system, rose by only 4·7 per cent. All that happened when the hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends were in power, and if she suggests that they preserved the poor from taxation on essentials, she knows that it is not true.
  It is a great tribute to my right hon. Friend that since we came into office almost a year ago we have seen a significant drop in the rate of increase in the price of food and in rents, because of the Government's subsidies and rents policies. Those policies are working. I think that I have more faith in them than has my right hon. Friend, who wants to run them down. I do not want to see that happen in the foreseeable future.
  I come to the argument in principle about the question of subsidy and Government and State interference in the market mechanism—the relationship of benefits, taxation, income support and so on. There are four main components of the question of subsidy. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) that they are so inter-related that we cannot debate them under the narrow heading of the departmental responsibilities of just one Secretary of State. I want to try to explain my concern about them and the way in which the Government should be taking a much more inter-related view of them.
  There are four general areas at which we must look if we set out to help the less well-off in a time of inflation. The first is the question whether direct, earmarked subsidies such as those we are discussing distort the economic system in
  678
  market terms—that is, supply and demand terms—and whether that matters very much.
  Secondly, we must consider whether prices, particularly in the publicly-owned industries, but also in the private sector, should be strictly cost-related, or whether, particularly in the public sector, we should aim to pursue what I call "social pricing".
  The third question is whether increases in pensions and benefits are more effective in helping the less well-off.
  Fourthly, we must consider the rôle of benefits in kind as well as in cash.
  I give just two examples of the way in which these matters are inter-related. We are discussing food subsidies, financed out of taxes, whether direct or indirect, and financed also through a clawback in the tax mechanism. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consciously relates the two; the March Budget related the two; and I relate the two in my mind. There is a similar example in family allowances. We have another example in rent rebates, 90 per cent. financed from Exchequer funds but 10 per cent. financed out of local rate-raising capacity. They are therefore internally redistributive, because the better-off ratepayer is helping to subsidise the poorer ratepayer. In one sense, those rebates have a taxation component.
  The inter-relationship between different aspects means that we must consider them together. I am disappointed that so far the Government show no signs of having done so effectively.
  As to the question of direct subsidies distorting the market, we have been given statistics by Opposition Members. We have heard of various matters relating to the current situation. But there is a much larger issue. I cannot take the free market view, so often put in arguments about subsidies, that somehow or other once we play with the economic system it all goes wrong. The fact is that the economic system does not work in a situation of perfect competition.
  As an undergraduate, I was told that perfect competition had various aspects. I recall having described to me the 32 criteria which had to be met before perfect competition could be obtained. We had a creature called economic man, who behaved rationally. But we all know that

  679
  the general public do not on the whole consistently behave rationally. There had to be equal access to knowledge, equal information about products, equal facility to go to different shops, and so on. We all know that that does not happen. We have only to look at the problem of the poor consumer who has to shop at the corner shop, or the problem of the rural consumer, to see that it is just not so.
  The free-market approach—the "in-principle, root-and-branch" opposition to subsidy—must be discarded to the dustbin of the history of economic theory. It bears no relevance to the management of an economy in which the State plays a large and rightly increasing part, in which the distortions already exist, and in which the principal problem is not seeing whether we can avoid distortions in the market but trying to make sure that the distortions work in favour of the less well-off. Those are the criteria by which we should work.
  When I speak of "social pricing" I ask whether we should continue in a whole number of areas to regard it as vital that prices shall be strictly cost-related rather than related to social priorities. Obviously, prices can never be totally unrelated to costs. One cannot fly in the face of the overall economic logic of the situation for ever. But there are other parameters, other considerations, which must be taken into account and which are components in the Government's policy.
  There is the whole question of the social contract. There are questions of wage demands; the effect of prices on them, which are an important priority for the Government; the protection of the less well-off; and energy conservation. All these matters cut across the economic argument that prices should be directly related to costs.
  We already use prices to redistribute wealth. The discrimination is not enough, but there has always been a small discrimination at the end of the scale against charging the whole of the fixed cost of supplying electricity or gas to a small consumer or a rural consumer. We have never tried to charge a cost-related price to that class of consumer.
  Another example is the fact that to send a letter from Whitehall to the Houses of Parliament costs exactly the same as
  680
  to post one from Land's End to John o' Groats, though the former may take slightly longer.
  In the main run of things, firms, whether publicly- or privately-owned, do not discriminate between urban or rural consumers where they can avoid it, even though the cost differences are substantial.
  There was an announcement in the House only yesterday about television licences. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department was announcing that he had consciously discriminated, not on cost-related grounds but on social grounds, between the price of a licence for a colour television and that for a black and white television.
  In the private sector there is a voluntary agreement with the retailers to restrain price increases on certain products, which must in essence involve a redistribution of wealth through the pricing system. I am in favour of that. I do not think that a matter of principle is involved. It is a matter of degree.
  I agree with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley about increases in pensions and benefits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the statements of the Child Poverty Action Group. I know from my discussions with its representatives that it would not diminish its attachment to increases in benefits because it has started to see the benefit of subsidies. We must look at the long-term inflationary situation and at our capacity to finance benefits, whether they be discriminatory or blanket benefits. Our capacity to finance benefits will become more restricted as the amount of money required increases.
  The take-up rate of many benefits is appallingly low. We must look again at subsidies and "social pricing" as ways of assisting the less well-off. We must also consider benefits in kind, whether financed through pricing or direct Government financing. I have in mind, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where certain categories of pensioner—a large number of people—pay no standing charge for their electricity and receive as a matter of right roughly 200 units per two months during the summer and 300 units per two months during the winter free of charge. There are no problems

  681
  of take-up or stigma. The benefits are paid for by the Exchequer. We must not be deterred from subsidies or benefits in kind when frightened old people are dying of hypothermia rather than take a discriminatory benefit or receive an electricity bill which they fear they will be unable to pay.
  I support the principle and practice of the Bill, although I wish it showed signs of being part of a clearly thought-out Government co-ordinated strategy to deal with the problems of the less well off.
  As regards subsidies and "social pricing", we are doing a good job with food, and we seem to have the rent situation in hand for the time being, but very little has been done about fuel. We know that those are the three major items in the budgets of the poorest individuals and families.
  Although the subject of benefits is not strictly relevant to the debate today, I generally approve Government policy. With the possible exception of the way inflation is starting to take low-income families into the taxation threshold, we can see some sense in the taxation policies being pursued. However, I do not see, in those policies being pursued in various Government Departments, co-ordinated thought as to how the package is to be put together. Inevitably, in a debate such as this we are not able to deal with such policies that ought to be interrelated in an adequate fashion.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. John Wakeham: I am delighted to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) because he courteously wrote to me recently stating that he had accepted an invitation to speak to the Maldon Labour Party. I did not seek that invitation. Nevertheless, I hope he has a happy evening.
  Part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman was devoted to the co-operative movement. I wish to refer to the private sector of industry as it is affected by the Bill, because there is a growing sense of unreality and a difference between us about how we should debate and legislate for our economic affairs and how those engaged in business and commerce have to deal with the realities of them on a day-to-day basis.
  682
  I must declare an interest as a chartered accountant. I am involved with companies which will be affected by the Bill to a greater or lesser degree. I do not intend to deal with the subsidies, although I wish to draw a clear distinction between price regulations affecting subsidised items and price regulations affecting items which are not subsidised.
  Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State powers to issue price regulation orders. There is clearly a case for price controls over those subsidised items.
  The major part of the debate is over the difference of opinion about whether subsidies are the most efficient and effective way of using a given sum of money to help those most hard hit by price increases. Price regulations are necessary in the public interest if the taxpayer's money is used in the form of subsidies. With unsubsidised items we are in a different situation.
  I appreciate why the Minister has not used her powers under the 1974 Act, but I wonder whether it is wise to retain them in this new Bill. The statutory control of prices is acceptable only as a means of achieving the necessary wage restraint. Even then it is necessary to draw a distinction between the political advantages of price control in encouraging the acceptance of wage controls, and the economic dangers of price controls on industrial and commercial profitability and investment.
  I disagree with the powers of the Secretary of State in Clause 2 to make price regulations for non-subsidised goods. I think the principle is wrong and is hardly likely to have very much practical effect. We have only to look at the Price Code to see how many changes and complications have had to be introduced to produce a semblance of fairness and to avoid the worst distorting effects that are bound to occur if we use price regulations over any length of time. I suggest that the presence of meaningful price regulations for non-subsidised goods is harmful to the economy as it deflects attention from one of the major causes of excessive price rises in our economy.
  The CBI has estimated that over the whole range of goods and services the total abolition of price controls would push up prices by 2½ per cent. Although

  683
  no one should minimise the effect of any price increase, especially on those with low incomes, such rises from this cause are relatively small considering the effect on prices from other factors. Price regulations, even if used in the context of Clause 2, could fast become an end in themselves, with very little effect. Their main practical effect would be to give further work to hundreds of public servants and to waste thousands of management man-hours. It is probable that they would also breed a new group of accountants who, as the Government bottled up all the avoidable loopholes in the tax legislation, would become skilled in the interpretation of price regulations. I suppose that professionally I should not complain about that. However, from the practical common-sense view, it is something we do not want to encourage.
  If as a nation we persist in this crazy notion that we can stop the tide of price increases by price regulation or even by subsidy I suggest to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East or to anyone else who visits my constituency that he should also visit the village of Canute, where King Canute tried to stop the tide coming in. Anyone who did that would very soon realise that by passing such regulations we shall not achieve the end that we all seek.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun: I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who said that we ought to be having a broad-based debate on alternatives to food subsidies. We are not having that today, and I think that it is about time that the Conservative Opposition said what they would do about food subsidies, given the opportunity.
  We have before us an extraordinarily tough amendment which makes no real declaration of the Opposition's intentions on food subsidies, which contributes nothing to a real debate, and which poses no real alternatives. This House and the electorate outside it are entitled to know what the Opposition would do if they were in Government. Would they continue food subsidies and, if so, for how long?
  684
  The Opposition's intentions about food subsidies have never been clear to me—and I served on the Standing Committee which considered the original Prices Bill and listened very carefully, through sitting after sitting, to a very hard-line philosophy of opposition to subsidies which in the last analysis amounted, surprisingly, to nothing. It was what I call "tongue in cheek" opposition. No Opposition Member had the courage of his convictions to vote against the Government's proposals.
  Listening to the Opposition today, and reading their amendment, I am forced to turn for information to the message which the Conservative Party sent out to the electorate four months ago. My right hon. Friend herself was forced to seek information from the same source. In that message the Conservative Party said:
  "With the urgent need to stabilise prices, we accept that it will be necessary to retain these subsidies for the time being."
  We are forced to conclude that the key words in that promise rest in the phrase "for the time being".
  We have a situation today which appears to mean that the Opposition want no subsidy at all. I know that it is said that political promises are like piecrusts, in that they break, but this appears to be a promise broken before the pie is even baked. As such, it deserves a place in the Guinness Book of Records. I therefore ask the Opposition to spell out clearly their intentions on food subsidies.
  It was the extraordinary rise in the food retail price index which set the Labour Party on the road to food subsidies with the promise to subsidise basic food prices. We won the February election on that promise, and we honoured our promise.
  Today, my right hon. Friend seeks to make amendments to the Prices Act in respect of the continued payment of food subsidies and the regulation of prices. I believe that this House should support her overwhelmingly. It is more important than ever to subsidise the basic foods in 1975 because the battle to control prices has not been won, although the fight is continuous. What is more, with the rising cost of living, distressing tendencies of the elderly and of large families in cutting back on food are beginning to show.

  685
  Everyone receives the subsidy, but, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, those who do not need it contribute in taxation their share of financing the subsidy. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable method of redistributing income. But what is undeniable is that it is even more necessary today for the Government to continue to subsidise the basic foods of milk, butter, cheese, flour, bread and tea—the foods which appear week after week in the shopping baskets of the nation. I believe that it would be unthinkable at this stage of crisis to abandon the subsidising of food, and I am very glad that the Government have no intention of failing to subsidise, no matter how many votes the Opposition manage to stack up against my right hon. and hon. Friends later tonight.
  Often we hear gales of merriment from the Opposition about the social contract, but it is a very important element in why we won the last General Election. We were able, as a Government, to enter into a contract with the British people. It is time to stick by that contract, and food subsidies are an essential part of it. Many of my hon. Friends think that it is also time that my right hon. Friend inquired into the huge profits being made out of sugar by such companies as Tate and Lyle. I believe that it is time for the Opposition not to be destructive in their approach to food subsidies. If they insist on tabling destructive and unreasonable amendments like the one before us today, they have an absolute responsibility to declare their own intentions.
  The electorate are taking a very careful look at what is happening in this House. How the ordinary shopper copes with the rising cost of living depends very much on what the Government do. It is quite easy, in this British House of Commons, to talk about percentages and about the elderly in complicated and sometimes quite contorted English, but people outside want to know that right hon. and hon. Members really care about fighting the battle of inflation for them and with them. I have no doubt that that battle has to be fought by the Labour Party.
  Reading about today's debate, people outside the House will think, as they always have, that, as usual, the Opposition are out of touch with the problems of ordinary people and are interested
  686
  only in their own hard-line philosophy, that there should be no subsidies. It is indefensible of the Opposition to play what in the past few days has developed into the new parliamentary game of how the money is to be spent. It has been decided. Our priorities were decided when the electorate voted us into office in October, and one of the first priorities was to spend money on food subsidies.
  That was part of our programme, and it is a great tragedy that the Opposition fail to declare themselves in simple terms instead of wriggling and indulging in the contortions which we have constantly seen over the issue of food subsidies. If, at this moment there is any other way that they seek and if, thereby, they wish to take away the food subsidies, they must spell out their policy to the nation simply and clearly—and I ask them to do so today.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. John Moore: Without wishing to pursue too far some of the tautologies of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun), I gently suggest that it is not sufficient, in a parliamentary democracy, to continue, simply to say that a policy once introduced is adequate, and that the Opposition should lie down from then on and not debate, discuss, approve or disapprove by carrying out what one would imagine is the rôle of Parliament. But we should be seeking measures for the variation or reduction of public expenditure. That, after all, is one of the major things we are here to do.
  I make the hon. Lady fully clear, as the Secretary of State should be, about my position. I seek no ambivalency. Throughout my brief service in this House—I made my maiden speech on this topic in April—I have been totally opposed to food subsidies of a blanket and indiscriminate kind, such as those that the Government have produced. I listened with care and pleasure to the words of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and found little with which I disagree.
  We have to be measured in our observations and try to leave politics aside a little more, and the key test is the extent to which these subsidies are lessening the cost of living effectively—and "effectively" is the key word. A lot of cant

  687
  and hypocrisy has been spoken, not just in this House but elsewhere in the country, on this topic. It would be difficult to imagine that £500 million, £1,000 million or £1,700 million could not serve in some way to ameliorate the rise in the cost of living for some people. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether this public money is being spent in the most effective way. I doubt it thoroughly.
  At one stage last year there might have been a limited number of arguments—although I disagreed with them—for introducing, on an emergency basis, a form of ratchet to try to take into account two features which were marked in the early part of last year. The first of these features was the threshold agreements introduced by the Conservative Government. The second was the long pattern, continuing throughout most of the year and still in operation, of massive increases in world commodity prices. I accept that there may have been valid and logical arguments for an attempt to ratchet these features back, although I did not endorse those arguments.
  However, the problem we now face concerns the degree to which this temporary expedient of food subsidies is to be allowed to remain part and parcel of our public life. If we go on from here for at least another year, we shall place ourselves in the position of having permanent subsidies, which, I suggest, will be very uncomfortable to both sides of the House in the long run, and the disentanglement will be extremely difficult.
  It behoves us to ask one or two questions about what food subsidies do. I do not think it necessary to apologise to the Secretary of State for reiterating certain arguments, because such reiteration does not necessarily mean that those arguments are invalid. They have been received by totally deaf ears so far, but one always hopes that those ears will hear.
  I stress that food subsidies increase the cost of living for many families. I will let those words sink in. We have been discussing how much food subsidies have ameliorated the food price index, but they could increase the cost of living not only for poor but for middle income families. But the burden is not simply one of direct as against indirect taxation,
  688
  although that is a key feature. In the introduction of certain specific food subsidies we have created a situation in which pre-selected products are to be relieved. As we often do when we seek to manage society, we have made specific choices, but those choices do not necessarily impact similarly on all families.
  I am constantly returning to the arguments about old-age pensioners. The arguments are equally valid on the other side. Too much hypocrisy has got into the discussion, and I am afraid that at the end of the day many pensioners may suffer from it. The Secretary of State specified £13 a year as the benefit factor. But there may be old-age pensioners and poor families who are more impacted by the increasing costs of lighting, heating, cigarettes—some happily smoke—and of beer—happily some are able to afford a pint of beer. We are imbalanced in our discussion if we concentrate too specifically on a list of pre-selected items and assume that all the poor are gaining benefit from them.
  It is extremely important, in the context of the difficult crisis in which we are living, that subsidies of this kind distribute, in a very indiscriminate fashion, money sorely needed generally. The right hon. Lady specifically said that the elasticity of demand for milk was very low. I do not understand that elasticity of demand in relation to the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). He drew attention to the fact that there has been an increased consumption of 50 million gallons. To me, that is not marginal in terms of its impact upon, for example, the waste factor that arises. Many people cannot afford even 6p a pint, but the Government do not discriminate in their favour in this Bill. But if the price were at 8½p per pint, which is what it would be without subsidy, many other people who can afford 6p a pint would be more conscious of the price and, therefore, more conscious of the waste induced within that increased consumption figure of 50 million gallons a year.
  I found the arguments from the right hon. Lady about the distribution of money very thin in terms of the indiscriminate nature of the subsidies. She quoted from the submission to her by the Child Poverty Action Group, stressing

  689
  that it had said that it was changing its attitude. It is reasonable for it to do so in the absence of any more viable specific measures by the Government. In that context, the group clearly cannot dispute the relative advantages of food subsidies. However, the right hon. Lady did mention that the group still prefers more specific benefits.
  But I have to be more specific because one of our difficulties in the debate is the "either/or" alternative. I do not think that we can afford the money in toto, but I noticed the other day that the Government had abandoned plans for the rebuilding of St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington—and I take an example which is not in my own constituency. We all recognise St. Mary's as an eminent teaching hospital which has done great good for our country. The cost of rebuilding would be £36 million. In the Bill we are dealing with astronomical figures of £1·2 billion and £1·7 billion. The administrative cost of annual subsidies is now running at the rate of £700,000. For a 15-year hospital-building programme that amount would be sufficient to finance the interest charges. There are always viable alternative programmes, and we should recognise them. That is a specific project that has been cancelled.
  I recognise—and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury has discussed very completely—the distortions of demand. But we should look at one specific negative that the nation has to suffer from—the increase in milk consumption with the relative decline in cheese production, though not in cheese demand. This has, of course, increased the importation into this country of subsidised cheese. We have not discussed—and I should like to be provided with better figures on the subject—the balance of payments costs involved in this.
  Fourthly, and much more important to me, it increases consumption generally at a time when we are supposedly conscious in our country of the need for decreasing consumption. My hon. Friend mentioned the tea problem, but what strikes me most and produces my fundamental objection is the degree to which this mania for food subsidies fails necessarily to increase domestic food production. I look at this from two main points of view.
  690
  We have to begin to be a country living in the real world. The real world is one in which I would like us to be very much more conscious of self-sufficiency and the independence that self-sufficiency produces. The measure that the Secretary of State has presented to us today can only encourage the unsatisfactory lack of self-sufficiency that this country already sees in the field of food production.
  It is very relevant in this Chamber to draw attention to the absence of help to the under-developed nations of this world. That is exacerbated by this measure. I will elaborate. Yesterday, as we know, the Select Committee seeking to advise us on how help can be given to underdeveloped countries referred to two things which it was felt we should be doing. One was that we should be helping to keep up commodity prices, as a key factor. What are we doing instead? We are increasing the importation of food rather than trying to increase our own production of food so that we do not take from the world's base food production.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: That is a very interesting but very strange argument, because of all the goods we subsidise only one comes from the developing countries; that is, tea, which is precisely welcomed by the Indian Government as helpful to them.
  Mr. Moore: The Secretary of State should recognise that because leaders in certain countries may make what I regard as short-term statements that does not necessarily mean that those statements are valid in terms of the absolutely essential problem of the world's long-term food supplies. I stress that because I believe it behoves us all to remember our actions in relation to the attitudes we have today, which I regard as the height of national selfishness. We should remember them in the light of what the late Lord Attlee, whom one should not have to quote, did in a similar situation. He insisted on introducing bread rationing to endeavour to reduce imports of grain into this country so as to help the rest of the world. As far as I am concerned, this measure tonight increases national consumption, increases national waste and does nothing to increase necessarily domestic food production; and in that way it harms the rest of the under-developed world.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. George Rodgers: I do not intend to follow the path trodden by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Clark). I concede that I was fascinated by the route he took, and interested to learn that apparently some pensioners are at a disadvantage because of the food subsidy system. I have yet to hear that from one of these pensioners, but I look forward to the occasion when I do. I intend to be brief and to concentrate my remarks on a very small area of the debate.
  If the social contract is to survive it is essential that there should be a policy and system of price control that not only operates efficiently but is seen to do so. I suggest rather sadly that this is not the present state of the game. Only today I received a letter from an old-age pensioner in my constituency who expressed in very simple but adequate language the experience and fears of so many, from which I ask permission of the House to quote briefly:
  "I am writing to you as a pensioner because I am very concerned at the ever-increasing prices on all things, much more so in the case of heating and lighting and most important, food. Prices are rising almost weekly not by ½p or 1p but by 2p or even more and I have no doubt you are well aware of this. I know we have been promised an increase in pension in April but as inflation is growing, unless the increase is substantial we shall be no better off. I could quote you many items of increase but I will mention only one, my jar of marmalade. Last August it cost 10½p per one pound jar, since when it has increased in stages to 11½p, 13p, 15p, 17p, 19p and now, last weekend, to 21p, an increase of 100 per cent. while our pension remains static."
  I find it no consolation or comfort that with ever-increasing prices there is a complex formula to control prices. People may be generally aware that prices may be raised at only three-monthly intervals but are certainly not aware of the multitude of exceptions to the regulations and certainly have no notion of when a three-months' period begins and ends.
  The ordinary housewife is perhaps also aware that there is at some great distance a remote authority that is supposed to protect her from unfair practices, but how effective are the rules? How effective are price restrictions, and how easy is it for an unscrupulous trader to take advantage of the housewife in overcharging? I was astounded that in reply to a Parliamentary
  692
  Question I submitted recently the answer revealed that, to date, there have been no prosecutions at all under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, and that the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection is not aware of any prosecutions that have been undertaken under Section 2 of the Prices Act 1974, the powers of which lie with the local weights and measures authority.
  Even accepting that we are an extraordinarily virtuous nation, I still find it incredible that it has not been found necessary to utilise these powers in even one case. I hold the view that law without punishment is merely advice, and I decided to explore the situation in some detail. The position I found is that in local government the departments responsible for administering those powers are desperately understaffed. There is a grave shortage of qualified staff and a frightening lack of revenue in town halls. Superimposed on this calamity, each weights and measures department has acquired a vast range of new responsibilities.
  Most women have a strong suspicion that prices are going out of control. I do not for a moment question the good intent of my right hon. Friend the Minister or the good will and competence of those whose task it is to administer the laws relating to prices and consumer protection. I do, however, plead that urgent steps be taken to create a system worthy of its purpose to provide clear evidence of the Department's rôle as watchdog on behalf of the housewife. Investment in this area will have a devastating impact and will restore confidence where it is most needed. Additionally, it will carry good will into other related zones, the zones of waste regulation and the social contract.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gow: The Secretary of State began her speech this afternoon by quoting the reply which she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) on 11th November last, so now, for the third time in only two months, I repeat the words which she used first on 11th November and again today. She said:
  "I have always made clear that in the long run our hope is that we might be able to phase out subsidies in the interests of other kinds of social expenditure."—[Official Report, 11th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 8.]

  693
  I emphasise the word "hope". We have it on high authority that the supreme moral virtues are faith, hope and charity. Many theologians take the view that, of the three, hope is the one which is most neglected. One can only say of the right hon. Lady that she ignored that virtue altogether in the speech that she delivered after making the quotation from herself because, having expressed the hope that she would be able to phase out food subsidies altogether, she went on to recommend to the House that it should give a Second Reading to a Bill which moves in precisely the opposite direction.
  The Bill goes in a direction opposite not only to her own hopes but to those hopes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer because, in his Budget Statement, when talking about the nationalised industries and the desirability of removing subsidies from them, he said:
  "I have set it as my objective to phase out these subsidies … as fast as possible."—[Official Report, 12th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 268.]
  Sometimes the Opposition wonder whether the right hon. Lady and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are members of the same administration. I wonder whether they ever meet. Why does not the right hon. Lady invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spend the weekend with her, when she and the right hon. Gentleman would have plenty of time to reconcile what to the Opposition seems to be totally irreconcilable.
  Where does this policy of subsidies end? On 9th July—as recently as that—the first Prices Act received the Royal Assent. Now, only six months later, we are invited to increase by £500 million the amount which the Government will be able to spend on food subsidies, from the permitted level of £700 million to £1,200 million, and with power by order to go to the really terrifying figure of £1,700 million. I ask the right hon. Lady where this is going to end. How long will it be before we have the third Prices Bill introduced by the right hon. Lady?
  My first objection to the Bill is that once this course is embarked upon it will become increasingly difficult for the right hon. Lady to satisfy her own hopes. Indeed, we find in a short space of six months since her first measure received
  694
  the Royal Assent that she is here with the second, and I make the prediction that, if the present administration remains in office, within 12 months from today the third Prices Bill will have to be introduced because, once embarked upon, it will be impossible to escape from this policy of ever-escalating food subsidies.
  There is another matter which I should like the right hon. Lady to discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Last night, after the House had carried an amendment which will involve an increase in public expenditure, in our view of about £45 million a year, and in his view at Question Time today of £145 million, he said that he regarded the modest amendment that we had carried as unacceptable, because it would increase the borrowing requirement. What kind of view does the Chancellor take of the Bill? I wonder whether he will be in the House tonight to vote with the Government, knowing that this measure could involve an increase in the borrowing requirement of £500 million in the current year, going up to £1,700 million.
  The contention that because taxation is paid for by the better off our argument that this subsidy is wasteful no longer applies, does not stand up to examination. If this amount of money is available to be distributed out of taxation—£500 million in the current year—surely even the right hon. Lady must agree that it would be infinitely preferable to increase family income supplement, to increase the rate of supplementary benefit, or to increase the rate of family allowance, because it is at least taxable.
  The great trouble with the Bill is that it will distribute money primarily to those households which have an income of more than £50 a week. That was the answer which the right hon. Lady gave me in November—that 52 per cent. of the subsidy goes to households with an income of more than £50 a week.
  The continuation of food subsidies is concealing from the British people the truth about the cost of food and the truth about the economic reality. For those reasons, my hon. Friends and I will most certainly oppose the Bill in the Division tonight, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will think again about this matter.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. John Golding: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said at the end of his speech that the Bill will conceal the truth of economic reality from people. The truth of economic reality for many of my constituents, particularly housewives, is that they are constantly without sufficient money in their purse to be able to buy what they want in the shops. They have faced economic reality throughout their lives, and it would do Tory Members good to have to survive for a short time on the incomes on which those whom I represent have to manage, because then they would know what the Bill is all about.
  A short time ago I read that the Secretary of State was the pin-up of the Manifesto Group on our side of the House. I do not know about that, but I know that my right hon. Friend is the pin-up of many ordinary people in my constituency. She is certainly one of the most popular members of the Government because of what she is doing by way of food subsidies.
  I have long been an advocate of food subsidies. First, I have seen what it is for families not to be able to buy enough food to feed themselves and their children, and food is essential. I do not believe in providing indiscriminate subsidies across the board, but I do believe that the mark of a civilised society is that it provides food and shelter for its people. Therefore, I support the provision of subsidies for food and housing.
  My second reason for supporting the provision of food subsidies is that it is a transfer payment from men to women. I see food subsidies as a straight transfer payment from the salaries, and, probably more important, the wage packets, of men to women. At a time of inflation, one of the constant problems confronting women is that the money given to them by their husbands increases less rapidly than do the wages and earnings of the men themselves. Food subsidies ensure that, to some extent at any rate, women are protected during a period of inflation.
  I also support food subsidies because when one traces the source of tax from which they are paid it can be clearly shown that they lead to a transfer of
  696
  wealth from those who are better off to those who are worse off. I use those words carefully. I did not say that it was a transfer payment from the rich to the poor. It is, but, more important, it is a transfer payment from the better off to those who are worse off.
  I am aware that many of the people whom I represent in the Post Office Engineering Union may, because of the level of their pay, be adversely affected by this transfer payment. None the less, I shall continue to support the transfer from the better off to the worse off because it is not only the pensioner or the person on State benefits who finds it hard to manage in our present society.
  There are many people in low-paid jobs who feel the pinch quite as much as the pensioner or the person on supplementary benefit. It is that group with earnings above the level which attracts the family income supplement but below the average level of average wages with whom we must also be concerned when we think in terms of the redistribution of income.
  I advocate the use of subsidies. I think that it will be a long time before we shall be able to say that the time of poverty has gone, that the time of hardship is no longer with us and that we can end subsidies for food and shelter. Having supported the subsidies, I must put in one warning note. I have found when I have argued this matter in correspondence that my right hon. Friend has been particularly considerate. If we are to interfere in the pricing of either food or shelter we must be clear that the cost of that interference must be met by all. In no sense should a cheap food policy be paid for either by farm workers or by the bakers.
  I represent large numbers of farm workers and bakers. The bakers have brought home to me the importance of this point. They feel resentful when they go into the shops and see that supermarkets are using bread as a loss leader. Then when they go to ask for a wage increase they are told that the firm cannot afford it. One reason for the industry not being able to afford wage increases, so they are told, is the price control of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Affairs. I accept the assurance of my right hon. Friend that that situation has not prevailed. None

  697
  the less, it is important for us that we convince the bakery workers of the truth of my right hon. Friend's assurance.
  If we are to pay subsidies they must allow adequate wages to be paid in the industry. The wages should equate with what they would be in a free market situation. We must be careful to ensure that we are not pursuing a cheap food policy at the expense of the workers' wages. That is true of both farm workers and bakers, who are in the low-paid category. I ask my right hon. Friend to be cautious about that.
  The one thing above all that has been welcomed is the introduction of price lists. When I have been to meetings of the Senior Citizens' Club of the Transport and General Workers' Union in North Staffordshire two items have always cropped up. One item is the price of cheese. That always seems to upset the old people. It is a constant preoccupation of the senior citizens. They notice how the price of cheese seems to go up rapidly in a cheese-producing area on the borders of Cheshire.
  The second item is that they want to know when the notices will go up in the shops to inform them of the maximum price that should be paid. I understand that the price notices for bread are already displayed. I understand that the maximum prices for butter and cheese will be put up on 17th February.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: The notices will go up, not the prices.
  Mr. Golding: Yes, my right hon. Friend corrects me. The shops will not be putting up their charges but displaying the charges. That was a misunderstanding due to my use of the vernacular, which I am sure the people of North Staffordshire will understand.
  The shops must display the prices of the three most commonly sold goods. I believe that that will be useful for many people. They will be pleased that it has happened. If tea and flour are to be subsidised the prices of those commodities should also be displayed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will turn her attention to that matter and deal with it as quickly as possible.
  I believe that the point that has been made about the social contract is abso
  698
  lutely right. It will be difficult to make people accept the need to restrain wage demands if there is no control on prices. It is fairly easy to explain to people that they must limit wage demands when they can survive. But they cannot survive in any real sense if they cannot afford food and shelter. It is when they cannot go to the shops on a Wednesday, never mind a Thursday or Friday, to purchase enough food for them to last the week that the real pressure will come on the husband from the wife to obtain as high a wage increase as possible. It is on this fundamental point that the pressure will arise.
  The Government will be wise, so long as they want the social contract to be observed, to maintain subsidies on food and housing.
  7.19 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Alison: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) paid his right hon. Friend a handsome tribute when he referred to her soaring popularity and said that she is one of the most popular Ministers and one of the most popular Members of the House. That is a fair point. I discern a trace of the explanation for her soaring popularity in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill we are now considering. The acid test will be whether the right hon. Lady is prepared—I now use a phrase which she has used before—to phase out her popularity. This is a short-term popularity. There is a real danger that when the cost underlying this short-term popularity is appreciated it will evaporate even more quickly than it would have done when phasing-out comes.
  In this connection I draw the attention of the right hon. Lady to what I consider to be one of the great gaps in the information the House ought to have when it comes to consider a Bill giving the Government power to launch into astronomical sums of public expenditure. We are talking about a potential net increase in public expenditure, as far as I can see, of over £1,000 million, if the right hon. Lady goes up to the full limit. This is 5 per cent. of the total public expenditure as forecast for the current year in the related White Paper. That is expenditure of all sorts, capital and consumption for goods and services.
  The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Alan Williams): I hope that the hon. Member will bear in mind that he is making a comparison with a two-year figure for the subsidies, as compared with a single-year figure for overall public expenditure. I do not think that the figures work out as he suggests.
  Mr. Alison: I was talking about the global figures quoted here, and not making any sort of judgment when this expenditure will arise. I shall come to that later. I am simply comparing the global figures embraced in the Bill with the coming year's total public expenditure on goods and services, capital and consumption, which is about £20,000 million. It is in this context that Parliament is faced, in present circumstances, with a chasm in the information provided to it. This chasm concerns information on financing. It was touched on most eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). There is a lack of information about the way in which, in the present context, these sums will be financed.
  There are two great chasm walls which overshadow and bring out more starkly the information chasm. One of these walls is the public sector borrowing requirement and the other, most important wall, is the overseas balance. On the public sector borrowing requirement, which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne rightly introduced, I draw the Minister's attention to some advice we were given by Mr. Ward, of the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge University, during the course of his advice to the Expenditure Committee and its General Sub-Committee of which I am a member.
  Mr. Ward was analysing the supplementary Financial Statement produced for the November Budget. He pointed out that the Financial Statement issued at the time of the March Budget contained an estimate for the public sector borrowing requirement of £1,170 million. The estimate in November, eight months later, and before the Budget changes, had risen from £1,170 million to £4,100 million, which represents an increase in the financing deficit of £2,931 million—equivalent to 4 per cent. or more of the gross domestic product, or greater than the policy change in the financial balance
  700
  introduced in any Budget since 1950–51. Mr. Ward pointed out that this substantial revision, from £1,000 million to £4,000 million-odd in the public sector borrowing requirement, before Budget changes, arose wholly from increases in the estimate of public expenditure between March and November of this year. In that eight-months' period it was quite plain that the main single cause of the increase was the change, in percentage and absolute terms, which occurred in expenditure on subsidies.
  Subsidies, whether they be for public corporations or for food, increased between March and November by £1,000 million. The public sector borrowing requirement after the Budget changes of November had been announced was not the £4,000 million I have referred to; it had risen to £6,000 million. We now have an overhang of public sector borrowing of about £6,000 million and, as far as I can see, none of this takes into account the net increase in possible subsidy payments which are being budgeted for in this little Bill.
  Against this background, therefore, we must have some sort of indication about financing. Will this immense potential increase in subsidy payment, equivalent to the earlier £1,000 million increase, if and when it comes to be spent, go straight on to the public sector borrowing requirement, as did the increase in subsidy between March and November? We must have information on this, because we cannot discuss the Bill rationally unless we know how the financing is to be arranged.
  The only alternative is clearly to increase taxes, including social service contributions, or, somehow, to look for some increase in the trading surpluses of public corporations, or to increase their various charges. We must know this. If the bill for this extra £1,000 million is to be met by increases in taxes or social security contributions, clearly either alternative will have a profound bearing upon the rationale of the subsidy scheme. For example, if we are to go in for increases in domestic taxation—on indirect taxes, for example—to finance this extra bill, it makes little sense to introduce a programme of regressive taxes to finance a programme of subsidies 52 per cent. of which go to those earning over £50 a week.

  701
  It is profoundly relevant to an appraisal of this Bill for us to have some information about financing. Will it be through the public sector borrowing requirement, charges, contributions through the social security system, or extra taxes, direct or indirect? It is impossible to make a rational judgment of the Bill unless we have some such indication. If the public sector borrowing requirement is to be the engine for financing this huge net increase then we ought to have some idea as to whether the right hon. Lady thinks it will be financed as to borrowing by net contributions from the private sector in the domestic economy or whether it will all go to the overseas balance, as the present net borrowing requirement largely seems to be going.
  If the Government are to be able to persuade the private sector to save £1,000 million and to buy gilt-edged securities to enable the right hon. Lady to transfer this buying power to the consumers of food, then we shall have no net increase in demand impinging on the foreign balance. There will be a pro tanto compensating offset in purchasing power in the economy. If it goes straight into foreign borrowing there is bound to be an exact and equivalent increase in the inflow of goods and services. Here I take it as axiomatic that the Government will not borrow the money through the banking system. That would be directly inflationary.
  If it is not financed through lending by the private sector, and if the overseas sector lends it, there will be an exactly equivalent inflow of goods and services, to the detriment of the balance of payments. These are the vital items of input information we need to make an appraisal. I hope that in replying the Minister of State will fill in the gap about the financing of this huge potential deficit.
  One of the curious things about the provisions in the Bill is that, as far as I can see, they do not seem to be reflected in the official estimates of expenditure provided in the latest Public Expenditure Blue Book. I refer the Minister of State to Table 2.3, on page 28. The strange thing is that if we look at the food subsidies column and take the year 1974–75 through 1975–76 and onwards, we find that in 1974 survey price terms there is an
  702
  appreciable and steady decline, in real terms, in subsidy payments.
  Are we to understand that the right hon. Lady is phasing out subsidies in real terms and that this huge bill is an attempt to conceal the fact and to compensate for inflation? Is she trying to keep up with inflation with this extra sum, but not quite succeeding, and in real terms phasing out subsidies? We must have that information. Are the Government saying that they want powers to take an extra £1,000 million for subsidies but at the same time the subsidies bill is going down, in real terms? Are the Government, in real terms, increasing the subsidies or phasing them out?
  It is extremely unsatisfactory for the Government to ask for another £1,000 million, in this context, without telling us how it will be financed. I hope that the Minister of State will give us unequivocal information and make clear whether the money will come from the overseas sector, the private sector at home or, as I hope it will not, from the banking sector.
  7.31 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Clemitson: I wish to go back to two arguments put by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore). One of his arguments against huge subsidies was that they encouraged waste. Any hon. Member who was born before the great divide of the Second World War will have been brought up to believe that waste is a great evil. Perhaps we have forgotten that in recent years. "Waste not, want not" is a piece of conventional wisdom that perhaps needs to be resurrected. To say that the way to avoid waste is to allow the full market price to be charged is a strange argument. It seems to imply that those who are better off, and the rich, are somehow more fortunate than the rest of us and do not need that kind of discipline, or that their impact on the total economy is so small that we can forget it.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, Central went on to say that there are some people who are too poor to buy milk even at the subsidised price of 6p. The logic of that is that if the price of milk went up to 8½p, which the hon. Gentleman suggested would be the price of unsubsidised milk, more people would be unable to buy it. I am all for less waste,

  703
  but let us not take the usual pessimistic Conservative view of human nature. Let us try to achieve a reduction in waste by other means than allowing prices to find their supposed market levels.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, Central spoke about world trade and the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) spoke of the effect of subsidies on our balance of payments. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central lauded the virtues of self-sufficiency. If I remember correctly our external trade figures, the great bulk of our imports is not of food or raw materials but of manufactured goods. It would be far easier for us to become self-sufficient in manufactured goods than to become self-sufficient in foodstuffs, for the simple reason that it is difficult to grow tea and pineapples in this country and much easier to make motor cars, refrigerators and television sets.
  Another argument advanced by Opposition Members is that there are other essentials in life than food. Of course there are. There is shelter, which in various ways is subsidised. There is fuel, and it has been pointed out that increases in gas and electricity prices more than offset the effect of food subsidies in keeping food prices down.
  What do Opposition Members advocate? Are they advocating that we should extend subsidies and subsidise not only food and shelter but fuel as well? There is a good case for saying that.
  Mr. Dan Jones: My hon. Friend is putting his finger on the core of the truth. Not one Opposition Member has mentioned the greatest cost of all, the importation of oil. I encourage my hon. Friend to proceed with his case.
  Mr. Clemitson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What do Opposition Members want? Do they want the elimination of subsidies or the extension of subsidies to cover other essentials? I merely ask the question.
  Food forms a large element in the budget of the less well off. The less well off a person is the larger does food loom in the family budget. If one compares price increases over a range of foodstuffs one finds almost without exception that price increases are greater in the foodstuffs at the cheaper end of any group—
  704
  whether it be butter, bacon, or anything else—yet it is the cheaper items of food which the poorer members of the community tend to buy.
  It is said that food subsidies are indiscriminate. They are in one sense, but there is here a point of basic principle. Should we go for a system of universal, indiscriminate benefit and offset it by clawing back in taxation from the better off, or should we adopt the alternative, constantly recommended by Opposition Members, of means-tested benefits?
  Mr. Alison: On that important element of the hon. Gentleman's argument, has he noticed the policy statement of the Labour Party which pointed out that on the taxation side of the equation the scope for raising taxes nowadays to meet the extra bills he postulates lies almost exclusively in the regressive indirect field?
  Mr. Clemitson: I am coming to the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash about financing and taxation.
  The alternative constantly suggested to "indiscriminate" benefits is a form of means-tested benefits. Means-tested benefits have so many disadvantages and are so objectionable in experience and principle to so many people that we hardly need to go over the arguments. It is well known that the take-up of most means-tested benefits is not high. People have memories of means-tested benefits which cannot easily be shrugged off, and means-tested benefits are divisive.
  I will listen with great interest to the Minister's comments on the question of financing. I am in favour of higher taxation. I do not subscribe to the view, the lower the taxation the better. I believe firmly that the rich should be heavily taxed—[interruption.] I am reminded of the Biblical quotation:
  "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
  Therefore, if we increase taxes on the richer members of society, at least we are doing so partly for their own good.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Neubert: If one were to go out and buttonhole a man in the street and acquaint him with the

  705
  fact that Parliament was tonight considering the expenditure of sums around the £1,700 million mark, no doubt the man in the street would feel that it was being spent on Concorde or Maplin, or at least on desirable social projects such as the development of 100,000 houses in the East London dockland, for which an investment of £1,000 million over 20 years is required. But if the man in the street were told that the purpose of the expenditure was to give a net cash benefit to the average person of between £11 and £13 per annum, or five shillings a week, he might be faintly astonished. However, that is the net effect of the provisions of the Bill.
  In order to provide that assistance we have to pay a very high price indeed in terms of a nightmare of bureaucracy, of regulations, controls and restrictions. We won a victory over the decision to abandon the display of some maximum price lists, because it must be said that if the Secretary of State believes that the average shopper will go into her local shop and ask for such a list to be flourished before she buys goods, the right hon. Lady is living in a world very different from that of my own experience. Even though we may have won a partial victory on that score, there will be so much paper work involved that it will be sufficient to give the Secretary of State a ticker-tape parade down Victoria Street. She has recoiled from an army of snoopers not for its own sake but because that army is already flagging under the burden of so much consumer protection work. We have a situation in which, in order to meet desirable social ends, there is such a misconceived method of achieving it that we involve ourselves virtually in strangulation.
  Another effect of the system is that subsidies tend to increase consumption. Butter consumption in 1974 rose by 82,000 tons, or by nearly 20 per cent. The right hon. Lady galloped over that point in her argument and tried to gloss over it by saying that it helped to offset the cost of imported margarine oils. No matter what interpretation she seeks to put on the figures, there is evidence of increased consumption.
  It is also reported that the consumption of cheese has increased by 6½ per cent.
  706
  One's own experience tends to bear out that figure. For those who dine out, the cheeseboard comes up almost automatically bearing not exotic continental cheeses but solid English cheeses such as Wensleydale. This is not surprising since it bears a subsidy of 12p in the pound. I have no doubt that business men at lengthy lunches and tourists in increasing numbers appreciate these generous portions, but this was not the purpose of the legislation—which was to meet the needs of those in greatest need, which is a matter on which we are all agreed.
  Let us look at the consumption of tea. In an earlier debate the House was assured by the Government that there is no evidence of increased tea consumption, yet the Secretary of State intervened a short while ago to say that India had welcomed her action in subsidising tea. Presumably India did not welcome her action because our tea imports will remain the same, or because they will fall but because, as a result, consumption of tea will rise.
  There is another argument, which is still valid, relating to the distortion of the market over a period of time. Let us take the relationship of butter to margarine. We see that in all the capitals of Europe the price of margarine is anything from 6p to 39p per pound less than the price of butter. But that is not the case in the United Kingdom. We have a Secretary of State who acts like a latter-day charitable Marie Antoinette who takes the view "If the people cannot afford margarine, let them eat butter." At least people can now tell the difference between Stork and butter. Stork is the more expensive of the two. Such absurdities arise from the undoubtedly laudable intention of the right hon. Lady to help those who need help most, but the method by which it is achieved is fundamentally wrong.
  There is a further indictment to be made of subsidies, and that is that the whole policy conceals the true nature of the situation from the public. The public are shielded from the full knowledge of inflation—a knowledge which is essential if we are to escape from our plight. So long as Government Ministers, for their own political reasons, assure the public that something is being done, people

  707
  generally will not face the serious difficulties the nation is experiencing in meeting the costs of food, housing and other essentials in the face of the rapid rate of inflation that threatens us.
  What justification has been advanced for this massive expenditure and for the approach which has been taken—an approach which appears to have so many shortcomings?
  The first argument is that the subsidy helps people who are most in need and assists in redistributing wealth from the better off to the less well off. However much the Minister may assert this and quote bodies outside the House in seeking statistical evidence, our own experience tends to throw great doubt on the proposition. Let us take the average family. There is little variation in the type of food consumed by people in the different income groups. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members may find this hilarious, but the fact remains that the foods which are subsidised are foods which are basic to us all. They appear on the meal-tables of every family in the land. It follows that if one is able to afford more, one is likely to eat more, and in consequence one enjoys a greater subsidy and receives more benefit.
  The argument that this expenditure is to be funded through income tax has been denied by the greatest authority himself; namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said quite explicitly that, whatever the method of funding our operations in the House, in his Budget calucations the funding of food subsidy was not to be from income tax but through increases in VAT by imposing it on other items of consumption and also by an increase in the excise duties on beer, tobacco, wine and gambling. The items on which the Chancellor last March placed VAT were ice-cream, confectionery, soft drinks and crisps—and, whatever may be said about their nutritional value, they comprise part of the diet of ordinary families, particularly children. Those four items sound like a schoolboy's meal when he comes home to tea. Therefore, to put up the prices of those items by adding VAT and at the same time having food subsidies is counter-productive.
  Similarly, it will not have escaped the attention of hon. Members opposite that pensioners—particularly male pensioners
  708
  —enjoy their beer and tobacco. Again, to put up the prices of those items is counter-productive. Bearing in mind the small net benefit that the pensioner achieves by these subsidies, these points are valid.
  We cannot accept the argument that much is being achieved to redistribute wealth in this way—even if we thought that was desirable—or to help those most in need. Far from it.
  The next justification might and should have been that, by the implementation of food subsidies, we as a Parliament can achieve some restraint in wage claims. It was a remarkable performance by the Secretary of State to go through her opening speech without once making that claim. Not once did she mention wage claims as a reason for food subsidies. Yet, if I may remind her—perhaps it is painful to her recollection—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 26th March said that:
  "food subsidies on this scale must be a precondition of any voluntary agreement on incomes."—[Official Report, 26th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 298.]
  That made it plain that it was part of the social contract struck between the Labour Government and the trade union movement with the intention that, if it were observed honourably by the Government, it would result in reduced wage claims. But what has been the result? Quite the contrary. The latest figures show an annual rate of 28½ per cent. in wage increases. So this sop to the social contract has not achieved the desired effect.
  The Price Commission's report for the three months to November shows the serious impact of increased wages on material costs. The commission estimates that labour costs now account for about 60 per cent. of increases in general. That is the scale of the problem posed by increased wage demands.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) to my mind gave the game away when he spoke of subsidies as the means of transferring income from husband to wife. Was he not, by that, implying that in families where the wife has most need of the increased income the husband was holding it back—presumably to spend on other items of domestic consumption? Could that be the explanation for the increased expenditure on gambling and the increased consumption

  709
  of beer, tobacco and wine which is not confined to one income group but may account for a wrong sense of priorities in the family budget?
  The need to restrain wage increases is undoubtedly real. That is one reason why we, as a party, were prepared last October, at the General Election, to retain subsidies for the time being. If it meant that there would be some real conciliatory response from trade unions as a result of such action, any Government would welcome it. But events have sadly disillusioned us. The scale of wage increases has far outstripped the increase in the cost of living, serious though it is. Therefore, with some disappointment, we realise that that part of the Government's plan has failed and, indeed, invalidated a substantial part of the argument for subsidies.
  We had a glimmering of a suspicion—the Secretary of State has obviously had to go out to eat—that the Government would like to have food subsidies on nutritional grounds. We were given the impression of the Minister, rather like Major Barbara providing a parliamentary soup kitchen, determining the kind of foods that the average family would eat. Was not that the point of selecting foods which form an important part of the family budget? Otherwise the money might be spent on other items of food which may not be so desirable.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that there is no intention of predetermining nutritional values. This point has been made clear by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on previous occasions.
  Mr. Neubert: I accept that point, of course, but I gained that impression from a remark made by the Secretary of State in her speech. I shall have to read it in the Official Report. There certainly is not an argument for believing that that is an adequate reason for this massive panoply of food subsidies.
  I turn now to the real reason for food subsidies. I lack nothing in my respect for the Secretary of State's sincerity, but I believe that she is mistaken in her apparently single-minded intention to stem the tide of rapid inflation.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun) spoke about
  710
  appearing to do something for people in relation to increases in the cost of living—fighting the battle for them and with them. The hon. Lady would perform a better service for her constituents if she made plain how much the Government are fighting this battle with rubber swords and cardboard armour. It does nobody any service to give the impression that dramatic action is being taken to halt the rise in the cost of living when any acute housewife knows that the opposite is the position. The British housewife is not daft. She cannot believe, from all the talk about subsidies that she may hear in Parliament and elsewhere, on the radio and television, that anything is being done to stem the massive rise in her food bill each week.
  My local paper, the Havering Recorder, runs a Shopwatch Campaign. In its latest report it points to an increase, in a fortnight, of no less than 57p on a shopping basket of 33 items. That was at the London Co-op. By comparison with an increase of that magnitude, the British housewife will feel that this help, although acceptable as any help is in times of financial difficulty, is not very much, and that it will be quickly swallowed up. Therefore, however much we may be with the Government in wishing to see some obstacle put in the way of increased prices, we do ourselves and others no good service by concealing the true picture.
  I should like to leave the last but one word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I feel that his statement on 12th November is worth reading in full. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) will appreciate this point, although he appears by his temporary absence to have missed the opportunity of hearing anyone mention the words "fuel" and "energy". The Chancellor said:
  "In general we must reduce and eventually remove subsidies of all kinds which distort the relative cost of different forms of energy, and which stimulate wasteful consumption. Higher energy prices will affect some people more than others. Fuel bulks large in old age pensioners' budgets. But the best way to help pensioners is to increase pensions, not to sell fuel to everybody far below its cost."—[Official Report, 12th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 255.]
  If we substitute for the two words "fuel" and "energy" in that statement the word "food", we have the classic case against the Bill. It could not have

  711
  been put better by any of my right hon. Friends.
  If the Secretary of State is already convinced in her mind—she was immediately on the defensive this afternoon—that eventually subsidies must be phased out—the right hon. Lady has said that she does not wish to see them as a permanent feature of the economy—let her start now. Or, if she has indeed already embarked on this course and that is the inference to be drawn—I refer to the critical point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) that the right hon. Lady, by proposing the same level of expenditure on subsidies for the ensuing period, has virtually committed herself to a reduction in real terms—let her say so.
  That would be a great service for the Government and everyone else, because it would make it plain that this is an illusion—a paradise in which we can no longer live, that we must start to phase out these excessive subsidies. It would be easier to do it now than later in this Parliament as we approach another election. If the right hon. Lady does not take prompt action, she will be in a quicksand of subsidies from which she will have no hope of escape.
  8.1 p.m.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I have followed with great care the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert). He said that if we stopped someone in the street outside and asked how to spend this money, the last thing that person would think of would be food subsidies. That may be so in Whitehall, but not in my part of the country. It would also not be true of the people of the islands of Skye, Lewis and Harris who will benefit from these subsidies, and I commend my right hon. Friend for making this possible for the first time.
  The hon. Member spoke of the situation being concealed from the public. The Government have not concealed the difficulties of our economic situation either by their pronouncements or by their actions in respect of subsidies. He also said that the ordinary housewife is no fool. She is not: she knows what the situation is.
  There is a fundamental difference between charging a higher price for energy
  712
  and charging higher prices for food. If subsidies applied to energy, everyone would use it in larger amounts and the rich would benefit more. However, I could not care less whether a millionaire stuffs himself with bread, cheese and milk. Let him eat as much as he likes: he will soon get fed up with it. It is a different matter when it comes to imposing higher charges on the use of energy—although ever here, in common with some of my hon. Friends, I do not know why we should go overboard in respect of the nationalised industries and demand that they should make profits.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that the daily diet of people in this country is much the same everywhere, that the daily fare is the same in working class areas as in his. I cannot believe that he is living in the same land as I. Not a very high proportion of my constituents in Blantyre eat caviare and smoked salmon. I am not suggesting that a high proportion of his constituents do either, but certainly there would be a lower proportion of relatively lavish foods in working-class areas.
  Our debates often show a fundamental difference in thinking between the two sides of the House. The more difficult our situation and the greater the problem of inflation, the more reason there is for food subsidies. Our opponents abhor the thought of what they regard as a blunderbuss application. They would prefer what they euphemistically call "selectivity" but we call means-testing. In the part of the world from which I come, and no doubt from which you come, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I can drag you into this—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. Everyone knows that I am absolutely neutral on all these issues.
  Dr. Miller: I am not casting doubt on your neutrality, Sir. I know that your part of the country is much the same as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queens Park (Mr. McElhone), which most of us still know as the Gorbals.
  I had personal experience of the desperate means-testing days, when the establishment was known as "the means test" because working people had to undergo a degrading process before

  713
  obtaining even the pittance to which they were entitled. It raises great emotional fears in people on this side—perhaps more than it should, but memories die hard.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend is making a very good point. Would he not agree with me that the alternative that the Conservatives are suggesting, of means-testing, was strongly in evidence in the Housing Finance Act, and that that typified their mentality towards the mass of ordinary working people who will benefit from these subsidies?
  Dr. Miller: Absolutely. I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. It is another indication of the fundamental cleavage between the two sides. I do not suggest that our Conservative opponents have no compassion, only that now and then it is misplaced.
  One of the major reasons for the Bill is that it is in keeping with our agreement with the trade union movement over the social contract. I know that some hon. Members, particularly on the other side, are worried about the social contract—at least, I hope that they are worried, that they want it to succeed—because every little aspect is not going exactly as we should like. But this is "an ongoing process", in the jargon introduced in the House on Monday. One of the promises made by the Government in their close association with the trade union movement was to introduce food subsidies. All that we are doing is continuing them.
  It has been said before but it can bear saying again that food subsidies help certain categories of people more than others—the larger families, old-age pensioners, low-wage earners. The reason is quite obvious. It is that the people in those groups spend a very much higher proportion of their income on food than people in other groups.
  I had 20 years in medical practice in an industrial part of Glasgow, from 1947 to 1967, during some pretty grim postwar years. I can remember going into working-class houses in what was later to become my constituency. The staple diet was milk, bread, tea and a piece of cheese. Let us not pretend that we have become so affluent now that there is no group of people in this land of ours
  714
  who do not still have as their staple diet the items I have mentioned. There are still difficulties, and it is up to us in this House to recognise that we have a duty and an obligation to those people in our society who are in a more unfortunate category, in respect to low income, to old age or to having large families.
  As I have said, I am not worried at all about the accusation that the rich man benefits also by these food subsidies. The right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who may aspire to the seat of the Leader of the Opposition on the Front Bench, can stuff her larder with any amount of bread, butter or cheese that she likes.
  Mr. Frank McElhone: Tinned goods.
  Dr. Miller: She may be able to get it in tins also. I have no objections, because I know without a shadow of doubt that by far the greatest benefits of these subsidies on foodstuffs will go to those who deserve them most.
  I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for continuing with this policy of food subsidies. If necessary, in order to ensure that the subsidies help people even more—although the hon. Member for Romford said that it did not make much difference in the weekly food bill—I would even suggest to the Minister of State the process of perhaps increasing the food subsidies so that they give even more help than they do at present.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: I am particularly fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to follow up some of the remarks of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) on the question of subsidies in principle. I shall address myself to that matter in due course.
  I have three principal reasons for opposing the Second Reading of the Bill and for supporting the Opposition amendment. The first reason is the principle and practice of subsidies; the second is an administrative one; and the third is economic. I recollect that the Secretary of State, in moving the Second Reading, referred to her support for the temporary nature of subsidies. It occurs to me that the view

  715
  which she expresses is not shared by all her colleagues on the Government benches. It seemed that it would be useful if she had a seminar, perhaps, to explain to hon. Members of her party exactly why such subsidies should be temporary rather than permanent.
  I want to give one reason why they should be temporary. That involves the practice, because the effect of subsidies is somewhat similar to trying to run down a moving escalator that is coming up. One is running after, in that sense, the prices. If one looks at the record of what has happened since the present subsidy programme began under the present Government, one gets a very interesting illustration of that. I want to refer to commodities and to dates. This will illustrate the point well enough.
  The bread subsidy was introduced on 12th March. It was increased on 12th May, increased on 13th August, and increased on 10th January 1975. This is information that has been given to me by the Minister's Department. The milk subsidy was introduced on 21st March. It was increased on 1st August, and increased again after that. The butter subsidy was introduced on 1st April. It was increased subsequently, on 7th October. The cheese subsidy was introduced on 6th May. It was increased on 19th August.
  I think that catalogue of introduction followed by increases is an illustration of the escalator which one cannot get off once one starts. One is running behind the prices, unfortunately, and not running ahead.
  If one looks at the levels of expenditure this involves, one starts to appreciate the serious economic matter that this can be. At the beginning—the end of March—the total was estimated as £292 million for 1974–75. Going to the end of May it was £395 million. At the end of September it was £429 million. On the latest information and estimates—the Secretary of State gave another revised estimate today—it is about £550 million to £600 million. That seems to be the order of the figure. That is the order of the escalation which is involved in trying to support a subsidy system.
  In those circumstances I suggest that we have here an uncontrolled mechanism.
  716
  There is a substantial measure of agreement among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the purpose we are trying to serve. There can be no real argument about that. We are trying to support and improve the standard of living of the people of this country. The only argument between us is about the proper and most effective mechanism for doing that, to which reference has already been made.
  This is not an effective use of our resources. I shall come to the economic arguments, but I should like briefly to refer, secondly, to the administrative flaw, and what I regard as a continuing administrative flaw, in this type of procedure.
  The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states that Clause 1:
  "raises the financial ceiling on food subsidy payments to £1,200 million, with a power to increase the total to a sum not exceeding £1,700 million by order, subject to affirmative resolution."
  That is from 1st April 1976. We are becoming only too familiar with the constant flow of affirmative orders, of which it is very difficult to keep track. I spent some time in the Library of the House yesterday trying to obtain a list of such orders and regulations. It is very difficult to find a consolidated list in relation to a proper control of the lending and spending powers of this House.
  This Bill is yet another licence to spend—a licence to spend which we just cannot afford. Looking at the economic argument, one can see exactly why we cannot allow this licence. If we apply the tests that we ought to apply to any spending legislation—the tests of the net borrowing requirement, the trade deficit and our foreign borrowings—we find that this piece of legislation is faulty on all three counts. It increases net borrowing requirement. That is a choice open to hon. Members on both sides of the House. They can choose their social priorities. Last night the Opposition chose one particular social priority which we believe aids the economic advantage of this country and not only the earning power of the people but also their productive contribution, as opposed to an expenditure of this type, which is consumed and gone and is a matter of Government manipulation and control.
  Second, it will cause our balance of trade situation to deteriorate, because

  717
  here we have a situation in which we are actually using Government money in order to make our balance of trade position worse. We are actually paying the consumer for the right to buy imported goods. It seems absolute nonsense in our present predicament to be spending taxpayers' money in order to increase the imports of commodities, although I accept that we need them. It seems foolish to be taking measures which make our trade position worse.
  On that account we are making our foreign borrowing position all the more difficult to substantiate. We have a difficult credibility position in the world, and measures of this nature can only lead to our effective borrowing capacity being questioned more. In these circumstances I can see no alternative but to vote for the amendment and against the Second Reading.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sure that my opening comments will receive the unanimous support of hon. Members present. How deplorable it is that on major debates such as we are now having the Liberal benches are always empty. One can never find a Liberal Member on such occasions. I congratulate the Conservatives on their good attendance, and I say the same for my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Mr. Michael Marshall: The hon. Member is absolutely right in what he says and we support him fully. Is this absence not all the more deplorable, since the Liberal Party tabled an amendment?
  Mr. Lewis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for intervening, even though he has stolen my next point. I noticed that the Liberals were all present to raise a point of order over their amendment not being called, but I believe that they knew that Mr. Speaker could not select it. After that they vanished. I do not know whether they went via subsidised transport.
  I noticed also the continued absence of the Scottish nationalists. Where are they? They were going to set the place alight. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), who made an excellent speech, will tell all those who
  718
  voted for the Scottish National Party that that party was not interested in the subject of food.
  I notice, too, that my great friend, whom I love dearly—the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—is not here. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) may claim to have a great knowledge of economic affairs, but he is nothing compared with the right hon. Member for Down, South. Had the right hon. Gentleman been here he would have torn the hon. Member to shreds. He would have put forward his great economic philosophy.
  Mr. McElhone: Is not the absence of the Scottish National Members all the more deplorable since we are debating a very important clause which affects the Highlands and Islands of Scotland? One of those islands was named after my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). It is the Isle of Lewis.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps better than most, will appreciate how important Lewis is to a debate such as this. We have dealt with Scotland and Ireland, and now we must deal with Wales. With a name like Lewis I must declare an interest. Where are the Welsh Members of the Liberal Party? In a recent debate the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) was extolling the virtues of the Welsh farmers. He was saying how terrible was their position, how they were starving, and how something should be done to help them. Of course, the whole of the Opposition benches unite in defence of the farmers. They do not worry about the subsidies then. It does not matter whether a farmer is rich or poor, whether he has a large farm or a small farm. Subsidy is indiscriminate. I do not argue that because farmers can afford to drive around in Rolls-Royces and Bentleys they should not have subsidies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is here for every debate, will agree with me, I am sure, that when the miners demonstrated they did not drive to the demonstrations in Rolls-Royce and Bentley cars. The farmers, however, are fortunate enough to be able to do that.

  719
  I have heard all these debates before. Along with Mr. Speaker, I first came to the House about 30 years ago—[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member is laughing.
  Mr. W. Benyon: I was thinking that the hon. Member has been here rather a long time.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Yes, and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) is unlikely to imitate that achievement.
  Subsidies originated during the war, when the Government wanted to unite the people who had difficulty in getting food and paying for it. It was not a Labour Government then. It was a wartime Government, led by that great Englishman, Winston Churchill, and, before him, the not-so-great Neville Chamberlain. The object of the subsidies was to have a reasonable cost for food and see that it was fairly shared out.
  When it comes to food subsidies, the very rich, the reasonably rich and the comfortably-off trot out the same objection—"If you subsidise bread, butter, milk and the rest, the rich get the same benefit as the poor." But the same applies to the health service. The Tory Party opposed both the Second Reading and the Third Reading of the measure which set it up. The Conservatives' argument then was the same—that the rich could afford to pay for medical attention, forgetting that many poor people could not. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) were here, because he could support from personal knowledge my assertion that many mothers could not take their children to doctors because they could not afford to pay them. Many mothers knew that their children were suffering because they could not afford the doctors' bills. Many good doctors, like my hon. Friend, used to treat poor patients without charging, but they could not all afford to do so, because the doctors were not so well off, either.
  Why do the people of whom I have spoken trot out these excuses? The same things could be said of many of the handouts which are the equivalent of subsidies and which go to rich and poor alike. But if a large sum of money is involved it will come from taxation, and
  720
  those who have more will pay more. That is good. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride. I do not mind the millionaire or the multimillionaire eating hundreds of loaves of bread. If he can stuff himself with bread and get the benefit of more subsidies than ordinary members of the public, good luck to him. He is paying more. Let him have it.
  The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) said "When we go out to dine, we all dine more or less alike." Where does he come from? Does he not know that the average working man does not go out to dine, unless he dines in his factory canteen? He might go to the pub and have a pint of beer and a bit of bread and cheese, which might be subsidised. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his caviare from. My dockers do not get it. He said that if the dock workers were consulted we should find that they would prefer to have hundreds of thousands of houses on the dockland development. Of course they would. But it was not my right hon. Friend who stopped the development of the docks, who stopped the building of houses, who introduced the vicious Housing Finance Act; it was the hon. Gentleman's Government.
  We are seeing the automatic acceptance of the idea that there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor—the "Let's treat the poor differently from the rich" attitude. I never heard any Conservative Member say a word against subsidies for Ferranti or Leyland.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Some of them voted for them.
  Mr. Lewis: Of course. They do not mind lolly for the boys, provided they are their boys. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) wish to intervene?
  Dr. Keith Hampson: I would much rather the hon. Gentleman sat down. Then I could make my speech.
  Mr. Lewis: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman will be called next. But I am sure that what I am saying is factually true, and that it has been proved over the years.
  We must look after those who, for various reasons, cannot look after themselves very well. They may be sick or

  721
  disabled. They may have large families, or be on low incomes.
  I say to the millionaires—dare I be personal and say "the millionairess"?—that if they want to show how much they are against the indiscriminate use of taxpayers' money for subsidy they can pay it back. There is a little arrangement whereby a person can send a cheque to the Treasury, asking it to put into the Consolidated Fund money equal to the amount by which that person has overdrawn his subsidies.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On bread.
  Mr. Lewis: Or anything he likes.
  Occasionally one reads of a rich person leaving his money to the Treasury to reduce the National Debt. Let us have a little practical patriotism from all those hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel that they do not need the subsidies. Let those who think that it is wrong to be indiscriminate say, "From the passing of the Bill, I will not have these subsidies. Each year or each quarter, I shall pay out the amount of the subsidy I estimate I have been drawing." That is a nice way of helping the Treasury and of seeing that fairness is done.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will recollect that on previous occasions we have opposed huge salary increases for judges, generals and high civil servants, who will also benefit from subsidised food. I would prefer to pay them the extra money. However, if they feel that it is too much, they can pay it back. Many hon. Members have said that Members of Parliament do not have to take the increases they are awarded. Hon. Members do not have to draw those increases. They can pay them back.
  I know that many of my hon. Friends could use to advantage an increase of £5,000 a year. I agree that such an increase would be wrong, because many Opposition Members would not need it. However, they could pay it back. That is the principle. Many hon. Members receive from the taxpayers, including myself, various sums which may or may not be entirely necessary or worthy. I accept such sums, but I do not pay them back. There is nothing to stop any hon. Mem
  722
  ber saying that he is worried about the economic situation and the workers.
  We heard just now from the Opposition benches a reference to the high wages being received by the workers. Why do hon. Members always refer to wages? What about salaries? I have never heard one Opposition Member condemn high salaries of £40,000 and £50,000 which certain select people receive. Many receive more. They also benefit from subsidies and tax-free perks.
  Mr. Michael Marshall: The hon. Gentleman refers to very high salaries of £40,000 and £50,000. What does a sum of that kind mean after the payment of tax?
  Mr. Lewis: It means exactly the same as a miner, bricklayer or carpenter receives pro rata. If we pay a miner, bricklayer or carpenter £50,000 a year, he will willingly pay the tax. He will go to the tax office every Friday and pay it regularly under PAYE, unlike the company directors. He will use a wheelbarrow to take it there, and he will have more left that he receives in a year now. I represent 50,000 constituents. Although I have not consulted them all, I claim that any one of them would willingly draw £50,000 tomorrow. I have not worked it out, but assume that the tax is £45,000—
  Mr. Skinner: It depends on the accountant.
  Mr. Lewis: —he would willingly pay £45,000 tax and be left with £5,000.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover referred to the accountant. I was going on to that subject. Company directors not only receive salaries of £50,000; they enjoy tax-free perks. They also benefit from subsidies at the expense of the taxpayers. The taxpayers subsidise such people for their cars, flats, cleaners, gardeners, and 101 other things. I have never heard any hon. Gentleman say that it is wrong for the ordinary taxpayer to subsidise rich company directors who are left only with a minimal amount from their £50,000, after tax. Subsidies are being paid out every hour of the day. The richer the person, the more subsidies he receives.
  I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not yet returned

  723
  to the Chamber, because, although in my view she is one of our most able Ministers—we have a grand bunch of Ministers—I must criticise her on one count. I understand that she has appointed a Mr. Michael Young to head the new National Consumers' Council. I have no doubt that he is a very able man, but I have read somewhere that he is to devote only two days a week to his new job, and that he is to be paid £4,000. If that is right, it is scandalous. It represents £40 a day. I do not think that that is fair. He is a very capable man, but if we are to tell the miners that they must be careful not to ask for too much money, it cannot be right to pay anyone £40 a day, or £4,000 for a two-day week. Clearly it is a part-time job, and Mr. Young must have other jobs. I urge the Government to watch this aspect carefully.
  The Explanatory Memorandum points out that the continuation of food subsidies will require no increase in the staff of 160 at present involved. That is good. But we must be careful that we do not have too highly paid civil servants doing this work. There are—dare I say it?—plenty of good Socialists who would do jobs like this for much lower pay, and do them just as efficiently and capably. Therefore, I should like to see a limit placed on that side of the administrative costs.
  I hope that we shall have subsidies for a long time to come. Regardless of the complexion of the Government of the day, I do not believe that they will abolish subsidies altogether. They will try. Subsidies may go out for a time, but they will have to come back. They are the only fair way in which we can genuinely look after the interests of poorly paid people.
  Whether members of the Conservative Party are scrambling for the leadership, as they are at the moment, or scrambling to get back on to the Government benches, if they propose such retrogressive measures as the abolition of food subsides I can assure them that they will never return to power.
  I offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State, and I support the Bill 100 per cent.
  8.44 p.m.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: I am grateful to the Chair for extending a
  724
  favour to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth), and I am glad that, despite that, I have not been filibustered out of the debate by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who emerged from I know not what part of the House and treated as in his usual splendid and penetrating style. But apparently the hon. Gentleman does not understand that if his Government had not helped the farmers—and many of us think that they should have been helped earlier—there would have been serious food shortages which would have put up prices even more, which in turn would have in turn escalated the cost of subsidies.
  Earlier today there was some dispute about the motives behind these proposals, and in most of the debate there has been a challenge to the good intentions of the Opposition towards those usually described by Government supporters as the poorer sections of the community. They say that price subsidies will give most help to the lower paid. However, the dispute is not really about that objective. It is about how best to help those sections of the community.
  We have been told that there are manifest differences between the Labour and Conservative Parties, although there is not such a manifest difference between us about social justice. But the food subsidy scheme was brought in last July not just for economic reasons, to lower the food price index, but for the political reason that we were due for a General Election. It also had to do with the social contract, but it is not noticeable to any family or wage earner or trade union member that they are gaining substantial benefit to their weekly outlay. Indeed, they are not. We have been told the figures.
  But what the scheme does do is prove to trade union members that this is their Government, that the Government will listen to their desires and will operate the sort of philosophy they want. We have this sort of operation so that the trade unions can know that this is their sort of Government and the Government will do what they want.
  But once one steps on an escalator one keeps on going up it. In the case of food subsidies, the cost is rapidly going up. As late as 15th January the estimate for the bread subsidy was £63·4 million;

  725
  now it is up to £79 million. We are being asked to extend it still further. The enormous sum of £1,700 million is involved in the Bill. We talk about social justice, but how much better spent could be the £31 million for tea, for example? Yet we have had to scrabble with the Secretary of State for Education and Science in order to get a £1 million programme to combat adult illiteracy. If we had wished to help larger families, why could not the Government have increased family allowances?
  Our hospitals are in need. I was today on a delegation about the likely decision by Ministers to cut the major hospital-building programme in Leeds, which has been on the stocks for 12 years. They are likely to cancel stage 1, which would cost £2 million. Again, we could get the cost of the abolition of the earnings rule out of the money spent on one single item of these subsidies. But, of course, so many hon. Members opposite did not have the courage of their convictions last night when it came to the vote about the earnings rule.
  Many hon. Members opposite have signed an early-day motion asking that the old and the disabled—it is a noble cause—should have their telephone charges either reduced or at least saved from the massive increase in charges now proposed. Why cannot we pay for that out of the sums of money now being thrown away by the Government, whose own figures show that two-thirds of the food subsidies are going to families with an income of more than £2,000 a year?
  Mr. Bob Cryer: If the hon. Gentleman is so determined to oppose food subsidies, can he tell us why the Conservative Party at the last General Election did not uneqivocally declare that it would abolish them?
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Because of votes.
  Dr. Hampson: I am trying to point out to people who are so often hypocritical that here we have a very large sum of money available for social justice. I remind hon. Members that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy is to abolish the subsidies on the nationalised industries. The Conservative Party says that there is a place for a certain kind of subsidy, but we question whether the Gov
  726
  ernment are making the best use of the taxpayers' money by food subsidies.
  One point which has emerged in the debate is the gap between the cost of margarine and the cost of butter, and it has aroused great scorn among hon. Members opposite. Do they realise—the Minister is now present—the effect? If the margarine producers and those who package it do not get a quick answer on what is to happen on the butter subsidy, people will be thrown out of work. Does not that concern hon. Members opposite? One of the two major manufacturers of margarine packaging is now entirely cutting out its night work, throwing 55 people out of work. A competitor, the Metal Box Company, is doing the same. It is reducing its work force because of uncertainty—all due to the kind of proposal coming before the House yet again.
  The ramifications of what is proposed, and what we have had on the statute book since July, are very considerable and we must have answers, because once we get on the escalator it goes on, and as it goes on the confusion for manufacturers grows. Look at the waste of time in man-hours and operating costs with people trying to wend their way through the fantastic complexities of the current Price Code and other legislation we have had, and the confusion which it seems to be giving, not only to retailers and manufacturers but also to civil servants. Very shortly I will come again to a particular matter on this.
  As my hon. Friends have said, surely it is most important, if we are in a grave economic crisis—which we all believe we are, a crisis so grave that most people are unaware of its full dimensions; indeed it is crucial—that we get the full impact home to them instead of this cushioning in so many directions on these key items which the public see blazoned before them in supermarkets, which lulls them into a false sense of the nature of the crisis. At the same time other Ministers are urging us to understand how grave the situation is, and to save fuel and save generally. Why do we not get a co-ordinated package on energy and the economy which will have the right psychological impact? This kind of measure is certainly undermining that.
  A specific problem I want to raise whilst the Minister is here is the level

  727
  of distortion as the whole of the prices legislation becomes more and more complex. We have already heard evidence from the members of the Government that inflation in this country is now homegrown and is not coming only through imported materials. But the very legislation which is supposed to reduce prices is now so complex and cumbersome that in certain instances it is actually forcing up prices. It is home-grown with a vengeance. If one goes into supermarkets in the Leeds-Bradford area one sees this in relation to bread. So complex is the legislation and the way it operates that, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, it is hard for us as Members of the House to know how these things are being done and what they involve.
  On the 19th December, suddenly, we had a Written Answer from the Under-Secretary of State in which, at great length, he explained that he was going to bring in additional controls over discounts that bakers may extend to their customers on subsidised bread. I do not claim to be any expert at all on the Price Code, but, even with all the skills of the Library, I have not been able to find out how the controls have come to pass and by what procedure they have been implemented. Is it simply by a statement in reply to a Written Question that they have been put into operation, or is it by something I have missed under an order?
  Under the provisions of the Price Code larger bakers must notify changes in discount rates to the Price Commission. Surely that provision in the Price Code meant: "You must do so if you are changing your discount so that it puts up the price by offering less discount to the retailer." I have a situation in a chain of 12 very large supermarkets in the Leeds-Bradford area where the discount the baker wishes to offer the retailer is a large one and, therefore, with the retailer passing it on, customers pay a lower price for a loaf of bread. This has been the case for 14 months. But the Government, through their own crazy price control structure, are now actually forcing up the price of those loaves by refusing to allow the management—Spillers in this case—to pass on to the retailer the discount the firm wants to pass on. Because of that reply they are
  728
  being forced to keep the 35 per cent. discount down to 22½ per cent. What sort of crazy situation is this? I ask the Minister to reconsider the decision which he has notified to me in correspondence on this matter.
  What the Minister has done is not within the spirit of the original intention. If he says that there is abuse, that supermarkets may be putting pressure on bakers and demanding bigger discounts and this will mean that bakers will keep coming back to the Price Commission for an increase in prices, let him take action to deal with that. I note that the answer on 19th December came only three days after the bakers had notified the Price Commission of a rise, so there was an odd coincidence in the timing. If there is abuse, the Minister ought to take action against it in another way.
  If it is not that abuse which the Minister has in mind and if what he is arguing is that retailers are not passing on the discounts, again let him say so and let us know the firms that are involved. But this is not the case in the issue that I am raising. The issue that I am raising concerns Morrison supermarkets. The Department has acknowledged that there is an anomaly affecting them in the order which the Minister has printed in the Official Report. If, because of the efficiency and enterprise of a firm, the consumer is being forced to buy bread not at a lower price but at a higher figure, we are in a topsy-turvey situation.
  We know that because of the way in which these supermarkets are spread about in a limited, tight geographical area and have special distribution patterns with the bakers the latter get a better deal because they achieve a level of sales from each delivery van which is almost double the average and they pass on a good discount for good commercial reasons. The Government have no idea of the working of the free market. They are intervening to such an extent and confusing the situation so much that the result is higher-priced bread for people in the Leeds and Bradford area.
  I urge the Minister to reconsider the matter. The legislation allows a 15 per cent. gross profit margin to retailers. If he feels that there is a problem, why not control that? If the Minister thinks that

  729
  retailers are not passing on discounts, why not tighten up the scrutiny and make sure that the 15 per cent. figure is achieved, rather than deal with the problem in the way he proposes?
  If the Minister is not prepared to do that, let him consider each individual case. As he says, his Department has scrutinised the individual case which I have brought to his attention. Can he not see that there is a need for flexibility? Or is the price legislation so confused and convoluted that it is not possible to have flexibility and exemption for an individual case where efficiency and good practice are proved to operate?
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McElhone: I am aware that I have risen to speak at a rather crucial moment in the debate, but I shall be brief in the interests of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) who is to conclude the debate for the Opposition. I apologise to the House for coming late into the debate, but I was elsewhere, attending to other parliamentary duties.
  There have been many complaints by the Scottish National Party that food is dearer in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. I should like the Minister, even within a three-clause Bill, to come to some agreement about the possibility of regional price surveys. I do not believe that the price is higher in Scotland than in England and Wales, but I should like the Minister to consider the problem, because time and again it is used as a political argument by the SNP.
  The distribution of the milk subsidy to producers rather than milk marketing boards is a departure from precedent. I understand that it is happening in certain parts of Scotland—for example, the Isles of Skye, Harris and Lewis. There are three milk marketing boards in Scotland and only one in England and Wales. I am anxious that subsidies should continue, and I am concerned that the subsidy system should be conducted as efficiently as possible. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) is not here. Let me make it clear that I am not against that area getting subsidies. We must consider the position of the milk marketing boards in Scotland and their strange dispensation within the normal allocation of subsidies.
  730
  I now turn to the bread subsidy. There is a great deal of distress within the Bakers' Union in Scotland, because of redundancies. That applies particularly in Glasgow. It is not generally known that the Scottish bakers use a higher-quality flour. The reason for that is that they have a different style of baking from that which is practised in England and Wales.
  Mr. Dempsey: It is a higher quality.
  Mr. McElhone: Yes, it is a higher quality, and that affects the price. That takes me back to my original argument. I hope that the use of a higher grade of flour will not be reflected in a higher price for a loaf of bread in Scotland than in England and Wales.
  I shall be extremely brief, as I recognise the generosity of the House in allowing me to be called at this late hour. I now turn to the position of small shopkeepers. I have some experience of the retail trade. We shall soon have six different foodstuffs under subsidy or price regulation. That represents an enormous variety of food. For example, there is an enormous variety of cheese and flour. The system will become a nightmare for small shopkeepers, who are often the strength of a local community, if they are given the job of making subsidies efficient.
  We must ensure that the subsidy system works efficiently. I know that the Minister has had consultations with the traders' organisations. I hope that some help will be given to the small shopkeepers. It is feared that the walls of the small shops will be covered with hundreds of price notices which the ordinary person, and particularly the pensioner, will not be able to understand. If, by virtue of community councils, or by some other means, a degree of flexibility can be introduced into the application of Clause 2 I shall be grateful.
  Although I have not had a chance to speak at length, and although it may seem a courageous remark, I hope that when the Whips are considering the formation of the Committee I shall be called.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: We have had an interesting debate on

  731
  what I look upon as the second instalment of the subsidy saga. It is now approximately nine and a half months since we debated the first instalment. The Government then embarked upon the policy of subsidising some foodstuffs as one of the central plans of their counter-inflation policy. As a number of my hon. Friends have said, it was one of their commitments under the social contract. Since then inflation has risen at an annual rate over the past 12 months of over 19 per cent. Last week's Price Commission's report on the last quarter shows that there are many price increases still in the pipeline. That is the very pipeline in which the Secretary of State could not see any increases only a few months ago. The result is that inflation is likely to rise even higher in the near future.
  Over the past three months the annual rate of inflation has risen from 8·4 per cent. to 23 per cent. It can hardly be claimed that the legislation that we debated last year as the first instalment of the subsidy saga has been effective in any way in moderating the rate of inflation, despite the huge expenditure that has already taken place and the many hundreds of millions of pounds that have been poured into it.
  Whatever effect the subsidies may have on the food index, the fact remains that only a week ago the chairman of one of the large voluntary chains demonstrated that the prices of 23 basic items of grocery have risen over the past 12 months by over 41 per cent. Only last week we had an announcement that in the first two weeks in January over 150 wholesale grocery price increases had been approved by the Price Commission. The overall effect on grocery prices—
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Is the implication of what the hon. Lady is telling us that the general store has not been keeping to the voluntary agreement?
  Mrs. Oppenheim: If the hon. Member listens to what I say he will learn the implications of my remarks. It is a little too early for him to prejudge the issue.
  The general effect over all of industry has been slight. Even worse, the effect, despite the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds, has been to restrain the retail price index by a mere 1½ per cent. That has been more than counter
  732
  balanced by other price increases, some the result of the extension of VAT in the March Budget, some caused by the collapse of the social contract.
  It is a little ironic that when we are debating legislation designed to extend last year's Prices Act, which abolished the Pay Code, wages should be one of the major contributory factors to inflation. This is particularly so, since the subsidies were introduced, as the right hon. Lady said, to reduce the impact of raw material price rises on product costs. The last bread subsidy was used directly to subsidise a pay increase. This is a curious change of direction in Government policy. Alas for the Government's pipe dream of yesteryear in which they thought that if they subsidised food prices and controlled those prices, wages would take care of themselves.
  What has happened since the Pay Code was abolished is that hourly rates have risen at a staggering annual rate of no less than 31 per cent. The Prices Act has proved to be an expensive piece of legislation in more ways than one. Because the Pay Code was not replaced by an adequate social contract we now debate this measure against the background of record rates of inflation. There cannot be an hon. Member who is not deeply concerned about the impact of such inflation on the economy and particularly on the most vulnerable people in our economy.
  Whereas average wave earners have been more than protected by pay increases, there are those on low incomes, fixed incomes and special social groups who have been severely affected. These people genuinely require help. There are far less costly, yet more effective, means of bringing that help to them than these subsidies.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun) spoke about ordinary people. I am suspicious of people who speak about ordinary people and their connections with them. My constituents are in what I would call lower-income groups, but I do not distinguish any of them as ordinary persons. I have never met one of these ordinary people. There are different types of people. They may be on low incomes. But they are not ordinary people. They are individuals, each and every one of them.

  733
  Labour Members would do well to remember that. As the Secretary of State said, quite rightly, we all too often talk of categories and of certain types of family when we should be talking about people and remembering that they are all individuals. One of the most interesting things which have emerged so far—although some of my hon. Friends have noticed this, it does not seem to have been widely noted on the Labour benches—is that the Bill represents, if not a U-turn in Government policy, then a distinct swerve.
  The right hon. Lady has confirmed that this measure provides for the present level of subsidies to be maintained. If the prices of those subsidised foods were to rise in the coming year at the same rate at which they rose last year the right hon. Lady would need another £500 million to hold prices. There is little scope in this Bill for preventing future price increases, unless commodities come down. We all hope that this will happen, but I am sure that the right hon. Lady is far too sensible to introduce a piece of legislation which is based on a gamble. Here we see a clear new direction in Government policy.
  Mr. Golding: Is it not true that the Bill slows the increase in prices "at a stroke"?
  Mrs. Oppenheim: There is not much scope in these provisions for preventing any future price increases. To do so the right hon. Lady would have to give herself not £500 million, or £620 million, she would have to give herself £1,000 million. That is a change of direction that has been emphasised in statements made by the Minister of State to the effect that the Government's intention was to phase out food subsidies.
  The right hon. Lady referred to a Written Answer she had given to my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) to the effect that when it was possible to replace food subsidies with appropriate social security benefits it would be desirable to phase them out. On that point there is no difference in direction between the two sides of the House, or at least the two Front Benches—I am not sure about the Government back benches.
  However, when we talk about this change of direction I am reminded that last year, when the Government
  734
  embarked upon the subsidy course, we warned them that subsidies could not be abandoned overnight. We warned them that they could not be abandoned without continuing Government expenditure. We warned them when they incurred this huge liability that they would not be able to abandon it easily or cheaply.
  That brings me to the quotations, which were not quite accurate, from our election manifesto made by several hon. Members. We said that we would keep subsidies for the time being. That is precisely what we want. It has never been possible to phase them out overnight. The right hon. Lady's recognition that they should be replaced by appropriate social security benefits is the first indication we have had about that. I welcome it, because it is an entirely new line of thought from her on this subject.
  We accept this new direction but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said, in a highly articulate and eloquent speech, we believe that they should be phased out. I am glad that the House finds some merriment in that. I do not want to delay, because I do not want to deprive the Minister of State of his full time in replying to the many questions he will want to answer.
  We say—it is clear from our reasoned amendment and from the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury—that, taking account of the marginal effectiveness of food subsidies, taking account of their cost, taking account of our economic situation and taking account of a Government borrowing requirement of more than £6,000 million, we believe that they should be phased out more quickly than the Government apparently intend, although the Public Expenditure Survey presents a slightly different picture. It appears from that that the Government intend to accelerate more sharply over the coming years than they have indicated to their own back benchers.
  The figures given in the Public Expenditure Survey are: 1974–75, £526 million; 1975–76, £488 million; 1976–77, £420 million and 1977–78, £360 million. That is a fairly sharp acceleration. We do not agree that that progress is fast enough.
  We have made clear our own position, but on the Government's part there is a

  735
  curious ambivalence in the social philosophy behind the change of direction. Last year, when we debated the Prices Act, and inflation was running at 15 per cent., we were told that there was an urgent social need to protect poorer families and pensioners by preventing price increases, but this year, with inflation running at more than 19 per cent. this priority seems to have faded slightly.
  Mr. Dan Jones: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Lady unduly, but has she made any assessment of the extent to which the astronomical increases in oil prices have contributed to the situation?
  Mrs. Oppenheim: I have very much in the forefront of my mind the Thespian contribution of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones), and when the time comes I shall try to produce the figures for him.
  Mr. Dan Jones: The time is now, dear.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: I beg the hon. Gentleman to be patient, I promise him some figures.
  To revert to what I was saying, with inflation running at over 19 per cent. it is now possible for the Government to sit back and say, "We do not feel it so necessary to prevent price increases." We accept all the reasons behind that attitude, but the change of emphasis must be very puzzling to the poorer families and pensioners. They could be forgiven for asking themselves, "Why was it necessary, when inflation was rising less than it is now, for prices to be prevented from rising, whereas now, when inflation is running faster, the Government say that it is not so necessary to keep prices down?"
  The right hon. Lady could reply, as she would be entitled to do, "The economic situation this year is very much worse than it was last year", or she could reply, as again she would be entitled to do, "Well, the social contract has not been kept, and therefore I am entitled to diminish my contribution towards it"—or she could reply, as would be much nearer to the truth, "Well, of course, last year was an election year and this year is not". That precisely sums up the short-term, cosmetic political nature of the Labour Government's counter-inflation
  736
  package. Now that the gift wraps are off the package and everybody can see how empty the package is, we face the grim reality that over a period of nine and a half months the Government have done little or nothing to restrain inflation. It no good the Minister of State's saying, as he said at Question Time, that he is bored or depressed by constant carpings about the Government's record on inflation. Of course, we do not blame the Government for things for which they are not responsible, but they must take the responsibility for the failure of the social contract.
  Mr. Cryer: It is 75 per cent. successful.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the report of the Price Commission. He might then take a different view. The Government must take responsibility for the fact that they told the electorate that inflation would come down and that they had policies to deal with the situation when they had not. They must take responsibility for introducing further legislation, which means massive expenditure for the minimum help.
  We now have before us a Bill that is a heritage of that "phoney" election period, which involves us in further expenditure of over £1,000 million and which will put the Government on the treadmill to nowhere. That is the effect of this so-called measure of social justice.
  Time and again we have argued, both in terms of social justice and social need, that the benefit of these subsidies is doubtful indeed. The right hon. Lady in her opening speech re-rehearsed a number of arguments which she has put forward on other occasions, although these were some new ingenious twists and some of the old disingenuous terms. However, in the Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) quoted most effectively from a recent publication of the Labour Economic Finance Taxation Association Report, known as LEFTA, of which the Prime Minister is President and the Chancellor of the Exchequer Vice-President. I have a further quotation from that publication which runs as follows:
  "Whether subsidising anything, including bread, will reduce the general level of inflation is a very moot point. Even allowing

  737
  for the importance of food prices in estimating the cost of living in present circumstances the inflationary effects of raising additional taxation seem likely to be greater than the mitigating effects of the subsidies.
  The document continues:
  "If we subsidise prices generally, when taxation is already uncomfortably high, we do so at the almost certain risk that those with most purchasing power will get most of the benefit while the cost of the subsidies falls most heavily on the marginal taxpayer who is nowadays a fairly long way down the income scale".
  That is perfectly correct. Although Ministers allow that the majority of the subsidy money goes to the better-off, they keep saying that it is the better-off who contribute most today. But that is not so. First, if all the money raised by extra direct taxation came from the better-off, which it does not, even though a larger proportion of it may come from the better-off—those earning over £60 a week, as the Minister said—I should like to wager that a very large proportion comes from those near the £60 a week level, and those people are not far above the national average wage these days.
  Since time immemorial, taxes have come more from the better-off; and the better-off have not received like contribution. Therefore, why redistribute any of this taxation by means of subsidies to the better-off? Why not choose a way of using available resources so that none is redistributed to the better-off? That would be sensible.
  In any case, even if the whole of the revenue raised by extra taxation were available for spending on these subsidies, which it is not, it would not make any difference whatsoever, because, with a Budget borrowing requirement of over £6,500 million, these subsidies can be paid for only by printing extra money, which is inflationary in itself.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash posed some very interesting questions about where the money will come from. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to answer them when he concludes the debate.
  Is there sufficient tax revenue to cover these subsidies? Is it coming from overseas? Is it coming from our borrowing requirement? If it is coming from our borrowing requirement, it is printing money. Let us have no more argument about who is paying for the subsidy. If
  738
  it is being paid for by printing money, it is being paid for by creating additional inflation, which hurts the very people we are trying to help.
  This is a very strange sort of social justice. But the truth is that there is very little social justice in this measure, because, in terms of actual benefits to poorer families and pensioners—85p for families and 45p for pensioner couples—these amounts could have been exceeded for less than half the cost by way of a family allowance of £1 for the first child, which is selective, because of the tax clawback, but is not means-tested. We have said this in every debate that we have had on this subject. It could have been given by additional bonuses to pensioners, and it would have cost less than half the amount involved in this measure. It would still have been selective, though not so much for the pensioners.
  Whether these policies should be followed in the present economic situation is a matter for further debate, but the fact remains that more help could have been provided more cheaply and discriminately than the help which has been brought by the expenditure now of over £1,000 million. Therefore, on grounds of neither cost nor selectivity can this measure be justified.
  Again, as we have argued before—this is an important point of which I hope the hon. Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) and Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) will take note—the amount of help that can ever be given to poorer families by way of subsidies will always be limited and narrowly confined to foods which are comparatively demand-inelastic. As a result, those foods make up a very small proportion of total family spending on food. It is a larger proportion in poorer families, but it is still not a large proportion.
  To give the House some idea, in the Central Statistical Survey's monthly review of figures for December we find that, for the poorer family on as low an income as £23 a week, 78 per cent. of its spending on food is not on subsidised food items. Moving up the income scale to families on between £23 and £41 a week, spending on subsidised food items is slightly less, which magnifies the right hon. Lady's answer, but proves beyond words that we can never help poorer

  739
  families by more than a very limited amount by subsidising food. This was brought out in the Minister of State's original statement that the saving on average family expenditure as a result of these food subsidies is about l¾ per cent. per head. So my hon. Friends who have argued on grounds of social justice and social priority have been right to question the wisdom and the effectiveness of the allocation of resources in this way.
  The right hon. Lady said that the beauty of this policy is: that it discriminates in favour of the poor—it does not; that it helps the poor—it does not help them as much as they could have been helped in other ways; that it helps the most vulnerable most—it could never help the most vulnerable more than marginally, for the reasons that I have given. Events have already proved that these subsidies have been neither wise nor compassionate but have hung a damaging millstone of expenditure around the Government's neck and led to the inevitable spread of bureaucracy.
  This brings me to the one bright spot in the Bill—the apparent belated and partial acceptance by the Secretary of State of our point about display of maximum price lists. She has not gone as far as we should have liked, but we welcome her conversion and take considerable satisfaction in having got our point home, although it has been a long, hard struggle. We wish that she had taken notice of us sooner, because that would have saved a great deal of money. Never mind—in the spirit of good will in which concessions are always received, I would make the offer to Ministers that they should feel free in these circumstances to come to us at any time for advice on these matters. We shall be only too delighted to give it to them, and we shall not charge them a penny for it.
  Similarly, Clause 2(1)(b) takes account of the further points that we raised in the debate on the Prayer to which I referred, about the difficulties of enforcing profit margin control. I am not sure that the imposition of this extra paperwork, particularly on small shopkeepers, will be justified, but in any case it is doubtful whether this provision will greatly assist enforcement.
  How can any order under this legislation requiring retrospective records to be
  740
  kept—it is these that would be needed for those calculations involving the base period, particularly that referred to in the cheese and butter orders, which is a period in August 1974—be enforced? How can shopkeepers be forced to show records, or to make note of records, for the only relevant period in calculating the base period, which have never been kept? So there is a serious shortcoming in the enforcement provisions still inherent in that part of the Bill.
  However, the provisions in Clause 2(2) under which the right hon. Lady is given greater flexibility to make exceptions where hardship is imposed are very welcome. I hope that they will be exercised rapidly in the case of smaller and rural shopkeepers who are very hard hit by all the additional bureaucracy involved in the administration of these subsidies. The fact that this concession has become necessary highlights the sometimes intolerable burden which all the paraphernalia of regulations which is inherent in food subsidies imposes on shopkeepers and other people of that sort.
  Although obviously the Under-Secretary of State who wound up the debate on the Prayer could not tell us precisely what was in the Bill, it might have been more courteous if he had told us that these matters were under active consideration in his Department.
  I understand that on this occasion no less a person than the Minister of State himself is to wind up. I should like to take this opportunity of welcoming him for the first time to our deliberations on the subsidy policy. I am not sure whether his presence signifies an upgrading of the significance of this legislation or an upgrading of the need to defend it. I suspect that it is the latter.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will answer all the important questions put by my hon. Friends and his hon. Friends and that he will be able to tell us, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury asked, what the intermediate bread subsidy, which is subsidising a pay increase at the moment, will amount to. How long is "intermediate"? When is it to be lifted? From where will the money really come for the rest of these subsidies?
  The Bill represents a halting and inadequate first step—in a climb-down on the part of the Government which will have to be accelerated in the coming

  741
  months. The Opposition accept that at a time of economic crisis, economic and social priorities must vie with each other. But a balance must be struck which fulfils our social obligations as far as it is possible to do so and, at the same time, meets the national interest. We do not feel that the balance has been struck in this measure. That is why we have tabled our amendment, which I unhesitatingly recommend to the House.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Alan Williams): I thank the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) for her welcome to me in this novel appearance on this part of the Department's work. I assure her that I am not here because of my more placatory style but purely because of the fact that immediately after this debate we have yet another debate, and that is even more technical. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary understands the technicalities involved and I do not, he will be dealing with that debate.
  There have been various detailed questions which I shall answer, if possible, as I go along, but I want to deal with one or two points immediately. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) mentioned higher flour costs in Scotland. The Department is fully conscious of this situation. We have received representations from the Scottish baking industry which are now being considered. He also referred to the need to avoid hundreds—as he put it—of bills and notices appearing on the walls of shops, particularly small shops. Indeed, this point again we have accommodated. The regulations will require only two notices, and we are even taking steps to see whether that requirement can be eased where circumstances merit it.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) will excuse me and will not be too embarrassed if I say that he made an extremely valuable and constructive speech. He made one or two points about the co-operative movement. In relation to the display of information, he said that something more imaginative was needed on the part of the shops. I am sure that he is aware that in the legislation we are making no specifications about
  742
  the site, lettering, colour and so on. Firms can be as imaginative as they wish. We hope that they will exercise such imagination as will give adequate publicity.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: My fear is that they might not wish.
  Mr. Williams: That is a different matter. But as I understood it, my hon. Friend asked that they should be allowed to be more imaginative. However, if there is any problem, we can talk about it in detail later. It is probably more a Committee point than a Second Reading point.
  My hon. Friend also raised the question of the maintenance of records of prices and margins. I should like to make clear that there is as yet no commitment as to the precise form of the information. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made the legitimate point that there may be difficulties for some retailers. Therefore, we have ourselves built into the Bill a necessity for consultation on the exact type of record which will be needed. As in so many other cases, after consultations and after taking into account all reasonable points made, we may vary the initial requirements, but what we envisage at this stage would be information relating to buying and selling prices, margins and stock levels.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) asked why we were not consistent and why we do not subsidise nationalised industry prices. I believe that I got his question right. The answer is, of course, that we do. We are subsidising nationalised industry prices. However, what we have said is that the subsidies will be gradually phased out.
  Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman did not get my point, which was to ask why the Government have one policy of phasing out the subsidies for nationalised industry prices but do not have the same policy in relation to food subsidies.
  Mr. Williams: It is because there are several other factors, and the fact that there are the energy conservation and the balance-of-payments aspects as far as the power industries are concerned. In addition, it is possible to order the prices of those industries in a way which is often not possible in private industry so that we can take account of social circumstances and the needs.

  743
  Many hon. Members referred to the social contract and claimed that it had failed and that it was responsible for higher prices. That is a fascinating proposition which I understand stems from the recent report from the Price Commission. May I urge hon. Members to read the whole report and not just the Press comments? The report covered the three months to the end of November, the month in which the threshold came to an end. Many of the changes in costs as the result of pay increases referred to in the report related to the Conservative Government's threshold payments. Much of the increase in wage and pay rates that took place over that period was the consequence of our having to do away with some of the harsher inequities of phases 1, 2 and 3, which had created numerous anomalies for such groups as nurses, and where we were under pressure from the Opposition to make corrections. We are having to remedy the faults of the last Government's statutory policy which ended in the three-day working week.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Is the Minister suggesting that simply because we have gone past November we have finished with threshold agreements? Does he not agree that many unions have, perhaps rightly, secured threshold agreements in settlements which will last for many months, if not years, to come?
  Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member will allow me to develop my case he will see that I am trying to be as fair as I can in my points about the wage impact. I have been absolutely objective so far, and I am sure no one can take exception to what I said.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Does the Minister think that the pay claims he has been discussing would have been any lower without the thresholds?
  Mr. Williams: The pay claims I referred to—namely those relating to the special cases of the nurses and so on—involved people who had been held back to such an extent that it was distorting the ability to provide certain basic services, such as hospital services. Much of the wage explosion was the inevitable and predicted consequence of eventually taking the lid off the protracted statutory pay policy. The trouble was that the
  744
  policy operated by the previous administration applied to pay but did not apply to prices, and consequently—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member in some physical discomfort or does he want to interject?
  Mr. Raison: I want to do the latter, because the Minister has induced the former by the folly of his statement. The last Government introduced the Price Code, which was the basis of the prices policy which the Government are trying ineffectively to continue.
  Mr. Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his helpful contribution, because from the time his Government's policy was introduced in November 1972 until the time at which it was due to expire in May 1974 the rate of inflation actually doubled. That was the effectiveness of his Government's price policy. The rate of increase in wages fell during that time so that the Government were creating a situation in which they were artificially holding the lid on, and at some time an explosion was inevitable. Last February that explosion came, and the Conservatives carry full responsibility for it.
  If we exclude the special cases, 75 per cent. of workers who have settled since the end of the statutory policy—that is, some 3 million workers—have done so within the terms of the social contract. No one pretends that wage increases cannot be a factor in increasing inflation or in continuing it. Therefore, we attach the greatest importance to the TUC statement that now that the special cases are out of the way we should not anticipate future price rises as a result of pay claims.
  In order to answer some of the criticisms made by the Opposition, it is helpful to remind the House what the basic purpose of the subsidy system is, because some hon. Members seem to have forgotten it. They appreciate, as anyone experienced in Government is bound to appreciate, that the national economic policy is a series of complex objectives, some of which are often pulling in different directions. For example, one wants to control prices and at the same time cut down imports of fuel.
  The strategy of the Government is to attack inflation, to try to avoid massive unemployment, to cover investment and

  745
  growth, and to try to resolve the balance of payments situation. There are no "at a stroke" solutions to any of these problems. They are certainly not problems which will be disposed of in a matter of weeks or months. It is essential that in the interim period—the period in which we are all fighting, I hope, to cure these problems—we try our best to help the most needy.
  There may not be any single way of helping them. It may be that a mix of different types of help is needed. Some people may need extra cash, in which case we increase pensions and social security benefits. We want avoidable costs to be avoided, so we head off rent increases. Other people may not be able to afford basic foodstuffs which they require. Therefore, we subsidise those basic foodstuffs.
  The official Opposition amendment attacks the subsidy system on the ground that it is indiscriminate and extravagant, and creates distortions and shortages, and on the ground that it conceals inflation. The fascinating thing about the amendment is that it is absolutely negative and devoid of any policy. As has been true over the whole of the last 12 months, not a single constructive idea has come from the Opposition during the debate—certainly not from the official Opposition. They have argued that inflation is too high. On the other hand they have said that we should remove one of the measures which has been holding it back a little.
  Let us take the Opposition's allegation that the subsidies are extravagant. I think that the figures are agreed. Expenditure for the current year is £501 million. It will be between £500 million and £600 million next year. The precise amount for next year will depend on the way prices move, as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) expected, and on the level of consumption for the various goods which are subsidised. Expenditure will also depend on harvest factors. There are a great many imponderables in establishing next year's rate, but there will be £700 million available. We have a working margin in the event of any increases over and above those to which the hon. Member for Gloucester referred. During 1976–77, we shall have up to £500 million available, but only with the approval of the House. It cannot
  746
  be available before 1st April 1976, and it can be made available only by the affirmative resolution of the House.
  The Opposition condemn food subsidies as extravagant. Why, then, do they not call their own £1,400 million deficit on nationalised industries extravagant? Perhaps it is a point of principle that worries them. Indeed, one hon. Member said that there was a point of principle. I find it hard to believe. After all, it was they who started the milk and butter subsidy. They introduced nationalised industries' subsidies and, indeed, subsidised the nationalised industries through most of their period in office. In its election manifesto of four months ago the Conservative Party committed itself to continuing subsidies. Today it is trying to wriggle out of that commitment. There can be very little doubt about how long that pledge would have lasted if the Conservative Party had been re-elected.
  How can the Opposition argue that there is a point of principle in relation to subsidies after the statement made by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) about guaranteeing a 9½ per cent. mortgage, which is a bottomless pit of subsidy for the well-off? The bigger the mortgage, the wealthier the person, the better the subsidy he receives. Where is the point of principle of the Opposition against subsidy when they would introduce that—
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is the hon. Gentleman describing as well-off those people who are scrimping and scraping to save enough to buy their own homes but who cannot manage it?
  Mr. Williams: No. The hon. Lady knows that I am not saying that. The Opposition have spent an afternoon protesting about non-discrimination in the giving of subsidies, but they wanted to give a subsidy which would discriminate overwhelmingly in favour of the person with the biggest mortgage. They cannot say there is any point of principle to which they are committed which makes it impossible for them to accept the idea of a subsidy.
  Hon. Members may feel that there was extravagance in the way the items were chosen. As we explained, we chose those items which were important in the incomes and budgets of the large and low income families. Therefore, those items

  747
  have a social importance. We chose items for which there is an inelastic demand and for which prices would not tend to fluctuate on a daily basis, such as can happen with fresh vegetables, fresh meat, fish, and eggs. The effect of the taxation measures has been to redistribute income to the low income families from the high income families. The food index is 7p in the pound lower, at a time when inflation is going ahead faster than any of us would want. Nevertheless, in the period since March last year the price index of subsidised foods has fallen by 1 per cent. It is not a matter of dragging behind other price increases. The subsidies have been effective in producing a small but nevertheless reasonable pegging of the prices of subsidised foodstuffs.
  Mr. Jim Spicer: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the cost of the production of milk has gone down in the last year? Will he say, beyond that, what in his view will be the cost of production of a pint of milk at the end of 1975 compared with the subsidised cost at which it will be sold to the individual member of the public?
  Mr. Williams: The Opposition are much more willing to rally to the farm lobby than to the consumers' lobby.
  I did not say that. I was speaking about prices generally. I shall deal with prices in a little more detail, time permitting.
  During the period in office of the Conservative Government, as was revealed in the Low Pay Unit report, prices of necessities went up faster than the prices of luxuries and led the unit to comment that until the introduction of food subsidies and rent control early in 1974 the cost of living for the poor rose faster than everybody else's. Whatever the Opposition may feel about subsidies, those who speak on behalf of people living on low incomes feel that such people have benefited.
  The impact of food prices on those with low incomes or on the large families should not be underestimated. For example, the impact on low incomes is revealed by the fact that the proportion of income spent on food by a family with an income of £20 a week is double that of a family with £60 a week. As for the impact on the large family, the family
  748
  with four children and an income of between £40 and £60 a week spends one-third of that income on food, which is 50 per cent. more than the national average of that income group.
  The price movements in the subsidised foods are as follows. Bread prices have been constant throughout the period of subsidy. As for butter, there have been small increases—2½p in the price of United Kingdom butter and 4p in the price of imported butter. However, there is an important point here which I am sure hon. Members will accept. It is that we cannot undertake to head off every price increase in imported butter, otherwise the countries selling us the butter will feel that they will be able to sell it at virtually any price they choose, knowing that it will not affect relative sales in the British market. But still, despite those facts, the subsidy represents a saving on butter of 9p per 1b.
  Mr. Dan Jones: My hon. Friend talks about the price of imported butter. Are we not in danger of substituting the shadow for the substance?
  Mr. Williams: I hope, time permitting, to deal with my hon. Friend's fascinating and cryptic speech in a moment. In view of that, I ask him to understand if I do not deal with that intervention immediately.
  Mr. McElhone: In my brief remarks a little earlier, I spoke about the impact on poorer families in Scotland. Is my hon. Friend aware that if he created a regional food price survey, people in Scotland on lower incomes would understand the benefits which this Bill will bring them?
  Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend made the point in his brief speech, and I shall look at it. However, it is not entirely a matter for my Department.
  I come next to the movement of cheese prices. Although there has been a 4p increase in price since May, there is still a saving of 12p per 1b. Then the price of milk has actually reduced, as have the prices of flour and tea. Therefore, we have achieved a net reduction in the index for the subsidised food prices since last March. That does not sound like extravagance in expenditure.
  It was suggested by the Opposition that the Government were in danger of

  749
  creating distortions and shortages. Again, this is very hard to establish. No case has been made. The only example to which the Opposition kept referring was butter. However, the butter subsidy was not introduced by this Government. It was introduced by the previous administration, and it was done not to help the consumer but to move a "mountain". Faith may move mountains, but it took a subsidy to move the butter mountain. The Opposition now condemn us because the butter subsidy distorts the market. But it was introduced to do just that, so that is a tag which they cannot hang round the neck of this Government.
  The scarcities which have arisen have not occurred in goods which are subsidised. There was the episode of scarcity of toilet rolls, during the period in office of the Conservative Government. Toilet rolls were not subsidised, but the scarcity was real. Then there was a scarcity of salt, on the basis of a rumour. That is not subsidised. Then we had the scarcity of sugar. Again, it is not subsidised. There were all the other shortages which the Conservatives created as a result of their three-day working week. Those shortages had nothing to do with subsidies. There were shortages of containers, bottles and so on during the period in which the Conservatives were in office. Nothing has come forward today to suggest that our programme has distorted the consuming pattern in subsidised foodstuffs or that it has led to scarcities.
  It has also been alleged by the Opposition that subsidies are an attempt to conceal inflation. I suppose that, in so far as the subsidies are holding back prices, that twisted interpretation could be made. But when it comes to the question of concealment, I remind the House that the Conservative Government concealed the real costs of the services of the nationalised industries which the consumer was receiving. Our subsidies are open and are brought before the House for decision.
  Mr. Alison rose—
  Mr. Williams: No. I have given way on many occasions and I have very little time left. Hon. Members opposite have made a series of allegations, and I am trying to answer them.
  One of the allegations made about food subsidies is that they are indis
  750
  criminate. We have already pointed out that the subsidies of the nationalised industries under the Conservative Government were indiscriminate and were probably geared to help the people with higher incomes. In fairness I must admit that, at the General Election, the Opposition made it clear that they wanted to discriminate—but they wanted to do so in favour of the rich. Their mortgage proposal has been quoted as an example.
  All that is in keeping with the policy of discrimination which the Conservative Government carried out. Their income tax concessions were geared to the high income earner, purchase tax was gradually run down on luxury goods, value added tax was levied at the same rate on luxury goods and on more important things. They cut back on the provision of school milk and gave the money instead to the parents with children at private schools. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) said, we know what the Tories mean when they talk about discrimination. They mean the means test.
  Mr. Raison rose—
  Mr. Williams: No.
  The Conservatives also created benefits with a lower tapering point, whereby the individual had to carry the stigma of poverty in order to claim them. They have made it clear that had they regained office last October, the subsidies would no longer exist. In other words, the grocery bill of the average household would be 7p in the pound higher, butter would cost 9p a pound more, cheese 12p a pound more, and tea 8p a pound more.
  We have had to deal with the full impact of the Tory threshold, oil price increases and the Tories' inflationary three-day working week. Yet the prices of the subsidised foods are down by 1 per cent. The Opposition are in no position to lecture us on inflation. The average level of inflation in their period of office rose at double the rate which prevailed under the last Labour Government. The rate of inflation the Conservatives inherited for their first three months of office in 1970 was 0·4 per cent. From them, this Government inherited a quarterly rate of 5·8 per cent. Hon. Members opposite should work that out

  751
  on an annual basis. They are in no position to lecture us. They understand nothing about inflation. They did not understand it in office and understand it even less in Opposition. They stoked inflation with their 20 per cent. devaluation, their three-day working week and their irresponsible approach to money supply by printing more money. Their failure is complete. Now we are going to carry through our policy.
  Mr. Alison rose—
  Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 281.

  Division No. 80.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mawby, Ray

  Alison, Michael

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Gorst, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Mills, Peter

  Benyon, W.

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Gray, Hamish

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Biffen, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Moate, Roger

  Biggs-Davison. John

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Molyneaux, James

  Blaker, Peter

  Grist, Ian

  Monro, Hector

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Grylls, Michael

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Hall, Sir John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Brittan, Leon

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morrison, Peter (Chester)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Harvie, Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Neave, Airey

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nelson, Anthony

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Budgen, Nick

  Hawkins, Paul

  Newton, Tony

  Burden, F. A.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nott, John

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Onslow, Cranley

  Carlisle, Mark

  Heseltine, Michael

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Channon, Paul

  Holland, Philip

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hordern, Peter

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Cockcroft, John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Cope, John

  Hunt, John

  Percival, Ian

  Corrie, John

  Hurd, Douglas

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Costain, A. P.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Critchley, Julian

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Crouch, David

  James, David

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Crowder, F. P.

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Timothy

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Jopling, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Durant, Tony

  Kimball, Marcus

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Knox, David

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lane, David

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Emery, Peter

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Farr, John

  Lloyd, Ian

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Loveridge, John

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  MacGregor, John

  Shepherd, Colin

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Shersby, Michael

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Sims, Roger

  Fry, Peter

  Madel, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Marten, Neil

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Mather, Carol

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maude, Angus

  Sproat, Iain

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Stainton, Keith

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Trotter, Neville

  Wells, John

  Stanley, John

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stokes, John

  Wakeham, John

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Mr. Richard Luce and

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mr. Fred Silvester.

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Allaun, Frank

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Anderson, Donald

  English, Michael

  Lipton, Marcus

  Archer, Peter

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Litterick, Tom

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ashley, Jack

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Luard, Evan

  Ashton, Joe

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Flannery, Martin

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McElhone, Frank

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Bates, Alf

  Ford, Ben

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Bean, R. E.

  Forrester, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Freeson, Reginald

  Madden, Max

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Magee, Bryan

  Boardman, H.

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Mahon, Simon

  Booth, Albert

  George, Bruce

  Marks, Kenneth

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Ginsburg, David

  Marquand, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Golding, John

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Gould, Bryan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Graham, Ted

  Meacher, Michael

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Buchan, Norman

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Mendelson, John

  Buchanan, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Millan, Bruce

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

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

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hamling, William

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Campbell, Ian

  Hardy, Peter

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Harper, Joseph

  Moonman, Eric

  Cant, R. B.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Carter, Ray

  Hatton, Frank

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Moyle, Roland

  Cartwright, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Newens, Stanley

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Horam, John

  Noble, Mike

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Cohen, Stanley

  Huckfield, Les

  Ogden, Eric

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Ovenden, John

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Hunter, Adam

  Owen, Dr David

  Corbett, Robin

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Padley, Walter

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Park, George

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)

  Parry, Robert

  Cronin, John

  Janner, Greville

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Cryer, Bob

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pendry, Tom

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Perry, Ernest

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Davidson, Arthur

  John, Brynmor

  Prescott, John

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Radice, Giles

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Reid, George

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Judd, Frank

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Dempsey, James

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kerr, Russell

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lambie, David

  Rooker, J. W.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lamborn, Harry

  Roper, John

  Eadie, Alex

  Lamond, James

  Rose, Paul B.

  Edelman, Maurice

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Edge, Geoff

  Lee, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Ryman, John

  754

  755

  Sandelson, Neville

  Stoddart, David

  Watkins, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Stott, Roger

  Watkinson, John

  Selby, Harry

  Strang, Gavin

  Weetch, Ken

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Weitzman, David

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  White, James (Pollock)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcasle C)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Whitlock, William

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Thompson, George

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Sillars, James

  Tierney, Sydney

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Silverman, Julius

  Tinn, James

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tomlinson, John

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Small, William

  Torney, Tom

  Woodall, Alec

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Snape, Peter

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Stallard, A. W.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)

  Ward, Michael

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on second or third reading):

  The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 50.

  Division No. 81.]

  AYES

  [10.12 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Cryer, Bob

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Allaun, Frank

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Anderson, Donald

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Hamling, William

  Archer, Peter

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hardy, Peter

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Davidson, Arthur

  Harper, Joseph

  Ashley, Jack

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hatton, Frank

  Atkinson, Norman

  Deakins, Eric

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bates, Alf

  Dempsey, James

  Horam, John

  Bean, R. E.

  Dormant, J. D.

  Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Huckfield, Les

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunn, James A.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Boardman, H.

  Eadie, Alex

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Booth, Albert

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hunter, Adam

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Edge, Geoff

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  English, Michael

  Janner, Greville

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Buchan, Norman

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Buchanan, Richard

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Flannery, Martin

  John, Brynmor

  Campbell, Ian

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Cant, R. B.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Ford, Ben

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Carter, Ray

  Forrester, John

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Judd, Frank

  Cartwright, John

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Freeson, Reginald

  Kerr, Russell

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Cohen, Stanley

  George, Bruce

  Lambie, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Ginsburg, David

  Lamborn, Harry

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Golding, John

  Lamond, James

  Concannon, J. D.

  Gould, Bryan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Conlan, Bernard

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lee, John

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Graham, Ted

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Cronin, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Lipton, Marcus

  756

  757

  Litterick, Tom

  Parry, Robert

  Stoddart, David

  Loyden, Eddie

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Stott, Roger

  Luard, Evan

  Pendry, Tom

  Strang, Gavin

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Perry, Ernest

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  McElhone, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Radice, Giles

  Thompson, George

  Maclennan, Robert

  Reid, George

  Tierney, Sydney

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Tinn, James

  Madden, Max

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Tomlinson, John

  Magee, Bryan

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Torney, Tom

  Mahon, Simon

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Urwin, T. W.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Marquand, David

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Roper, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Rose, Paul B.

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Meacher, Michael

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Ward, Michael

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  Watkins, David

  Mendelson, John

  Ryman, John

  Watkinson, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Sandelson, Neville

  Weetch, Ken

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

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Weitzman, David

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Selby, Harry

  White, James (Pollock)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Whitlock, William

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcasle C)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Moyle, Roland

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Newens, Stanley

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Noble, Mike

  Sillars, James

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Silverman, Julius

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Ogden, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woodall, Alec

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Small, William

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Snape, Peter

  Ovenden, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Owen, Dr David

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Padley, Walter

  Stallard, A. W.

  Mr. Thomas Cox and

  Palmer, Arthur

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

  Park, George

  Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)

  NOES

  Alison, Michael

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shersby, Michael

  Biffen, John

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Sims, Roger

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Brittan, Leon

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Sproat, Iain

  Budgen, Nick

  Moate, Roger

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Carlisle, Mark

  Molyneaux, James

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Crowder, F. P.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Morgan, Geraint

  Wakeham, John

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Morrison, Peter (Chester)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Farr, John

  Pardoe, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Mr. A. J. Beith and

  Knox, David

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Mr. David Steel.

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dormand.]

  PRICES [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend sections 1 and 2 of the Prices Act 1974, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (1) any increases attributable to the said Act of the present Session, not exceeding in the aggregate £1,000 million, in the sums payable out of such moneys under the said Act of 1974 for the purpose of reducing, or preventing or limiting increased in, food prices in the United Kingdom.

  760

  (2) any increases attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the administrative expenses of a Government department under the said Act of 1974 and in the sums payable under any other Act out of moneys so provided.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  WAYS AND MEANS

    PRICES
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend sections 1 and 2 of the Prices Act 1974, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums which, under the said Act of 1974, are payable to a Minister of the Crown or into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  PRICE CODE
  10.22 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I beg to move,
  That the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 2113, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we are taking the following motion:
  That the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 2158), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.
  Mrs. Williams: After the Price Code Order had been made and printed—and it is the revision of the Price Code that we are discussing tonight—an error in the reference to the stage 3 Price Code Order was brought to my attention. Since the stage 3 code is now to be replaced by stage 4 it seemed to me unacceptable that this should be allowed to stand uncorrected, with an opening for argument whether or not the old Price Code Order had been revoked. I mention that because the second order we are considering is purely procedural and I trust that we shall not have to debate it further beyond my explanation. I apologise to the House for the error, which was essentially a printing error, and it has now been put right.
  I should like to turn to the substantial points raised by the new code and the changes I have introduced in comparison with the original stage 3 code and, in particular, those changes that have been introduced as a result of the period of consultation through which I and my Department have gone. There are three matters to which I shall refer, although I shall not speak at length because I recognise that there is not much time for debate and no doubt several hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to take part.
  The first matter on which I wish to touch is the new investment relief. Over the years Opposition Members have often spoken about the importance of investment and have said a great deal about the need to encourage it, but the truth of the matter is that the previous Price Code gave no recognition to the importance of
  762
  investment. Indeed, no provision was made in the Price Code as it stood to reflect increases in investment and new investment. I find that puzzling, and it is a marked improvement that the Price Code should now contain provision for investment relief. Two-fifths of the relief given will be linked directly to investment that actually takes place. I shall come in a moment to the system of monitoring which the Price Commission, at my instruction, has established with a view to making sure that this investment takes place. We believe it right and proper that there should be an easement of the code for firms which invest and not for firms which do not invest, and that there should be a link between the two.
  We are also glad to say that in the last few weeks since the revised Price Code was published marked interest has been shown by firms in the new investment relief. We have reason to believe that this will be very substantial indeed. Investment is not a once-for-all activity. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) on 2nd December raised the very pertinent question of what the Government could do to establish the investment relief as an ongoing incentive. It was a fair question, because if a firm invests and receives relief at the rate of 17½ per cent., it needs to be sure that the relief will continue to make it worth while. The firm cannot take a gamble.
  What we have done, so far as we are able within the restrictions imposed by the period through which the Counter-Inflation Act lasts—which is until the spring of 1976 only—is to make it clear that we are able to meet the hon. Gentleman's point at least to the extent of providing that firms which have raised their prices or profit margins under the investment relief may continue to hold prices at this level.
  With regard to the details, we have extended the investment relief in two ways. First, we have extended relief to warehouses, these being of particular significance to the food industry and the food manufacturing industry. Secondly, after consideration, we have extended it to include industrial buildings and other plant and machinery which has been obtained under long-term leasing and hiring

  763
  arrangements or under hire-purchase agreements. This was done in response to a number of representations which were made to us by a number of firms involved in the processing industries.
  What we have not done at present is to extend investment relief to cover commercial vehicles. The order books in the autumn for the export of commercial vehicles were good, and the commercial vehicles sector of the motor industry was facing the problem of delivery rather than the problem of orders for export. However, if that situation changes, and in the light of the extent to which investment relief is taken up, I repeat what I have said previously—namely, that we would be happy to consider again whether to extend investment relief in this way. But I must make it clear that the two factors which must be taken into account are the state of the export order books, and how far the investment relief is taken up in other directions.
  The other point in repect of investment relief is that we have taken steps to limit the extent to which price increases can be loaded on a single product, but we have given a degree of scope because of the problems a firm may have in respect of the market in spreading increases over a wide range. Finally, we have taken some steps in respect of industries which have small price increases in currency terms, of which the newspaper industry is perhaps the best example.
  I wish some of my hon. Friends had stayed for this part of the debate because there is something I should like to say to them. However, I shall have to ask them to read it in Hansard. Investment relief is closely tied to a monitoring system to make sure that it takes place. We have arranged for the Price Commission to take a further look at whether a price application could be sustained it the investment for which a firm had applied for relief did not take place. This is to be done on a rolling basis—that is to say, there will be constant monitoring of the situation on a quarterly basis.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: I want to assure my right hon. Friend that I have heard every word.
  Mrs. Williams: Some of my hon. Friends—not my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas)—have argued that they do not believe that the investment relief through the Price Code is a proper way of doing it. I urge two propositions upon them.
  The first is that any Government would be irresponsible if they did not take steps at this time in our economic cycle to encourage investment in future growth. They should try, as far as possible, to break out of the straitjacket which has time and again afflicted British industry under both Governments. They should do this by ensuring that capacity is not increased in a period of less economic activity. When the period of economic activity improves, they should not immediately run into restraint of capacity in terms of both plant and machinery and skilled men and women. I believe that we should take the opportunity—a sad opportunity—of a period of less activity and of some redundancies not to allow this to happen but to try to use it to break out of this restraint on a long-term basis.
  Another thing that I would have said to my hon. Friends had they still been here, and will say to them through Hansard, is that the link between investment and prices is not a bad way of attempting what I think would be the best use of a planning agreement; that is, to relax the Price Code where firms are determined to get growth.
  I turn next to the productivity deduction. Hon. Members will know that there has been pressure for a still greater cut in the productivity deduction than the one that we have made. We have not been able to meet this pressure fully. Indeed, we would not think it right to do so, because we could not accept the complete removal of the productivity deduction at a time when pressures on costs are still great.
  We have endeavoured to meet some of the points made to us by introducing a transitional rate. This transitional rate applies to firms which made wage settlements prior to 1st November 1974, on which date the revised code came into force. We recognise that some wage settlements fell due in September and October. Therefore, it is not fair to penalise them to the extent of 50 per

  765
  cent. for what might be a year, or even longer, because they had traditional dates for wage settlements.
  We have tried to meet these points by bringing in a transitional rate of 35 per cent., which is set midway between the 50 per cent. that they believed they would have to pay and the 20 per cent. that those who had wage settlements after 1st November have had to pay. This has been welcomed by firms in that position.
  Another point about the productivity deduction concerns the sliding scale. By that I mean the higher productivity deduction for firms with a high capital intensivity. I would not argue the case for this over a long period. Indeed, I do not think that it would be proper to do so, because capital intensive industries are among the most rapidly growing of our industries and, therefore, most likely to have to carry the weight of this country's export and economic growth over the next decade or so. But in the immediate situation the problem that above all faces us is that of redundancy and unemployment. Therefore, I think it proper to provide for a lower rate of productivity deduction for firms whose labour costs form a substantial part of the whole. Incidentally, these firms are often in the low-paid sector—textiles, some of the food industries, and so on. They are not, by and large, to be compared with the higher-paid industries which are typically capital intensive, such as oil refining and chemicals.
  I turn now to the safeguards. Throughout I have made it clear that I do not believe that a régime of safeguards is the prime use of a Price Code. Indeed, the worry is that safeguards make no distinction between the well- and the ill-managed, the efficient and the inefficient, those with good and effective labour relations and those with bad labour relations. Safeguards in the end are a licence to survive to good, bad, competitive or uncompetitive companies.
  So we have tried not to invoke the régime of safeguards too much and, therefore, have put the weight of our reliefs on investment relief and the productivity deduction. Nevertheless, one cannot completely remove the safeguards in the old code, so we have done two things in addition to what I said when we
  766
  were discussing the original consultative document.
  First, we have responded to the desire of industry to be offered one or other of the safeguards. The first is the original stage 3 safeguard which allowed a firm to retain 90 per cent. of its profit margin but only in relation to erosions created by the Price Code itself. As an alternative, we have offered firms a new safeguard under which they are protected if there is an erosion of their profit margins of about one-third, although this may arise from any cause whatsoever—that is to say, it does not have to be shown to be entirely due to the Price Code.
  Those hon. Members who are interested in, and indeed understand—God help them—the intricacies of the Price Code will know, as I do, that it has often been very difficult for a firm to prove that the erosion flows from the Price Code rather than from some other cause. Indeed, it would require a theologian of the level of the thirteenth century canon lawyers to be able to establish invariably the source of the erosion of profits.
  So we have introduced, now slightly conceded to 30 per cent., a fresh alternative safeguard and, therefore, a firm may select which of the two it believes more relevant to it. But that firm must make a choice once and for all. There is no other possibility; indeed, the only way that we could introduce an option was on the understanding that there must be one choice and that that choice must be for the remainder of the period of the Counter-Inflation Act. Anything else would create impossible administrative and bureaucratic difficulties.
  My other point on safeguards is on that which applies to distributors. Here we have agreed that retail distributors may go up to a limit of 105 per cent. of the gross margins to achieve a net profit margin safeguard, which has now been set at 80 per cent. Therefore, the gross margin has been loosened for purposes only of achieving a net profit safeguard, because it was pointed out to us—although it is not strictly true—that many firms believe that if they once reached the gross reference margin level they would have to fall below their safeguard level and would be playing a sort of somersault and leapfrog mixed up one

  767
  with another. This was not, in fact, so, but many firms believe it to be the case, and so we have tried to simplify this very complicated section of the Price Code.
  I should like to mention one or two other essential changes in the criteria under which the Price Commission will deal with applications from nationalised industries. These are in paragraphs 98 to 105 of the new code and they are, of course, in line with the Government's desire to put nationalised industries increasingly on the same basis as private industry in the matter of controls and constraints.
  However, it would be impossible in a short period to bring nationalised industries away from the subsidy situation that we discussed earlier. Consequently, Ministers will still have the power within the difference between the absolutely basic covering of costs and the maximum allowed under the Price Code—that is to say, the 10 per cent. on investment of capital or the 2 per cent. on turnover—to exercise their powers. But at least the range is now basically the same for nationalised industries as for private industry, and we believe that this should be commended by those who essentially want a proper relationship between the public and private sectors.
  I am not besotted or enamoured of Price Codes. In many ways, they are complicated bureaucratic expressions. We have done our best with the Price Code that we inherited because, as most fair-minded Members will recognise, it would have been impossible simply to sweep it away when inflationary pressures were what they have been over the last couple of years. Indeed, we are bound to look at the American experience, which was the experience of a very sudden leap when they removed their price controls.
  In saying this, I do not mean—as some Opposition Members will wish I meant—that I am totally opposed to any form of price control. I am not. I simply do not feel that the elaborate system of the Price Code is necessarily the most effective way to create dialogue on the whole question of prices, investment, growth and all the rest. I myself, in many ways, would prefer the French system, which, although in some respects rather crude, has operated effectively in terms of growth and not too ineffectively in terms
  768
  of prices. As we move towards the system of planning agreements—industry ought not to be as frightened or suspicious about these planning agreements as some are—we shall be able to provide a better answer to the problems which beset economies such as ours.
  I commend this Price Code to the House on the simple basis that at long last it recognises the need for investment, that this should always have been a basic feature of it, and that it is at least an attempt to meet what are the real problems of indusry, on both sides—trade unions and employers. When firms are threatened with growing redundancies, with problems about the cash to keep themselves viable and going, we have made at least some contribution, I hope, towards what I regard as the essential 'job of trying to avoid a recession deeper than it otherwise needs to be.
  10.41 p.m.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: I share the Secretary of State's regret, though not her embarrassment, about the lack of Labour back-bench Members on her side of the House—with the exception of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas).
  The Secretary of State quoted the thirteenth century canon lawyers. I have a suspicion that those lawyers and theologians, if alive today, would not have had to exercise themselves very much about their favourite question—how many Labour back benchers can one get on the head of a pin. They would see remarkably few.
  Clearly, the new code gives some overall improvement on the previous code. Because it is an improvement, we shall not oppose it. Not merely do we say that the code represents an improvement, but we welcome the concessions which have been made since the draft code was debated in the House a few weeks ago. The fact remains, however, that in some respects the changes do not go far enough. I shall return to that matter shortly. I want, first to make some general comments on the code.
  There are two lines of objection to the code. The first is that it is screwing industry down at a time when in some cases it is in desperate need of greater profitability. The second is that the

  769
  code is increasingly irrelevant, as competition is anyway holding prices below permitted levels. On the face of it, those two objections are contradictory criticisms of the code. But both can be true at the same time, because these lines of attack apply to different areas.
  One of the difficulties is that one cannot generalise all that easily about the effects of the code. They vary from industry to industry. Nevertheless, one generalisation is very true—that is that the economic situation is very different to that pertaining when the code was launched by the Conservative Government. Then, the truth is that prices were making all the running, with profits and commodity prices contributing. Today, the pressure is coming overwhelmingly from pay and wages. Goodness knows, prices are high enough at present, with the December retail price index up by 19·1 per cent. over the previous year. The Government have failed clearly and disastrously to fulfil their pre-election claims. But it is neither raw material costs nor profits which are responsible for the present upsurge. It is labour costs.
  The latest Price Commission report, which is an extremely interesting and important document, tells this story very clearly indeed when it states on page 4:
  "we estimate that, in the three months to November, increased labour costs would have accounted, not for 33 per cent. of price increases, but for 60 per cent."
  The problem is certainly not high profits. The commission is again specific. It says:
  "In the third quarter of 1974, profit margins of Category I companies have fallen to 51 per cent. of reference levels."
  Even if oil is excluded—there are special factors resulting in a loss in the oil sector—the figure is still only 60 per cent. Experience with category 2 manufacturing and service companies is much the same, the third quarter figure being 54 per cent. only. There is one more highly relevant quotation:
  "Now that output is no longer rising, profit margins are falling and the effect of the price control is to push them down even faster."
  Thus the picture is now of pay racing ahead with the Chancellor's claim that inflation can be down to 10 per cent. this year and into single figures next year looking more and more of a mirage.
  770
  The question is whether the code is the right way of dealing with this problem. In these circumstances there is a temptation for the Government to try to use the Price Code as a way of keeping down wages. The Secretary of State's notorious threat last year of introducing penalties through the productivity deduction system illustrates this. I am glad that this idea does not appear in the revised code. I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister, however, that we shall not see this idea resurrected in a future code.
  It is grossly unfair to industry to make management responsible for the weaknesses in the social contract. That seems quite unacceptable quite apart from the fact that anything of this sort would be incredibly complicated and all too liable to be extremely arbitrary. It is hard, if not impossible to reconcile the notion of penalties with the notion of voluntary incomes policy to which the Government are said to be attached.
  The Government must look to other ways of dealing with income inflation. Even at 20 per cent., increased wages and falling production mean that the productivity deduction is now inflicting greater hardship than did the old 50 per cent. deduction when it was first introduced in happier economic circumstances. I have some sympathy with the point put to the Secretary of State at a dinner in Birmingham on Tuesday that the deduction should now go.
  The Secretary of State raised the question of investment relief. I welcome what she said. This relief is capable of being a help. I see the point about the law expiring in 1976, but the Secretary of State's undertaking was valuable. However, the general liquidity crisis means that many companies have been obliged to cut back their investment programmes and are unable to take advantage of this provision. The investment situation is still very serious.
  Next I wish to deal with inflation accounting. It still seems anomalous that calculations on a replacement cost basis should be permitted for taxation purposes but not generally for the purposes of the code. I hope that when the Sandilands report comes out the Government will be able to take it into account

  771
  in respect of prices as well as on the general question of taxation.
  When the Secretary of State reexamines the code, I hope she will bear in mind that there is a good deal in the view that the quarterly assessment of the performance of businesses as regards gross and net margins should be changed to an annual assessment except in special circumstances. Many businesses fluctuate with the seasons, and that presents a problem for them.
  These points must be taken into account if and when we have another draft of the code, but increasingly we may be moving towards the position in which the code is no longer effective or desirable except maybe as a piece of politics in connection with the social contract. A comparison of the successive Price Commission reports shows that overall its impact is diminishing. Perhaps even more telling than the quarterly documents is the commission's comment on page 20 of its latest report that
  "competitive position, consumer resistance and other economic factors have in general prevented distributors from increasing their prices sufficiently to maintain their margins."
  After all, distribution is an area where there has been greatest concern and what has been said there is of very great importance.
  What we want at the very least is assurances that the Government, with the commission's aid, will closely watch for signs of the point when the code ceases to hold down prices, and perhaps even tends to bring them up, as could happen in a recession. We hope that the Government will accept the need to do that, and that they will not be swayed by general political considerations.
  We shall not oppose the new code, as it is a step in the right direction, and we do not want to see the previous code kept in being. But—like the Secretary of State, I think—we look forward to the day when we can say "Goodbye" to the whole notion.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I first declare an interest, as a director of J. Sainsbury Ltd. and other companies. It will perhaps not be surprising if, having declared that interest, I say that I want
  772
  to speak particularly about distribution as it is affected by the Price Code.
  Before doing so, I should like to make a few more general remarks, particularly to follow up the Secretary of State's excellent statement explaining why we should not have a price code at all. I congratulate her upon a fine exposition of some of the many disadvantages that flow from the operation of a price code such as we now have. There are certain special factors that deserve to be brought out a little more than even the Secretary of State has so far succeeded in doing, ably assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison).
  We are at stage 4, and the whole shooting match is not yet two years old. It is rather depressing that we have already reached that stage. The emphasis that is rightly being given to investment is very relevant, because the longer one runs a price code that is related to a base date—and it must necessarily be related to a base date—the greater the distortions, disturbances and distractions one introduces into the whole operation of commerce and industry. The longer one operates a price code that refers back more than a year—nearly two years in this case—the more likely it is that one is looking back to a period that is not relevant to circumstances today, and therefore the more likely it is that any encouragement one tries to give to investment will be defeated by the problems posed by the reference periods to which the code refers.
  The base date for manufacturing industry unit costs—30th April 1973—is nearly two years ago. For distribution it is even worse. I am sure that the Under-Secretary is well aware that there are already anomalies in the very idea of having reference back to a year that ended on or before 30th April 1973, which could cover a wide variety of periods. We are looking back all the time, when we should be looking forward. Changing circumstances make that backward glance less and less appropriate to the current climate.
  With regard to the relative movement of costs, my hon. Friend has already referred to the movement of wage costs, but they are not the only costs that are now changing rather differently as compared with the pattern of movement two years ago. Fuel costs are another example. It

  773
  is a question not only of the relative movement of costs but of the rate of movement of costs. We are in a period in which, unhappily, costs are likely to increase at perhaps 2 per cent. a month, or even more in some areas. Managers need to respond quickly to the changing circumstances in which they find their production going on. That is the second point which can be raised against the whole Price Code. The first aspect is the inevitable way it must refer back to a previous period. The second is the frequency of price increases.
  In a period such as this it is almost unacceptable to industry that price increases are not allowed except under very special circumstances, and not more frequently than every 13 weeks. It is very difficult for managers, who are trained to respond quickly to be prevented from responding quickly to changing circumstances. This is one of the unreasonable aspects left in the Price Code which the Secretary of State could quite easily have changed. I hope that the Secretary of State will give early consideration to such a change if, as I fear, we reach stage 5.
  There is a third aspect of the operation of the Price Code which I find profoundly disturbing. I refer to the amount of management time inevitably involved in the endless negotiations and correspondence. Most of us complain about the inadequacies of management, which can be exaggerated. We agree that there is no abundant, over-supply of good management in British industry and commerce. Therefore we want to do our best to enable the management to be deployed as effectively as possible.
  The Report of the Price Commission for the period 1st September to 30th November 1974 says that there were 696 staff employed in the Commission. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that many of them are able people. I do not know whether she agrees that they should be more effectively deployed in actual production, distribution and commerce. However, I would hazard a guess that there are many more people such as cost accountants and others with financial training, who are difficult to find, who are employed to deal with the Price Commission on all the fiddling little bits.
  Appendix 3D on page 55 of the Price Commission Report states the exciting achievement of the Price Commission,
  774
  which managed to reduce an application of Phillips Electrical Ltd. for an increase in the price of Ultraphil health lamps. Phillips Electrical Ltd. asked for a 7·70 per cent. increase. After doubtless long negotiations, involving many senior managers, that figure was reduced to 7·69 per cent.
  However, the Commission did not rest there. F. A. Power Ltd. wanted to increase the price of bright steel products by 6·91 per cent. A slashing reduction to 6·88 per cent. resulted from the long, tedious negotiations. Then, to prove that the decimal point was floating on the calculators, we move down to Smedley-HP Foods Ltd., who wished to increase the price of canned meat pies and pasta products by 12·326 per cent. As a result of doubtless prolonged and interesting argument, the price rise was reduced to 12·029 per cent., which was again a triumph for the Price Commission. There must have been an appalling waste of management time and expertise in industry, commerce and the Price Commission. I do not think that we can regard that as a great achievement of the Price Code.
  There are special problems in distribution. In view of the range of products stocked by the average store, obviously it would be impractical to try to control prices product by product in that store. Therefore, understandably and sensibly, the Price Code from the beginning has exercised control over distribution by controlling the margins of distributors.
  Immediately we run into the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury referred. The margins are checked by reference a long way back to the year ending on or before 30th April 1973, and the performance of the distributive company is checked against that annual margin. But is it necessary to wait a year? Has it to be done monthly, or quarterly? How is account to be taken of the very large seasonal variations and fluctuations found in all sections of the distributive trades?
  It is obviously wrong to do it on a quarterly basis. The only reasonable basis would be annual, or a moving annual total. That in itself is a problem because of the long period required to get a reliable indicator of one year against another.
  That is not the only problem which arises in the distributive trades. We have

  775
  the gross margin and the net margin. It is curious in a way that the Price Code should need to refer in any way to the net margin of the distributive trades. After all, it is the consumer about whom we must be concerned. The consumer is interested only in the gross margin. It is the product cost plus the gross margin which represents the cost to the consumer. If we are trying to control the cost to the consumer, we are concerned with the gross margin. To some extent, the net margin is academic. Yet, inevitably, because the Price Code leads to complications, the net margin is also involved.
  I need go no further in search of support for that than this most helpful report of the Price Commission. There, I find what results. There is a clear and, for once, unequivocal statement:
  "The present safeguard is not easy to operate."
  The right hon. Lady rightly and fairly described the inadequacies of safeguards She described them as "a licence to survive" for the good, the bad and the indifferent. I am not sure that I wish to produce licences to survive for the bad, and it is a dubious proposition to produce them for the indifferent. Surely we should be concerned about producing licences to thrive for the efficient, and I do not think that the present Price Code, with its safety nets and safeguards, does that.
  The price to the consumer is not helped by controlling the net margin, and there is no doubt that the complication that has been introduced by controlling the net margin turns out to be a disincentive to the efficient. It is not a satisfactory state of affairs that we end up like that.
  Then there is a further major criticism, made fairly by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, that it can be argued—and there is clear evidence for it in the report of the Price Commission—that competition is doing a far more effective job than the Price Code. It can be argued that the Price Code is a disincentive to investment. But, as my hon. Friend said, the truth lies in that both apply in different areas of industry and commerce. In some areas it is competition and in others it is the disincentive effect to investment which is introduced by the Price Code.
  Again this report is clear on this point. It says, on page 5, paragraph 2.6:
  776
  "The price control has lopped the top off the current wave. Now that profits are on the downward slope, the price control inevitably pushes them down faster."
  Surely there could not be a clearer statement of disincentive to invest which is representative of that sort of effect of the Price Code, direct and indirect in the sense that from management to industry to investor that must take away his incentive. We can have little doubt that in the distribution side one does not need the Price Code. Cost is doing the job. Table 6 on page 18 tells the whole story.
  I would conclude by fearing that we may have a stage 5. The best stage 5 for industry and commerce would be one which tore up the whole thing. That would restore confidence and would be the best incentive to invest throughout industry which one could have at this time, but if we have to have a stage 5 not tearing up the whole thing, would it be possible to have one which was simpler, taking less management time, concerned only with the key areas, which leaves the natural forces of market place and competition to do the job in the other areas? If we had one like that it would meet the objective of all of us in giving greater encouragement to investment.
  11.07 p.m.
  Mr. Hal Miller: As a novice, it is with trepidation that I enter the arena with all those who discuss the Price Code, and I do so only because of the charm and clarity of exposition of the Secretary of State.
  I should like to join issue with the right hon. Lady on the question of the exclusion of road vehicles from the investment relief which is otherwise so much welcomed, and rightly welcomed, on this side of the House. We are grateful to her for that.
  It is not clear to me what exact figure she had in mind when she said that it had not been found possible to offer relief for commercial vehicles on account of the pressure on their order books and their supply position.
  I fear that it is possible, if the right hon. Lady could cast her mind back to the figures to which she was referring, that she might find that they were of

  777
  rather earlier date than she had been led to suppose. Could the Under-Secretary offer some hope, when he replies, that the point will be re-examined, because on the industry's own forecast, this year there is to be a further decline in total production, although the industry is, of course, hoping to increase exports. In this connection, I should like to pay tribute to the magnificent export achievements of the motor industry during the past 12 months.
  There is another small point. I noticed that the Secretary of State referred only to commercial vehicles, both on 2nd December and tonight, whereas the exclusion is in terms of all road vehicles, and it is in those terms that I hope that the position will be alleviated. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say that there is to be a re-examination.
  The Secretary of State rather trailed her cape—and I hope I am not being a bull in a china shop, if I may mix my metaphors—when she suggested that the theology of planning agreements, whichever divine article it is, is to be reinforced or made operative by the relaxation of the Price Code for these adoptive agreements. This suggestion has been made before, and I have referred to it before in this House, but it has perhaps escaped the close attention of the right hon. Lady in her close reading of Hansard when she has not been able to be present.
  Let us consider the motor industry as an example. Suppose the Ford Motor Company did not wish to comply with a planning agreement—as is conceivable—whereas BLMC might be willing to do so. If the latter were allowed to raise its prices, what would be likely to happen? The only result would be that the Ford Motor Company would prosper mightily by selling many more cars than BLMC. It would be selling at the prosperous end of its product, and the results would not be those which the right hon. Lady fondly imagines. That is one reasons why planning agreements cause so much concern.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I think the hon. Gentleman's apprehension arises from the fact that he regards the planning agreement as the theology, whereas it is the Price Code that is the theology. The planning agreement is simply good sense.
  Mr. Miller: I had tried to show that the right hon. Lady's suggestion was far from sensible, whether or not it was theological, because it was not likely to achieve what she intended.
  11.11 p.m.
  Mr. Adam Butler: I shall not make general comments on the code or the matter before us, because time is short. I shall not be tempted to discuss the desirability or otherwise of the Price Code, except to note some of the views which have been expressed by my hon. Friends that, in the present economic climate, there is no doubt but that some of industries' liquidity problems result from the restriction of the code as it effects them.
  I want to deal briefly with one comparatively small but nevertheless important point. I welcome the investment relief which the code provides, but does this include investment in takeovers? The right hon. Lady will see what I mean as I develop my argument.
  In one respect at least this mark 4 code appears to continue to work strongly against improvement in business efficiency. I need not argue how efficiency leads to lower costs and possibly smaller increases in prices, because that obviously commends itself to the right hon. Lady as it does to us all.
  What I have in mind are takeovers or mergers which lead to the amalgamation of two separately-owned enterprises which are in the same line of business and with the same or similar type of product. The two broad instances of this are, first, the takeover of the inefficient firm which may be about to go out of business—and there is the important related point about redundancies which may be avoided, but that is not the main theme. Secondly, there is the takeover or merger by a business with one of comparable efficiency from which, amongst other things, the benefits of rationalisation and cost-saving flow.
  As I understand it—and I hope there will be an opportunity for the Minister to comment on this tonight or to write to me; I am in correspondence with the Department on a particular issue concerning a company in my constituency—the code requires the aggregation of losses and profits of these two companies which are

  779
  to be amalgamated, and the use of aggregated reference levels.
  In the first case of the takeover of the inefficient firm, one will be putting together perhaps a high reference level from the company doing the taking over and a low reference level from the inefficient company, and the averaging out reduces the reference level which the amalgamated business has to use in future.
  Equally, if two comparatively efficient firms are getting together the lower reference level of one of the companies must bring down the average, and this can have a serious effect on the intentions of the company—and therefore its investment—which is considering merging with or buying up the other company. In practice what can happen is that the merger does not go through.
  As the right hon. Lady has said, there is the alternative of using the reference level of the inefficient company and of using the level of a 10 per cent. return on capital employed. The right hon. Lady referred to that alternative in the context of the nationalised industries. I think that most of us would be happy if all or most of the nationalised industries showed a return of 10 per cent. on capital. In the private sector—this applies even in times of low interest rates—that is usually an inadequate return. At present when borrowing is taking place from Finance for Industry at 16 per cent., for example, a 10 per cent. return on capital is nonsensical. There is no incentive in that alternative.
  One argument might be to increase the reference levels. The ideal would be that the reference level used should be that of the efficient taking-over company. It might be argued that that would allow the company to raise its prices. If I understand matters correctly there would be a check on that through one of the provisions of the code. A price increase could not come about unless there was a cost increase if the standard criteria were used to justify it. I do not think that that argument stands whether we have a mark 5 code or whether, hopefully, we are able to get away from this business in the near future.
  I ask the right Hon. Lady to use the provisions of Article 76, which is headed
  780
  "Modification of reference level"
  in the sort of cases to which I am referring. The article gives three situations as examples and I think that what I have said fits into all or most of them. The first example is
  "a substantial reconstruction of the enterprise"
  That surely results from a merger or takeover of another company.
  The second example is
  "a substantial change in the character of the business;
  I would submit if a business changes substantially in size that would be a
  "substantial change in … character …"
  Another point which involves investment and particularly if there has been investment which alters the size of the business, is contained in the third example—namely:
  a substantial change in the ratio between the value of net fixed assets … and the value of sales … to achieve substantial savings in labour costs per unit of output;"
  Again, I would submit that this concerns the takeover of the inefficient company. If one or all of those conditions are met by the circumstances that I have described the commission may permit some departure from the reference level.
  I can only ask the Minister to look favourably on this point in general, and particularly in respect of the case about which we are corresponding.
  11.19 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: I express my support for what the right hon. Lady said about the necessity to retain some form of price control. I think that the American experience is a lesson that we must bear in mind for the future. I am glad that she has noted it.
  I have a couple of points to make which relate to matters upon which the right hon. Lady did not touch in what was otherwise a full explanatory introduction of the new code. Inadvertently she did not refer to a number of changes which have taken place from Article 7 onwards relating to the application of food, farm and forestry products. I notice that compared with the 1973 order Article 7 leaves out the control of sugar. Article 8 (2) reads:
  "The price for the sale of raw beet sugar for further refining is not controlled."
  That I accept, but I wonder, why the Government have left out any form of

  781
  control on sugar prices since this was included in the original article in the 1973 order which has now expired.
  The other point which I wish to raise in relation to this part of the order dealing with food, farming and forestry products relates to Article 10 which appears to place a good deal of responsibility on the Milk Marketing Board. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady can tell me whether the board has not only been consulted but has expressed its agreement to what appears to be a rather complicated mechanism.
  The right hon. Lady referred to that part of the code which deals with the nationalised industries, from Article 97 onwards. This article contains a list of nationalised concerns. Can the right hon. Lady tell me where the BBC fits into this? It is not in the list of nationalised concerns and it is not included in Article 6 which deals with application and says:
  "The following are not controlled:"
  I assume that the BBC is subject to control. If it is, can the right hon. Lady say how this document will prevent the increase in the colour television licence by 50 per cent. from £12 to £18?
  11.22 p.m.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: In any debate on the Price Code hon. Members are torn between the need to obtain clarification on matters of detail, because these are matters of detail with which industry has to live from day to day, and the equally important need to debate the premises on which the code mechanism is based. As the right hon. Lady has emphasised, it is a vitally important tool in the Government's economic policy to fight inflation. Tonight's debate is no exception.
  Hon. Members have raised a number of specific points of detail, such as that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) about mergers and take overs. There has also been the need to examine some of the premises, of efficiency and competition, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) referred.
  The draft code was debated as recently as 2nd December and the code became operative from 20th December, albeit embodying too few amendments in our view, but nevertheless amendments which
  782
  we welcomed. The code is in action and there is little more we can easily do about it. The more profitable course is to concentrate on the principles embodied in it and to judge their effects and effectiveness in the present economic climate.
  It may come as a shock to hon. Members to be reminded that in the introduction to the Consultative Document there is written, in paragraph 7 on page 2:
  "At the same time, the Government recognise that greater efficiency in the use of resources, higher exports and job opportunities, all depend on industry's capacity and willingness to invest and innovate, and in the competitive vigour with which it responds to market opportunities. The Price Code must be adapted to meet these requirements."
  These splendid sentiments flowed no doubt more easily from a capitalist quill than from a bureaucratic ball point. That rapture, frankly, has been rather short-lived. I quote from the general principles published in the existing code in Article 3:
  "The general principles relating to prices are:

  (i) to limit the extent to which prices may be increased on account of increased costs, and to secure reductions as a result of reduced costs;

  (ii) to reinforce the control of prices by a control on profit margins while safeguarding investment;

  (iii) to reinforce the effects of competition, and to secure its full benefits in the general level of prices."

  So much for the results of the wide-ranging consultations, or was it perhaps that the poet in the Department had left—Ichabod, Ichabod, perhaps the Tory had departed.
  It is relevant to point out that the Government see the code as essentially restrictive—restrictive of profits and restrictive of prices. Yet, at the same time, the Government claim that they are expansionist in terms of their desire to encourage competition. My contention is that this is a flaw, because it is a fundamental divergence of objective. I do not see how the code can remotely affect competition. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove made that plain in demonstrating that the competition of price in the market place was the surest way of ensuring consumer benefit and proper pricing. It establishes rules which all who compete in any individual market must observe.

  783
  The productivity deduction penalises the efficient, whose room to reduce cost particularly after a series of threshold payments is marginal, whereas it favours the less efficient who can more easily absorb non-allowable costs. Prices today in consequence are being determined less and less by competition and more by the maximum price permissible under the code.
  I fully recognise that the pressures of competition brought about by inflation are increasing day by day. That corresponds with what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) pointed out, that the rôle of the code should be gradually reduced and the rôle of true competition should gradually take over. I doubt whether the objective of reinforcing competition can be held to be met by the practice of this code.
  I was interested in what the right hon. Lady said about investment. We welcome the inclusion of the new provisions in the Price Code, and the fact that it might be possible—although the right hon. Lady would not wish to be committed to this—to look at pricing and investment intention in tandem so that one might allow increased flexibility to the other. That I welcome as an important possible change for the future.
  Hon. Members may think that since we last debated the Price Code in early December the climate of investment has changed, and the right hon. Lady suggested that that was so. True, there has been a welcome if somewhat belated recovery in the stock market which has brought the prospect of raising capital from that source a little nearer. Welcome, too, is the modest reduction in interest rates, which will certainly benefit industrial cash flow. But let us be clear. There has been no significant improvement in the long-term outlook, which influences the way in which investment decisions are made.
  This morning The Times refers to a recent Government survey of industry's investment intentions. It suggests that there is a projected fall of 10 per cent. in the capital spending programmes for this year compared with a year ago, and forecasts a further fall in 1976. No wonder the Director General of the National Economic Development Council is on record as having claimed that there must
  784
  be additional incentives to encourage investment, although I do not share the right hon. Lady's optimism that the climate of investment provided by the code is such that it will be readily taken tip because funds will be readily available. The 17½ per cent. investment allowance will clearly not be enough, and it may well be a case of too little, too late.
  There is neither the cash nor the confidence to enable the investment provisions to work effectively. Conditions for investment will return only when the Government acknowledge that increased and retained profits are the only—and the only effective—spur to sound investment.
  With the code's determination to control profit margins, and with the Government's determination to continue to talk about controls or interventions of one kind or another, whether by nationalisation or through the National Enterprise Board, it is no wonder that industrialists and investors lack confidence to take the decision now which have such an important bearing on the future. Only a change of Government can restore confidence on that issue.
  These investment allowances will not be taken up, and the question arises—it is an important one—whether industry will benefit from the £800 million which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has released for re-investment in industry by the provisions of the code. Taking the code as a whole, what evidence have we that industry and industrial liquidity will benefit by that amount? Discussing this point in December, the Under-Secretary of State said:
  "A better comparison would start not from the present Price Code but from the state of company profits as they stand today.
  "It is on this basis that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has judged that it will be necessary to restore £800 million to company profits through changes in the Price Code. The various changes we propose are calculated to produce this result."—[Official Report, 2nd December 1974; Vol. 882, c. 1195.1
  This suggests to me that calculations have clearly been done.
  Is the hon. Gentleman able to supply a breakdown as to how this £800 million has been arrived at as between the various relaxations embodied in the code? Can he break it down as between reduction in productivity deduction, investment

  785
  allowances and the widening of the definition of allowable costs, and so on? It may take a little time to answer, and it may be necessary for Caithness to speak to Sutherland. We are entitled to know how this much-needed and much-vaunted improvement in industrial investment is to be achieved.
  We welcome the further changes in the code which increase its flexibility. I welcome, on behalf of the wool textile industry, so important to some of my constituents, the exclusion of wool tops from control and the retention of the enterprise as well as product or range of products as a cost centre. But I am informed that, under Article 39, the profit margin safeguard proposed for a product at 30 per cent. does not equate precisely with the safeguard offered under the gross margin level for the enterprise as a whole, and if it is to be offered as a direct alternative figure, it should perhaps be 25 per cent. and not 30 per cent.
  I echo the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) concerning the disappointment that the motor industry must feel that commercial vehicles have not been included within the investment allowances. Whilst we respect the right hon. Lady's assurance that this might be re-examined, I hope that it will be done quickly. The motor industry would wish to see it done. It will have an important effect on industries, such as the food industry, which have large vehicle fleets delivering quantities of perishable commodities with great frequency.
  I declare my interest in a company in the food industry and refer to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) about sugar. I thought it was a fair point. I cannot help mentioning that many firms in the manufacturing section of the food industry which use sugar want to know what they have to demonstrate to the right hon. Lady in terms of cash flow or profit which would lead them to obtain the same concessions as the apparently impoverished sugar refiners are able to obtain.
  Taking the Price Code as a whole, and setting it in its current inflationary context, these provisions are still intensely restricting on British industry's capacity
  786
  to fight its way through the difficulties with which it is beset.
  While the code's effect on the retail price index may be only short-lived and overtaken by events, its longer-term effects on the time, energy, involvement and sheer powers of management are deeply damaging. Withtout an effective pay code, the Price Code is still something of a dagger in industry's back. By relaxing some of the provisions in the code, the Government has pulled the dagger partially out, but I fear the patient is still bleeding to death.
  11.35 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) on his first appearance on the Opposition Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] We have listened to him with great interest in earlier debates on this subject and we are well aware of his expertise. We are happy to see him in his present position.
  I should like to begin by mentioning the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). I am glad that he gave the changes an overall welcome and recognised that they constituted a useful improvement on the stage 3 code. He welcomed the investment incentive, as did a number of other hon. Members, and also the concessions made during the period of consultation following the publication of the White Paper.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly speculated on the effectiveness of the code as a means of dealing with inflation at this time and drew attention to two possible lines of objection which could be made against it. On the one hand, his view was that it could screw down industry too hard, and also that as profit levels slipped it might be seen to be increasingly irrelevant. These thoughts were not far from our minds, and we sought to make the code more relevant to the problems of controlling inflation. At the same time we seek by reason of the changes, to stimulate investment.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me to say say something about the possible use of the productivity deduction as a penalty for excessive wage settlements. I merely repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on a number

  787
  of occasions, namely, that it would be possible to introduce the proposal only if both sides accepted it—and from the first the CBI made it plain that this was not acceptable.
  The hon. Gentleman, on the subject of the consultative document, asked whether we would seek to take account of inflation accounting procedures in any further amendments we might make to the Price Code. I think that it would have been improper in the Price Code review to attempt to forestall the report of the Sandilands Committee, although we shall be considering carefully and with great interest the recommendations which the committee brings forward and doubtless, in the evolution of price control policy, we shall have to take account of the recommendations they make.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked my right hon. Friend to consider putting profit checks on an annual rather than on a quarterly basis, and the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) made the same point. The present position is that the Price Commission gets quarterly reports, but an excess over profit margins in a single quarter is not necessarily penalised.
  The Price Commission is required to take account of "seasonal and other distorting factors" under paragraph 66 of the code. I know that there are complaints about this system, but it seems to be working reasonably well and better now than at first. If the commission had always to wait for a whole year's results, it might have to stand idly by while enormous excesses built up.
  The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who spoke in terms fundamentally critical of the concept of control of inflation by the Price Code, expressed depression at the fact that we had reached stage 4, and a hope that we should not find ourselves with a stage 5. I assure the hon. Gentleman and others who have raised the same matter that the Government have no intention of embarking upon another fundamental review of the code in the immediate future. It is known that the counter-inflation legislation expires in the spring of next year. Plainly, we shall have to consider what is to take the place of the present arrangements. My right hon. Friend, in her opening remarks, gave some indication of the
  788
  way that her mind was moving in this respect. I hope that will give the hon. Gentleman and industry the reassurance that the Government do not intend to seek to chop and change provisions which are inevitably somewhat complicated and, as he and others have said, result in the expenditure of considerable effort in coming to terms with them.
  Mr. Adam Butler: I hope that the Minister is not ruling out further modifications if they prove essential in the light of experience.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am not ruling out changes in our approach to specific rules. We are not about to embark upon a major change of the code. If small amendments became desirable, we should have to give careful consideration to them, but certainty, so far as it is possible, is important in a document of this kind.
  The hon. Member for Hove in his wide ranging attack on the whole notion of control through the Price Code, complained about 696 employees of the Price Commission devoting their time to the work of which he sought to make a certain amount of fun. The quarterly report makes plain the substantial savings in price increases which have been achieved which have been estimated at £116 million per annum.
  Mr. Sainsbury rose—
  Mr. Maclennan: I do not think that I ought to give way again, because I have many points to answer and we are limited for time. I think that for such a small number of men and women this is a substantially beneficial output of work.
  The hon. Member for Hove also spoke of the disincentive to investment which the Price Code constituted. The liquidity problems facing industry have given rise to the relaxations which have occurred, but British industry did not invest as the Conservative Government would have liked it to do in 1970, 1971, or 1972, when there was no price control. Investment picked up, however, in 1973, and held up well in 1974, despite price controls. Price controls have not inhibited investment in France or Belgium. Our reliefs for investment are, we think, very generous, and provide a positive incentive.
  A number of hon. Members have raised the matter of the exclusion of commercial

  789
  vehicles from the investment incentive. The Government are prepared to consider evidence which industry brings forward of the case for this, but I must make it clear that we do so within the context of the take-up of the investment relief generally, as we made clear in the December debate on the consultative document. My right hon. Friend deliberately spoke of commercial vehicles, because it was to that subject that her remarks referred, and they were not intended to be construed more widely.
  The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), in an important speech, asked me a number of questions, some of which were very detailed, and I think that I would have difficulty in answering them tonight. They related to the profit margin reference levels if there were a merger or takeover. I know that his interest is in respect of a particular firm; perhaps he will forgive me if I write to him rather than answer his questions tonight.
  The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Fell) spoke of the removal of sugar from the Price Code. We have powers, under Section 2 of the Prices Act, to set maximum prices for sugar. Obviously we shall consider using these if it seems appropriate to do so. He also asked whether the Milk Marketing Board had been consulted on the new rules and whether it had agreed. It was consulted and it accepted that the changes went some way towards giving the additional flexibility it sought. It would have preferred milk sold for manufacture to be totally outside the controls, but accepted that that would not have been altogether realistic. As for the BBC, it is controlled by ministerial decisions about licensing.
  The hon. Member for Pudsey asked the most fundamental questions—about the extent to which the revised Price Code would influence investment. He may have been exaggerating the claims for the effectiveness of what we have done. What is clear is that the investment relief from the Price Code is bound at the margin to have encouraged some investment which would not otherwise have occurred and, through the multiplier effect in the economy, the importance of such marginal changes in terms of jobs particularly is important. If the Government had not acted, companies would have had graver doubts about their cash
  790
  flow and liquidity, and the volume of investment expected this year would have fallen even more—with adverse effects on our provision for the future and on employment this year.
  There is no doubt that manufacturers' investment decisions—and therefore decisions about the number of people in employment—are affected by the prospects for growth, the availability of profit to finance the investment and their view of other risks, including the risk of fast inflation. There is no doubt, therefore, that measures directed towards the control of inflation and the building of real profits, on which much investment depends, are in the interest of everybody in this country. They make useful employment now and provision for growth in the future.
  In conclusion, I make only one point. I have the impression that many people in industry are far from dissatisfied with the way in which the stage 4 code has come out. We are all glad that the investment relief has been widely welcomed. I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Pudsey that it will not be taken up. There has already been a lively interest expressed in this. It now rests with industry to familiarise itself with the new provisions and make the best use of them. I understand that there are still many category I and II firms which have not given notice to the Price Commission of their intention to invoke the investment relief. There is nothing to lose and much to gain from lodging these claims at the earliest date. I hope, therefore, that some of those who have been quick to complain that the new code does not go far enough will now study the new code and see exactly how far it does go.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question about the £800 million? Will the investment relief really provide £800 million of improved liquidity and, if so, how does it break down?
  Mr. Maclennan: That is a difficult question to answer in the minute which I believe I have left. It was not advisedly that I failed to answer that point. I am bound to say that the calculations are not easy to make. I have no doubt that they could be challenged. But our best estimate of the effect of what we have done—in particular the reduction of the productivity deduction, the investment relief and

  791
  the extra reliefs announced by my right hon. Friend following the consultative document—is that it will amount to £800 million, plus £200 million, which comes to a total of £1,000 million—although I cannot obviously stand here tonight and argue every item of how this was achieved.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved.
  That the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 2113), a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]
  Resolved.
  That the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 2158), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): If there is no objection, I shall put a single Question on Motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73 A (Statutory Instruments):
  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
  That the draft Ships and Mobile Offshore Installations Construction Credits (Increase of Limit) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th December be approved.—[Mr. Pavitt.]
  SEA FISHERIES
  That the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970 (Relaxation of Time Limits) Order 1974 a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.—[Mr. Pavitt.]
  SEA FISHERIES
  That the White Fish Authority (Research and Development Grants) Order 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.—[Mr. Pavitt.]
  Question agreed to.

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

  POSTAL RATES (OVERSEAS SERVICES)
  11.53 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Price: We have had prices this afternoon. We have had prices all evening. I fear that for the last half hour of the evening we shall be having prices again.
  Perhaps I should start by declaring an interest. I have no proprietorial interest in any publication, but from time to time I turn an honest penny by writing articles in various publications, and the New Statesman in particular.
  First, although the form in which I have put down the debate is limited, this should not be taken to mean in any way that I am satisfied with other unsatisfactory aspects of this situation, particularly the home postal rates and the rates for matter that goes through the post other than books and periodicals. It is simply that I felt very strongly about the overseas rate and its effect on our export trade, particularly in periodicals and books, which will be most seriously affected by the increases in charges. It is on that matter that we should concentrate tonight.
  I also realise and recognise that the mess we are in is largely due to what I might call the "Healey instruction"—the instruction that all public enterprises and the nationalised industries should, in one way or another, pay their way. Time was when Labour Members talked about Socialism being the language of priorities. Time was when our Prime Minister drew distinctions between the sledgehammer and the surgeon's knife. I fear that what we are having now in this blanket instruction to nationalised industries to produce a return on capital, irrespective of the trade and social effects of that instruction, is a massive sledgehammer which may cause grave damage in particular areas.
  I want to sound three warnings about what this prospective increase in postal charges will do and to suggest a way out of the impasse. I am pleased to see that both my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry are here. When I receive letters from the two Departments I see that they do not yet have their own

  793
  notepaper. If the letter is from the Department of Trade the reference in the heading to Industry is crossed out, and vice versa. I am glad that both my hon. Friends are here, because they are equally affected by this subject.
  I wish to make three points. First, the periodical and book industry is an absolutely vital part of Britain's export trade. Secondly, the survival of many of these periodicals is crucial to the Labour Party's policy and we have made a great deal of fuss about that in the past. Thirdly, there are real dangers of redundancy and a reduced use of the postal service with the increase in charges that is proposed.
  In 1974 the book industry earned £175 million for Britain—1½ per cent. of our total foreign currency earnings. It is fighting in the export trade with one hand tied behind its back, and the situation is getting worse. The cost of sending books and periodicals overseas through the post is calculated at 8 per cent. of invoice value. The new cost in the United Kingdom as a result of the proposed charges will be 14 per cent. of invoice value. If the charges announced to start in January 1976 go ahead, that will rise to 30 per cent. It will make this very keen export trade almost impossible to sustain in many respects.
  This problem was drawn to my attention by a company in my constituency which moved from the City of London in order to reduce its costs. The managing director has written to me saying that
  "Our journals are in the main concerned with engineering and allied subjects, paid for by annual subscription in advance. It is not possible therefore to pass the increases on retrospectively."
  he wrote
  "This increase is of such a serious magnitude as to cause my Board of Directors to give serious and immediate consideration to the termination of a number of titles."
  I am sure that the magazine on aircraft engineering is a unique publication. If it goes out of publication in Britain it may be taken over by the Americans, but it may be taken over by nobody, and this quite unique service will be lost to the industry. Therefore, from the export point of view, this is a crucial issue.
  I come to a group of periodicals of which the New Statesman is one. The
  794
  increase in overseas postal charges has been announced as 54 per cent. It was to have been 100 per cent., but it has been reduced. However, the 54 per cent. covers a multitude of percentages for different weights. Those periodicals with the least advertising—that is, the lightest periodicals—in the 2 oz to 7 oz weight band, are hit hardest, with a 71 per cent. increase. That means that those least able to defend themselves are hit hardest.
  It is the Labour Party policy to try to maintain minority publications. In this week's New Statesman there is an article by the editor saying:
  "Indeed Mr. Benn himself, who as Secretary of State for Industry sanctioned the latest round of postal increases, not so long ago put his name to a document that roundly condemned the present trade distribution arrangements for restricted circulation publications, as amounting to 'a form of censorship'. Maybe so—but hardly as effective 'a form of censorship' as the proposed rise in the postal tariff is likely to be for a whole host of small publications desperately trying to keep the minorities' flag flying in what has become an 'admass' market. In the case of the New Statesman, almost a quarter of whose copies go out each week by post, our new post office bill (even after the trifling temporary concession on the overseas surface rate) is likely to add nearly £20,000 a year to our costs."
  It may seem to be special pleading, but it is special pleading that I am entitled to make. In fact, such figures apply to a whole host of other publications, trade and technical, as well as political.
  My third point concerns redundancy. If many of these publications cease, it will add to the redundancies that we are liable to have over the next few months. Both SOGAT and ASTMS have made strong protests about the matter, and many publishers are considering means other than the Post Office to distribute magazines. In the long run this can do the Post Office no good.
  For the rest of the time available to me I should like to be constructive. I think that there is a way out of the apparent impasse. After representations were received the Post Office made the reduction from 100 per cent. to an average of 54 per cent. for the calendar year 1975. That was through no tenderness towards the periodicals, but because it was pointed out that the prospective increases wildly over-stretched the UPU guidelines for overseas rates.

  795
  There is a difficulty here, but there is a way out. The Post Office is in a serious difficulty because of the new imbalance charges placed on it as a result of the Lausanne Convention. Instead of having to pay £2·8 million in imbalance charges, it faces a bill of £10·7 million. The Post Office must find almost £8 million extra. We must become used to this, because it is a Third World revolt, similar to the oil price situation. The countries which handle lots of incoming mail and very little outgoing mail will make it clear during the coming years that they want compensation for this disparity. The UPU regulations specifically allow compensation for that. That is why I am so pleased to see a representative of the Department of Trade on the Front Bench.
  It will be right for the Department of Trade, in considering its responsibility for export promotion, to make some contribution—not a subsidy in the proper sense of the word—to the Post Office to cover the very wide imbalance charges. Britain will be faced with a heavier burden of imbalance charges than any other country. We are in the awkward position of being a small country which accepts a much narrower rôle in the world, but of having responsibility for a world-wide language. It is a responsibility that we must face squarely and take openly.
  It would be a terrible tragedy if a blind obsession with the Chancellor's rules about public sector accounting were to produce a situation in which our English language publications were to be lost, one after another—some to the Americans and some to other countries, which are increasingly publishing and pirating English language publications. I hope that I have made out a case that this is a special export problem, connected with our world rôle as the mother country of the English language.
  I hope that both my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, having listened to this case carefully, will take the problem seriously and propose some sort of subsidy, so that at the very least the 1976 increases, which will otherwise be severe—the present increases are crippling enough—will be held down substantially.
  12.8 a.m.
  Mr. John Stanley: The Opposition welcome very much the choice by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) of this important subject for an Adjournment debate.
  I suggest that the central problem is the direct conflict of interest between the limited financial and commercial requirements of the Post Office and the wider but equally important national requirements of exports. Where that choice is posed, the paramount consideration is the need to maintain and to expand our existing export trade in books and periodicals.
  I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade.
  I stress the importance of this part of our overall export trade, which was worth £175 millions in 1974 and which is likely to reach about £200 millions in the current year. We should not ignore the intangible benefits arising from this trade, which is a prime means of advertising British goods and technology in exported periodicals and books. It is also a crucial vehicle for the dissemination of British culture. Whatever intangible benefit that may be, we hope that it is beneficial both to this country and worldwide.
  It is an export trade in which we cannot regard ourselves as having a permanent and captive market. It is intensively competitive, and it is a market in which we shall have to compete very hard on price if we are to maintain our existing share of it. The damaging effect of these charges on British exports is vastly greater in its significance than the limited financial value of the increased charges to the Post Office itself.
  I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the important suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman that means may be found whereby the Department of Trade can assume some responsibility for the imbalance charges which have fallen on the Post Office so as to permit a substantial reduction in the 54 per cent. increase in the overseas surface rates.
  12.11 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): I listened with considerable interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) and also to that of the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley), whom I am pleased to see occupying the Opposition Front Bench for this debate. I may see him there on many future occasions when we discuss postal matters. I hope that he enjoys a long stay shadowing me.
  I am grateful to both the hon. Gentlemen and my hon. Friend for their constructive contributions to this very important debate on overseas postal price increases. I am also indebted to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, who has been sitting next to me listening to both speeches with great interest. I am sure that he has been as impressed as I have by the arguments which have been advanced.
  In the short time available to me, I shall try to deal with some of the matters which have been raised.
  The first point which I should like to make clear is that although the Government are naturally consulted on pricing policy, postage rates for specific services are essentially a matter for the Post Office and its users' council. This fact is enshrined in the 1969 Post Office Act, which my hon. Friend and I supported vigorously in 1968, and which imposed on the Post Office a duty to provide postal services whilst having regard to "efficiency and economy" and gave the Post Office the power to make schemes setting out the charges and conditions applicable to its services. In recent years this freedom has of course been restricted by the requirements of counter-inflationary policy and the terms of successive price codes, with the result that this year the Post Office as a whole faces losses of about £300 million, which is likely to rise to an estimated £700 million in 1975–76.
  Facing these massive forecast deficits, the Post Office had no choice but to seek substantial price increases. Even so, at the urging of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State it has sought lower increases than the maxima which could have been claimed under the stage 4 Price Code and will accordingly still be left with an estimated loss of about £50
  798
  million next year. All these proposals have been referred, as required by statute, to the Post Office Users' National Council, and all except the overseas rates have also to be approved by the Price Commission. Neither of these bodies has yet reported on its consideration of the Post Office proposals, so that no final decisions have yet been made. But I shall not conceal from the House the Government's belief that there is a compelling case for their acceptance and introduction.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West takes issue with the Government on the whole question of the price rises in nationalised industries, as set out in the two speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but my right hon. Friend acknowledged that he knew it would be a painful and disagreeable business to carry this policy through, even by stages. However, we believe that a return to economic pricing is as essential to the efficiency of the public sector as it is to the private sector and to the effective control of public expenditure.
  As the Minister responsible, I get rather tired of one day being told that nationalised industries are inefficient and do not make a profit, and then, when they seek to operate in a commercial way, and at least wash their faces, as we say in my part of the country, hearing criticism of them.
  I have dealt with the background, my rôle, and the Government's attitude. In the overseas postal services, with which we are particularly concerned tonight, the Post Office forecasts a deficit in the current year of £4½5 million, assuming no price changes. Because of rising sea conveyance costs and the steep increases in imbalance payments decided at the 1974 Congress of the Universal Postal Union, the Post Office expects this deficit to amount to £24½5 million next year. That decision of the UPU, which increased and extended the compensation arrangements first introduced by the 1969 Tokyo Congress, was strongly resisted by the British delegation, but its views were overborne by the majority and the Post Office must consequently abide by the terms of the new convention.
  That is why the Post Office originally proposed, for introduction in March this

  799
  year, very substantial increases in the overseas printed paper services, which operate at a heavy and increasing loss. The House will know, however, that, following the detailed and persuasive representations made by the publishers, booksellers and hon. Members, including my learned Friend and the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) to the users' council, the Post Office has recently modified its proposals to meet their wishes. As a result, I understand that for the rest of 1975 the proposed increases would be cut by half: in weighted average terms the overseas printed paper full rate would rise by 24 per cent. instead of 66 per cent; the printed paper reduced rate would go up by 54 per cent. instead of 100 per cent., and the rate for direct agents' bags by 50 per cent. instead of 100 per cent. It is, of course, true that the original increases are still proposed for introduction in January next year, but I am sure that hon. Members will readily acknowledge the value of the concession which the Post Office has proposed in putting forward these revised measures, which will cost it about £3 million in revenue forgone and still leave the reduced rate service to operate at a loss even after the second stage increase in January next year.
  Mr. Christopher Price: My hon. Friend indicated that these measures have been taken to meet some people's wishes. I put it on record that I have found no publishers in this field whose wishes are met by this reduction and I feel that this will still represent crippling increases.
  Mr. Mackenzie: That is as may be, but my hon. Friend must recognise that it is a concession made by the Post Office. Having read the magazines concerned, I thought there was at least a qualified enthusiasm for the new proposals which the Post Office have made.
  My hon. Friend suggested that one way out of the problems with which we are faced should be some form of subsidy. Having already explained the Government's decision to phase out subsidies to nationalised industries, I am afraid that it would simply not be realistic to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion. I cannot believe that it
  800
  would be right to put the Government's decision into effect with one hand and to circumvent it by seeking to introduce subsidies with the other.
  The hard fact is that any such subsidy has to be paid for. It could only be introduced at the expense of other users of the postal services or of the taxpayer, and I must make it clear that the Government see no justification for either course.
  I give my hon. Friend a firm assurance on one matter which I know has been troubling some members of the publishing industry. The Post Office has no plans to abolish the special rates which have long applied to books, periodicals and newspapers sent overseas by post.
  My hon. Friend said he was concerned about the effect on jobs, exports, and so on. I fully understand the concern which has been expressed on behalf of the publishing industry about rising costs, the effect of postal increases on jobs in the industry, and the possible effect on exports. I know that publishers make and want to maintain a most valuable contribution to exports. The export performance of any industry is influenced by many different factors, and it is not easy to single out any particular change and pinpoint its effect. I hope that the effects will not be as serious as the industry fears, and I am sure that publishers will assess how best to mitigate them and maintain their export trade, even to the extent of considering alternative means of distribution.
  My hon. Friend also raised the question of comparisons with other countries. I cannot speak for my counterparts in other countries. I am not responsible for the tariff policies pursued in the United States postal service, or in other administrations, though I expect that all member countries of the UPU will in due course be reviewing their postage rates to take account of the decisions of the 1974 congress, and that those who find themselves in a similar position to the British Post Office will be led to seek a similar remedy.
  I have tried to cover some of the points that have been raised tonight. I appreciate the concern that has been expressed by both hon. Members, and I hope that what I have said has helped to clarify the situation. I hope, too, that the new

  801
  proposals put forward by the Post Office will be regarded as a reasonable concession, bearing in mind the considerable deficit that it has to bear.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Twelve o'clock.

  ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION
  ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION
  SCOTLAND (ENVIRONMENT)
  SCOTLAND (ENVIRONMENT)
  EEC RENEGOTIATION
  EEC RENEGOTIATION
  ECONOMIC POLICY
  ECONOMIC POLICY
  DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY
  DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY
  MINISTERIAL POLICY (STATEMENTS OF OBJECTION)
  MINISTERIAL POLICY (STATEMENTS OF OBJECTION)
  UNITED STATES CAR MANUFACTURERS
  UNITED STATES CAR MANUFACTURERS
  OIL SUPPLIES
  OIL SUPPLIES
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  EUROPEAN MOVEMENT
  EUROPEAN MOVEMENT
  ROYAL PREROGATIVE OF MERCY
  ROYAL PREROGATIVE OF MERCY
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
  WEST GERMANY
  WEST GERMANY
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Hours of Work
  Hours of Work
ENVIRONMENT
  Churches
  Churches
  Planning Procedures
  Planning Procedures
  Planning Applications (Local Authority Costs)
  Planning Applications (Local Authority Costs)
  Heveningham Hall
  Heveningham Hall
  Housing (Standards)
  Housing (Standards)
  Rents
  Rents
  Solent and Spithead
  Solent and Spithead
  Uriconium
  Uriconium
  Railway Accident, Bushey
  Railway Accident, Bushey
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Eastbourne
  Eastbourne
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington
  St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  House Sales (New Towns)
  House Sales (New Towns)
  House Sales and Lets (New Towns)
  House Sales and Lets (New Towns)
  House Building
  House Building
  Fire Precautions (Old People's Homes)
  Fire Precautions (Old People's Homes)
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Manchester Underground Railway Link
  Manchester Underground Railway Link
  Transport (Grants)
  Transport (Grants)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Family Farm Holdings
  Family Farm Holdings
  Government Borrowing
  Government Borrowing
  Foreign Investment (European Countries)
  Foreign Investment (European Countries)
  Petrodollar Surpluses
  Petrodollar Surpluses
  Foreign Investment
  Foreign Investment
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Private Investment
  Private Investment
  European Investment Bank Loans
  European Investment Bank Loans
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Manor of Northstead
  Manor of Northstead
  Development Land Tax
  Development Land Tax
  Social Contract
  Social Contract
  EEC Finance Ministers (Meeting)
  EEC Finance Ministers (Meeting)
  Motor and Construction Industries
  Motor and Construction Industries
  EEC Budget
  EEC Budget
  Interest Rate (Small Deposits)
  Interest Rate (Small Deposits)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Taxation Changes (Publicity)
  Taxation Changes (Publicity)
  Inflation Accounting
  Inflation Accounting
  Rent (Owner-Occupiers)
  Rent (Owner-Occupiers)
  Oil Taxation
  Oil Taxation
  Treasury Staff (Qualifications)
  Treasury Staff (Qualifications)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Incomes Policy
  Incomes Policy
  Pension Funds
  Pension Funds
  Imports Control
  Imports Control
  Demand Management
  Demand Management
  OECD
  OECD
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  EEC Grants and Loans
  EEC Grants and Loans
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
  Pensions Taxation
  Pensions Taxation
  Income Tax Code Notices
  Income Tax Code Notices
  POULSON CASE
  POULSON CASE
  PORNOGRAPHY
  PORNOGRAPHY
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Animals (Exports)
  Animals (Exports)
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Cereals (Growers' Incomes)
  Cereals (Growers' Incomes)
  Sugar
  Sugar
  EEC Grants and Loans
  EEC Grants and Loans
  Fruit
  Fruit
  Rents
  Rents
  Food Imports
  Food Imports
  Food Subsidies (Administration)
  Food Subsidies (Administration)
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS (FARM TENANCIES)
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS (FARM TENANCIES)
DEFENCE
  Textiles (Departmental Purchases)
  Textiles (Departmental Purchases)
  Cadets
  Cadets
  Fishery Protection Vessels
  Fishery Protection Vessels
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Higher Education (Overseas Students)
  Higher Education (Overseas Students)
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  School Heating (Holiday Periods)
  School Heating (Holiday Periods)
  Universities
  Universities
  Students (Cost Distribution)
  Students (Cost Distribution)
  School Milk
  School Milk
EMPLOYMENT
  Halesowen and Stourbridge
  Halesowen and Stourbridge
  Theatres and Clubs
  Theatres and Clubs
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
ENERGY
  Oil Rigs
  Oil Rigs
  Offshore Oil and Gas Licences
  Offshore Oil and Gas Licences
  Oil Imports
  Oil Imports
  Gas Appliances
  Gas Appliances
  Conservation (Transport)
  Conservation (Transport)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Masirah
  Masirah
  Oman
  Oman
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  EEC (Regulations, Decisions and Directives)
  EEC (Regulations, Decisions and Directives)
  South Africa (Arms Supplies)
  South Africa (Arms Supplies)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Asian Immigrants
  Asian Immigrants
  Indian and Pakistani Visitors
  Indian and Pakistani Visitors
  Remand Centre, Risley
  Remand Centre, Risley
  Violence (London Transport)
  Violence (London Transport)
  Fire Precautions
  Fire Precautions
  Licensed Premises (Violence)
  Licensed Premises (Violence)
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
  Vagrancy and Street Offences
  Vagrancy and Street Offences
  Juveniles (Detention)
  Juveniles (Detention)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Casualties (Compensation)
  Casualties (Compensation)
  Prisoners (Political Status)
  Prisoners (Political Status)
  Fugitive Offenders
  Fugitive Offenders
  Rents and Rates (Arrears)
  Rents and Rates (Arrears)
  Paroles
  Paroles
  Lord Gardiner's Report
  Lord Gardiner's Report
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  European Development Fund
  European Development Fund
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Cohabitation Rule
  Cohabitation Rule
  Immigrants (Newham)
  Immigrants (Newham)
  National Insurance Fund (Contributors)
  National Insurance Fund (Contributors)
  Assessment Centres
  Assessment Centres
  Bradwell Hospital, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Bradwell Hospital, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  National Insurance Contributions (Industrial Disputes)
  National Insurance Contributions (Industrial Disputes)
  Bone Marrow Tissue
  Bone Marrow Tissue
  Doctors (Qualifications)
  Doctors (Qualifications)
  Self-Employed Persons (Catering Trade)
  Self-Employed Persons (Catering Trade)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Assessment Centres
  Assessment Centres
  Geriatric Accommodation
  Geriatric Accommodation
  Impaired Hearing
  Impaired Hearing
  EEC Grants
  EEC Grants
  Pension Books
  Pension Books
  Lassa Fever
  Lassa Fever
TRADE
  Trade Deficit
  Trade Deficit
  Footwear (Imports)
  Footwear (Imports)
  Textiles (Exports)
  Textiles (Exports)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Exports and Imports
  Exports and Imports
  Food Imports
  Food Imports
  Fishing Vessels (Radio Equipment)
  Fishing Vessels (Radio Equipment)
  Missing Vessels
  Missing Vessels
  Night Flights (Heathrow and Gatwick)
  Night Flights (Heathrow and Gatwick)
SCOTLAND
  New Towns
  New Towns
INDUSTRY
  Typewriter Production
  Typewriter Production
  Paper and Board Industry
  Paper and Board Industry
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Offshore Installations
  Offshore Installations
  HS146 Aircraft
  HS146 Aircraft
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Aerospace
  Aerospace
  Nationalised Industries (Employees)
  Nationalised Industries (Employees)
  Postal Services
  Postal Services
  Textiles (Departmental Purchases)
  Textiles (Departmental Purchases)
  Aircraft
  Aircraft
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Aerospace (Ministerial Advisers)
  Aerospace (Ministerial Advisers)
  Nationalisation
  Nationalisation
  Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering Company Ltd.
  Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering Company Ltd.
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Alfred Herbert Limited
  Alfred Herbert Limited
WALES
  Transport Expenditure
  Transport Expenditure
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Expressway (North Wales)
  Expressway (North Wales)
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
  Bardsey Island
  Bardsey Island
  Housing
  Housing
  Tregaron Hospital
  Tregaron Hospital
  Drugs (Prescriptions)
  Drugs (Prescriptions)
  Hospital Staffs
  Hospital Staffs
  Local Government Staffs
  Local Government Staffs
  Schools
  Schools

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.
The Lord Fairhaven—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

EEC AND BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
Lord O'HAGAN: 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 how far the United Kingdom's balance of payments deficit is a result of membership of the EEC.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I cannot add to my reply to the noble Lord on 5th December. As I said then, membership of the European Communities has probably affected the United Kingdom balance of payments in a number of different ways. It is not possible to quantify all of these, nor to separate their impact from that of a number of other factors which have also affected the balance.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply, but I cannot because he has not answered my Question. Will he give an undertaking that, even if he cannot do so to-day, Her Majesty's Government as a whole will answer this question before the British people are asked through the Referendum to decide on the membership of the Community?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I cannot possibly give such an undertaking.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the British people are to be denied knowledge of the benefits or otherwise of membership of the Community before they are asked to decide?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, as I said in my substantive Answer, it is not possible
562
to separate the effect of the various elements. There is, however, very strong evidence—and this is as far as I can go—that our adverse balance of payments with the EEC is due to two reasons and that they are exactly the same reasons as affect our balance of payments elsewhere. First and foremost, there has been an increase in world prices of food and raw materials which has been very much greater than the increase in prices of the manufactured goods which we export. Secondly, the conditions operating in our country have affected the balance. Here, I would remind the House that 12 months ago we were on a three-day week. Noble Lords may protest, but the fact is that we are comparing 1974 with 1973, and the three-day week is bound to be an element in that comparison.
The bulk of the deterioration in our trade balance with the other eight members of the Community has been very largely concentrated in a few commodity groups, principally food, which has been subject to the huge increase in world prices; fuels and plastics, which have been affected by higher oil prices; and iron and steel, in which there have been shortages in the United Kingdom. Those are the principal factors, but beyond that I could not possible go.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the sad and net conclusion is that the adverse balance is a great deal larger because we went into the Common Market than it would have been had we not done so?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that is a matter of opinion based upon the information available. My own opinion—and I have gone into this most thoroughly—is that, if it is greater than it would have been, it is only marginally so.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one argument put forward by the then Government when the matter was before this House was that it was imperative that your Lordships should forgo the historic delaying mission because it was essential to increase the flow of capital from Europe to Britain? Those of us who were, perhaps, more cautious pointed out that there might be a possibility—which has in fact come to pass—that the capital has gone from Great Britain—
Several Noble Lords: Question!
Lord WIGG: —has gone from Great Britain—
Several Noble Lords: Order!
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, may I suggest to noble Lords opposite that they allow my noble friend to put his question to my noble friend. I feel that this chorus and the intervention of my noble friend are not getting us anywhere and I suggest that we allow him to put his question.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I have not the slightest desire to hide behind the Leader of the House. The simple point is that I want the same rights as other Members of this House. It is a common practice not to put questions in an interrogative form if it does not suit the speaker to do so. Therefore, I shall not do so either.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I know there are occasions when some noble Lords, for one reason or another, do not quite follow the practice of your Lord-ships' House in putting supplementary questions. We have a degree of tolerance here. I can only say to my noble friend that he is a Parliamentarian of great experience, and therefore I would suggest that the latitude we give to some is one which he himself should not claim.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, in that case I respond to that plea and I put my question as simply as possible in interrogative form. Is my noble friend aware that the flow of capital from the Common Market into Great Britain which was forecast by the Opposition Bench at that time has, in fact, not turned out to be true, and that part of the economic difficulties of this country and its impoverishment in the investment market are because the British patriots, so ably and so copiously represented on the opposite Benches, have taken their chance and the capital is flowing from Britain to the Common Market?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am so aware.
Lord RHODES: My Lords is it not a fact that if we had bought the same goods and services from countries other than those of the EEC, including the Commonwealth, the deficit would have been considerably larger?
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, in view of the Minister's reply, how does he explain the fact that the Minister of Trade ascribed such a large part of our deficit to our membership of Europe? I ask that because the Minister has just explained to us that it is impossible to quantify.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, it is impossible to quantify. It is a matter of coming to a judgment on the information that is available. I have reached my judgment and have given it to the House quite honestly.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords—
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that some of my noble friends have been monopolising the questions. Perhaps my noble friend will allow one or two questions from the other side. I also hope that we can treat this matter with some expedition.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I want only to ask the noble Lord whether he can give the House an assurance that our membership of the Community has not been responsible for the increase in the price of food to which he referred?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I could not give that assurance. All I can do is repeat the opinion I have already given, that membership has had merely a marginal effect on the balance of payments. I could not go beyond that.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is it not true that the price of food on the world market has gone up very much more than it has done in the EEC, and, consequent upon that, we have saved something like £300 million in our balance of payments by being in the EEC, as opposed to having to buy food, especially grain, from America and Canada?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am not in a position to substantiate the figure which has been quoted.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, while the House probably appreciates that my noble friend cannot answer the question in full, may I ask whether it is possible for him to prepare some statistics to show what kind of trade is flowing between both sides of the Community, in so far as raw materials, timber and

565
food are concerned, in order that we can make a better assessment of the position?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I believe that that kind of analysis usually appears in the annual publications.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the current deficit in our balance of payments with Europe could in no way be rectified by our withdrawal from the Community and by the resuscitation of the European Free Trade Area?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think that is another question.

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
3.16 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 consultations on British reductions in defence expenditure with NATO, Commonwealth and other allied countries will be completed and the proposed White Paper will be presented to Parliament.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the consultations with our allies are still in progress and are expected to be completed during February. The Defence White Paper will be published in March.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for that Answer. Can he say whether any reductions in defence expenditure have already been undertaken and, if so, what is the nature of those reductions? Will my noble friend also answer a second supplementary question which I venture to put to him? Can he give an assurance that no adjustments in the strategic situation, in so far as it concerns defence expendi-ture in the Indian Ocean and in access of the Persian Gulf, will be undertaken until, at any rate, after the discussions, which are now taking place in Washington, have been made known to both Houses of Parliament?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if I may first answer my noble friend's second question, no changes will have been made before consultation. With regard to my noble friend's first question,
566
the intention is that, so far as is possible, the expenditure for the immediate two or three years will be as forecast, but this gives sufficient area for manoeuvre to take account of the views expressed by both Houses of Parliament, by our allies, and by other interested persons.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree with me that the discussions now taking place in Washington—particularly with regard to the strategic effects of any obstacle placed in access of the Persian Gulf—are very important indeed? Does my noble friend realise that the situation in the Persian Gulf is very fluid and consists of a potential danger which might affect our interests and the interests of the West much more gravely than the situation in the Middle East.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I personally am in substantial sympathy with my noble friend's view, and I am certain that the significance of the military situation in the whole of that area has not escaped the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

PARAGUAY: THE GUYAKI NATIVES
Lord GISBOROUGH: 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 will put pressure on the Government in Paraguay through the United Nations to ensure the alleviation of the suffering of the Guyaki natives.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, we take the initiative in raising such matters at the United Nations only when we are directly involved, when we have adequate evidence, and when we are satisfied that our actions will benefit the victims of the alleged violation in question. However, individuals and bodies have the right to petition the UN Secretary-General on such matters, and such petitions, if successful, would be heard in the Human Rights Commission. If this were to happen we

567
should look at the evidence carefully and objectively.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Could the concern of this House be conveyed to the new tribal mission which has great responsibility in the terrible situation in Paraguay; and could the Government of Paraguay be pressured by trade embargoes, by the withholding of any aid or by world publicity, as we pressured South Africa where a similar situation exists?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's concern in this matter which I believe we all share. But I doubt whether any bilateral action of the kind envisaged in the second part of his supplementary question would be productive or advantageous to the people we most want to assist. The first part of his supplementary question may prove helpful, in that exchanges in the British Parliament, and particularly in this House, on questions of this kind are immediately studied outside this country, and the exchanges that we have already had may have a real effect in the right quarters.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, although the article in the Sunday Times made no mention of British subjects being involved in this alleged atrocity, can the noble Lord establish whether any United Kingdom citizens or missionaries are working among the Indians in Paraguay?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, so far as I know, no British citizen is involved. However, as the noble Earl had helpfully given me notice of this point, which I agree is important, I have instituted an inquiry to check on the position. I expect that the answer will be negative; but I recognise that this point should be checked and possibly double-checked.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, would the Minister agree that by the time this process of going to the United Nations and to all the various committees is exhausted, it may be that tens of thousands of innocent natives have been slaughtered? Does the Minister agree that we have had many instances over the last 15 years of the most appalling holocausts in Africa,
568
where the United Nations appears to have done nothing at all and where the situation is most unsatisfactory?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that the procedure I have described—while it might be expedited; and we are now taking a lead in securing improvements in speeding up this procedure—is better to be followed than bilateral action which might be counter-productive in the sense that those we wish to help might not, in the event, be helped. I take the point that we must do everything we can to expedite these procedures. But they are very sound in that they provide for cases like this to reach the United Nations Secretary-General for sifting processes to be instituted to separate the unsubstantial from the substantial, and for the substantial cases to reach the Human Rights Commission by the sub-Commission on Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities. At that point we and other member States can intervene decisively.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the Government should make such a petition as he has been talking about?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords, it is for a body such as the Anti-Slavery Association of this country, which I understand is looking at this matter, or for the League for the Rights of Man. There are many such bodies. It is provided for that non-Governmental organisations (of international rather than national character) should avail themselves of this procedure. At the point where substance is established the member Governments, through their representatives at the sub-Commission level or at the full Commission level, intervene objectively—and, I would hope, decisively.

ENDANGERED SPECIES BILL [H.L.]
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill relating to the import and export of animals and plants and parts thereof. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la— (Lord Wynne-Jones.)
On Question, Bill read la; and to be printed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be read 2a— (Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

EDUCATION BILL
Report received.

CONSUMER INTEREST IN PUBLIC MONOPOLY AND PRIVATE CORPORATION
3.27 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY rose to call attention to the place of the consumer interest in public monopoly and private corporation; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper, may I start by saying that I have several reasons for being glad that we are discussing this matter today and perhaps some of them might serve as background for the case that I would hope to develop. The latest of these is the welcome announcement yesterday that the Government have set up the National Consumers' Council. All those interested in consumer affairs will welcome this and will wish the Council and its Chairman, Mr. Michael Young, every success.
My Lords, the consumer interest I would equate as the public interest and contend that this interest is as important as any other in public monopoly or private corporation. Past Governments, although gradually improving under constant pressure, have not previously accepted what is meant by the consumer or public interest in the 1970s. Indeed, wishing to be helpful so that we might have a more adequate answer in reply to this debate, officials asked if I could indicate those aspects of the consumer interest that I hoped to discuss today. My Lords, this is exactly where the conception
570
is wrong. I want to talk about the consumer interest as an entity, something complete in itself and entitled to an entirely new approach. This is not a cosy little debate about consumers; it is about something much more fundamental. I want to talk about the consumer estate in today's society. If we were to make any impact in this debate, it was essential that we muster speakers with a wide range of knowledge and experience. I think that the House will agree that we have been fortunate in this respect; and I am most grateful.
My Lords, I have divided my remarks into four main sections. This first one I have given the heading of "Reasons for raising and terms of Motion". In 1960 I became a member of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council and later its chairman. I think it was a good Council, although too large. How effective were we? In my opinion, not very. Why? We did all we could within our terms of reference and we were well served by our small secretariat. Our ineffectiveness was due to three things: (1) our terms of reference; (2) our lack of funds leading to a small secretariat and no opportunity for research; and (3) our lack of publicity. We were just not known to the public in spite of all our efforts. I remember saying this to the House in my maiden speech some 13 years ago.
In 1968, the Consumer Council published an excellent book, Consumer Consultative Machinery in the Nationalised Industries, which my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood will recall, which made clear that the Council, too, considered the consumer councils of the nationalised industries to be ineffective. Indeed, when we recall that only last year the Consultative Councils of the nationalised electricity industry raised no objection to the proposed 70 per cent. increase in the charges for electricity in off-peak hours on night storage heaters consumers must indeed wonder who speaks for them. In looking at this general background, I then asked myself if any consumer council could be said to be effective. I came up with an answer that I think would be acceptable to most people dealing with consumer affairs. Yes, my Lords, the Post Office Users' National Council (POUNC).
Two questions arise from this. If POUNC is indeed effective: (1) how is

571
it different from other consumer councils ; and (2) why should other consumer councils not have similar teeth? In the first place, POUNC is different because both in its terms of reference and in its work it seems to have embodied most of the lessons to be learnt from nearly 25 years' experience. It was established under Section 14 of the Post Office Act 1969. Included in the duties listed is to consider any matter relating to Post Office services in the United Kingdom which the Council thinks it ought to consider: and the further duty to give notice to the Minister and to the Post Office of any such matter considered on which it is of opinion that action ought to be taken. The Post Office has a duty to consult with POUNC before it puts into effect any major proposals relating to its main services so as to affect the persons for whom they are provided. And so that the user or consumer may be sure of consideration POUNC has a duty to consider any matter "other than a frivolous one" which is the subject of a representation by or on behalf of a user.
The Council showed its determination to take part, and a central part, in forward plans of the Post Office. For example, as we all know, suggestions for increasing postal charges go first to the Council for their opinion. Whether or not that opinion is accepted is not the most important factor. The Council is asked and it is asked before action is taken. It has a chance to influence the final decision. Furthermore the Council has been able to employ the services of experts or consultants to enable them more effectively to discharge their role. I think this is the first time this has been done. The best publicity for the Council has been its work, and, if I may say so, the work of its chairman, my noble friend Lord Peddie. It seems to me that in these days of organisations growing ever larger, when consumers or users feel more and more that they matter less and less, that government should see that all consumer councils of the nationalised industries are now based on the model of POUNC. I say "nationalised industries", because this is where government can act.
My Lords, how difficult is it for consumer councils to be set up in the nationalised industries? I think not difficult in the present decade, except
572
in so far as air travellers are concerned. At some future date I am sure that the Civil Aviation Authority, the Airline Users Committee and government will have to study the terms of reference of the Committee, because this is a different breed of animal. As its name implies this Committee is indeed concerned with consumers and air travel, but it is responsible to the Civil Aviation Authority and reports to the Authority. One of the problems here is that it covers British airlines, and only British Airways (formerly BOAC and BEA) are nationalised. Still, I welcome the Committee of which I am a member and of which the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority (the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter) is chairman. The point I wish to make here is that this is a consumer committee that it was difficult to get established. Indeed this took 14 months and we succeeded only because this House refused to take "No" for an answer.
We come now to the main reason for this debate and particularly for the terms of the Motion—the withdrawal of check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal. The House need not fear: I shall be succinct. Every noble Lord must know the details by heart. Briefly, for the purposes of this debate, may I list here the consumer position on this matter—not the merits or demerits: (1) this matter was contested in our House for 19 months; (2) it concerned a consumer facility affecting more than 1 million customers; (3) in the end, prior to the decision being put into effect, (a) the consumer council con-cerned (the Airline Users Committee) issued a statement on 21st November 1973 of which I will quote the first paragraph:
"The Airline Users Committee deplores British Airways' intention to close down the West London Air Terminal check-in facilities. The Committee has discussed the subject with British Airways and is not satisfied that an adequate case for abandonment of check-in facilities has been established."
(b) the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee of the British Airports Authority, in its Annual Report for 1973–74 stated:
"Reductions in passenger facilities during the year have given the Committee cause for concern, and are to be deplored. The most important was the withdrawal of check-in facilities by British Airways (formerly BEA) at West London Air Terminal. The withdrawal was

573
opposed by the Committee but unfortunately without success."
(c) one of the Houses of Parliament (our own) in a debate on 20th December 1973 voted, decisively, by 82 votes to 28, against the plan.
What happened? The Airline Users Committee, with the following terms of reference:
"To assist the Civil Aviation Authority in its duties in safeguarding the interests of airline users and to investigate individual complaints against airlines where the person or body aggrieved has not been able to obtain satisfaction from the airline concerned"—
was told by the Civil Aviation Authority that as the Authority had been aware of this project for some time and had not thought right formally to intervene earlier, the Authority would be likely to find it very difficult to intervene with British Airways at this very late stage. The Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee was ignored. Indeed, the British Airports Authority, charged with running Heathrow Airport, had never been consulted about a change which they would have to administer. The vote of one of the Houses of Parliament was ignored. This nationalised industry acted as judge and jury on a consumer issue. As Eirlys Roberts remarked in a letter to The Times on 24th January last year:
"The disquieting thing about the check-in facilities at Cromwell Road is the way in which a nationalised industry failed to consult the public about what it was doing, failed to explain why it was doing it and refused to listen to the protests while it was being done".
Those then are the reasons for this Motion —reasons which have support from all quarters of this House.
I come now, my Lords, to my second main section which I have designated, "Nationalised industry and the consumer interest". I am hoping that other speakers today will comment on private corporations, but I want to deal with public monopoly—or nationalised industry. Particularly, I think, I wish to deal with the nationalised side for two reasons: (1) I have always wanted my noble friends to understand why, to me anyway, it seems worse if consumer representation is ignored in this sector. Government is able to insist on changes in decisions made by nationalised industry. This being the case, government has a role in connection with nationalised industry that it does not have with the private sector. (2)
574
I should like the consumer councils in the nationalised sector to be held up as models—and they are not.
The more one studies Reports from the Select Committees on Nationalised Industries the more one realises—as, for example, my noble friend Lord Shinwell knows from their inception—that all the points taken together reflect the hybrid nature of the public corporations and the rather grey areas in which they have to operate, despite their apparently precise statutory framework. On the one hand, their statutes clearly require them to follow what might be regarded as normal commercial aims; namely, the pursuit of economy and efficiency. On the other hand, they are publicly owned and subject to certain not necessarily clearly defined constraints, both specific statutory ones and other, vaguer, ones, which together recognise or imply that public ownership puts them in a special position with special obligations to consider the public interest, whatever that may be.
In 1971 Allen & Unwin published for PEP (Political and Economic Planning) a book by Mr. David Coombes, entitled State Enterprise—Business or Politics?, in which he says:
"It certainly seems to be basic to the professional ethos of many managers in the nationalised industries that the ends they serve are wider in some way than those of a purely 'commercial' undertaking. This view is supported by the statutes, many of which place directly on the boards the duty to behave in some ways which could hardly be described as 'commercial' and sometimes use the very words ' in the public interest'."
I happen to believe in the public interest and I do not believe it to be incompatible with commercial good sense. I believe also that in this era when officialdom— good or bad, efficient or inefficient—is growing larger and larger, the consumer side is in danger of being swamped or of being regarded as a nuisance. That is a battle we must fight, and I want the whole House—and particularly my noble friends—to join in this fight to make the consumer councils of the nationalised industries models for others to follow.
If I may repeat what I said earlier, government is able to insist on changes in decisions made by nationalised industry. Reverting to Reports of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, it is obvious that all sponsoring Ministers have this power, but it is one

575
used very sparingly. Much of the decision-making takes place in private, and what is made public is only the bare decision. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, made this clear to the House in a telling sentence in a debate on 20th December 1973, when he said this at col. 515:
"As an ex-chairman of a nationalised industry, may I say that your Lordships would be surprised if you knew how frequently certain pressures are generated, and, by Jove, they work, believe me."
In the case of the West London Air Terminal, the then Government did not wish to exert such pressure. A recent case where Government did intervene—this Government in their previous Administration—was over the decision of the nationalised electricity industry to increase by 70 per cent. off-peak charges for night storage heaters. That decision was changed.
But if government will not intervene, what can be done? Obviously government will have the final say, but can their attitude be influenced in any way? To illustrate the practical difficulties, perhaps I might just outline the steps I took on this problem. If we see what did not work, we may be able to suggest solutions. And so I come to my third section. We would all feel that if one complains one should take what action seems possible. It may be that subsequent speakers can suggest additional avenues of approach, but I think it is important for the purpose of this debate that the House and the Minister ultimately responsible both realise the difficulties facing consumers. Briefly, I sought an inquiry by, first, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, but January 1974 (with an impending General Election) and March 1974 (with the uncertain life of a minority Government) were not auspicious dates for success. Secondly, I approached the Commissioner for Parliamentary Administration (the Ombudsman), hoping that some maladministration might be the pretext It was not to be. Thirdly, I approached the Director General of Fair Trading, but my complaint did not come within his terms of reference. Having respect for, and confidence in, both Sir Allan Marre and Mr. Methven, obviously I accepted, but with regret, what they had to say.
Following these efforts, I studied as well as I was able the Reports of the
576
Select Committee on Nationalised Industries to ascertain: (1) if decisions of nationalised industries were open to review; (2) if so, by whom and in what manner; (3) why such a case as that of the West London Air Terminal was not open to review; and (4) what changes were necessary either in consumer councils of the nationalised industries or in the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, to preclude a nationalised industry from acting as judge and jury on a consumer matter without reference to anyone and avoiding any inquiry. One general factor ran through all the Reports—the assumption that nationalised industries had a "particular" or "special" requirement to pay attention to the needs of the consumer. Hence, government has a role in connection with nationalised industry that it does not have with the private sector.
And so I come to my fourth and final section. My Lords, what should be done? (1) POUNC seems to embody most of the lessons learnt in the past 25 years. Existing consumer councils should be similarly assimiliated in function. Any consultative machinery must need to employ a reasonable level of expert assistance as of right, and it must be seen to be competely independent; (2) although at the time the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries was unable to do what I asked, I did receive much help. As the House will have gathered, I got a good deal of reading matter, which I have studied to the best of my ability.
Concerning the affair of the night storage heaters, the then Chairman explained to me that the role of the Select Committee was mainly investigative and that this takes quite a lot of time, which obviously was not available in this particular case. The Chairman went on to say that he was anxious to have the Committee adopt a more speedy procedure to cover cases like this: one which would mean adopting procedures to cater for this kind of case. Without involving the Committee in my remarks, I should like here to express my appreciation of the consideration and general co-operation I was given.
My third point is that no public monopoly must be allowed to act as judge and jury on its own consumer affairs. Even Mr. Henry Marking in his letter to

577
The Times on 3rd January 1974 concerning the West London Air Terminal, which expressed approval of the stand taken by the Minister in not breaking
"the rule against governmental interference in the day-to-day running of nationalised industries "
went on to say
"but I accept, of course, that this begs the difficult question of protecting the consumer interest".
My fourth point is this: who is to protect this interest? How can we be sure that it is considered at least as adequately as any other? Mrs. Shirley Williams said on 10th June 1974 that more powerful consumer voices were needed on nationalised industries. They are, my Lords; but they need both a powerful vehicle on which to sit and one so equipped by terms of reference that a nationalised industry has a duty to consult with it before putting into effect any major proposals relating to its main services so as to affect the persons for whom they are provided.
The demand today is for worker representation on boards. Why is consumer representation not included? Or, to take another example, NEDC ("Neddy"), where nobody thinks of having consumer representation as such. Why? The general answer, and one might say the invariable one that those of us dealing with consumer affairs so well know, is that we are all consumers. We are, my Lords, but not in the sense I am talking about. The consumer "estate" is not yet reckoned as one of the Estates of the Realm. That is the problem. That epitomises all I have been saying.
I could have enlivened today's debate with humorous or heartbreaking stories of the general public trying to get something done by gas boards or electricity boards—all of them true; none of them exaggerated. Sheer size has defeated ordinary contact. But people are reduced to despair, and sometimes I wonder whether those at the top really know. It does not happen to them: that is the whole point. If you sit on a board you get prompt attention, naturally. But it leaves you with no idea of what it is like at the other end. If you are the managing director of British Airways you have no conception of what it is like to endure the noise, the confusion, the crowds at Heath-row, of trying to cope with your luggage,
578
to get a porter, to find a trolley. You do not suffer from all this. If you are at the top of, say, the gas industry, you just cannot imagine the frustration of even trying to convey a message to the same person on the many occasions that you have to telephone, much less the agony of trying to get a job done. The public is feeling more and more frustrated. Do we indeed count for anything?
A small example, compared with many experienced by other users, happened to me with my gas board. Although it was a minor one, it illustrates the point I wish to make. The pilot light of my cooker does not co-operate well with natural gas. An appointment was made for ten days after visiting the gas show-rooms. On the day nobody came, so that was one day wasted. Telephoning the next day I was told that there had been a gas leak the previous day making my call impossible. But nobody telephoned to say so, or called. Going to the back of the queue, a further date was fixed. Again nobody came. So that was two days wasted. I then wrote to the chairman concerned. This produced an answer from lower down the line asking what the trouble was. I thought that if he read the letter I had sent to the chairman he would know. How many times are we asked to repeat the same information? This is neither the time nor place to dwell on my mounting frustration, but I have told the chairman concerned that I wonder whether customers have not now reached the stage when they should be able to send in a bill to the monopoly concerned for time wasted or taken off work and for the constant non-appearance of men when appointments have been made.
If complaints are written on notepaper from Lords or Commons, from news-papers or the media, attention is given. And here we should note that television and Press often play an invaluable role. But if you do not have this advantage, then you are a nuisance. You will eventually be given a date; frequently this date will not be kept, and you will have wasted a day or taken a day off work to wait at home. And, in the view of the officials concerned, you do not merit even the courtesy of an explanation or an apology for the inconvenience caused. Why? I had an excellent letter from the top expressing concern. This type

579
of concern should go from top to bottom of an organisation. What is wrong here? Is size the problem? Are these giant monopolies unmanageable? Is it lack of communication from the top? Why do people just not care? I think there is something grievously wrong. Why should the rest of us be expected to put up with this sort of thing? I suggest that every chairman of every nationalised industry should concern himself directly in this area of communication with the public. And I think this should have priority.
Although I am leaving the private corporation side to other speakers, I should like to mention a letter I received recently from a chief executive to whom I had had occasion to write. He says:
"I was interested in your comment regarding the advantage of writing to the Chief Executive and I think you would probably be surprised at how many people do so, whether they know one or not. … I usually regard it as the ultimate act of complaint, or when they have no idea where else to write. From my point of view, I welcome that … opportunity to learn at first hand how various parts of our business are operating, and a great deal of good stems from the action that results."
So, my Lords, let the message go out from the Lords today: Write to the person at the top. I can think of no Minister to whom I would prefer this subject to go than the Minister for Prices and Consumer Protection—although I still dislike the term "protection". Paragraph 9 of the White Paper National Consumers' Agency (Cmnd. 5726) deals with nationalised industry consumer councils. We all knew that the Minister wished the consumer to be more strongly heard in this sector. I understand that one of the jobs of the National Consumers' Council will be to make representation of the consumers' view to central Government. At this late stage for us, but at an early one for him, I hope that Mr. Michael Young will have something to say about West London Air Terminal.
My Lords, my aim has been to set out some of the problems as I see them in the hope that Mrs. Shirley Williams can find the answer. The consumer estate is now one of the Estates of the Realm and should be recognised as such. I beg to move for Papers.

ROYAL ASSENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967 that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund Act.

CONSUMER INTEREST IN PUBLIC MONOPOLY AND PRIVATE CORPORATION
3.58 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the House will be indebted to my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry for her Motion which has given us a debate which should be most timely. I believe it would be in the interests of the House if I spoke briefly giving the Government's attitude to the questions raised, and asked leave of the House towards the end of the debate to have a few minutes to reply to specific points if that should prove to be necessary. The Director General of Fair Trading has wide powers in relation to fair trading, but he also has statutory duties particularly in relation to monopolies, mergers, restrictive practices and consumer credit. The Government take the view that in some ways he is a referee as between the consumer interest and trade and industry. His tripartite Committee, upon which are representatives of the enforcement authorities, trade and industry, and consumers, is in some ways a jury. The Government therefore take the view that neither of these institutions fulfil the need for a fully representative consumer body acting for consumers.
They feel that it is urgent that we should have a fully representative body, one which can act independently with authority, and exclusively in the interests of consumers. They set forth those ideas in White Paper Cmnd. 5726. In this White Paper they proposed the establishment of a National Consumers' Agency. Since then they have had second thoughts on the word "agency". In this country, as distinct from the United States, "agency" seems to question independence, and the Government are so anxious

581
to ensure that this body has complete independence that they have decided that it should not be known as an agency but simply as the National Consumers' Council.
Yesterday, my right honourable friend was able to announce that the Chairman will be Mr. Michael Young—who is at present the President of the Consumers Association—and was able to introduce him to the Press. This Council will be somewhat different from the previous Consumer Council; for example, it will not be concerned with the information which is given to consumers. That will remain with the Director General of Fair Trading. It will not be concerned with individual compliants; it will be concerned largely with strategy. It will make a continuing survey of the adequacy and efficiency of the law and the organisation which is available for enforcing the law. In particular it will be in a position to make representations to Central Government and local government, to the Director General of Fair Trading, to trade and industry, to trade unions and to any other quarter where that appears to be necessary. It will be available for consultation by Government; it will represent consumers on appropriate Government Committees, including international committees, and it will review a representation of the consumer interest in the nationalised industries. There will be separate committees for Scotland and Wales; there is already a committee for Northern Ireland.
For over a quarter of a century we had consumer committees in nationalised industries. For the most part they have been unpaid and for the most part they have worked conscientiously in the interests of their fellow citizens, especially those who bought the goods and services sold by the particular industry. I should like at this juncture to pay tribute to the work which they have done over this long period.
There are certain matters about the consumer committees about which we express surprise but need not express surprise. For example, we express surprise that they are relatively unknown. My Lords, that is completely in keeping with the kind of society in which we live. We live in a society which is largely dominated by the motor car, by radio, by television, clubs, package holidays and the
582
like, and the average consumer is interested in consumer protection only when he or she has a complaint to make. It is only then that they are interested in finding that there is machinery. In fact I was astonished to hear as a result of the Which? survey that 8 per cent. knew. I would have expected the percentage to be lower than that.
A couple of days ago I turned up my electricity bill and took a better look at it than I usually do. I found that there was a paragraph in bold type headed, "Enquiries and Complaints". It told me that if I had any inquiry or complaint I could communicate it either in person or by telephone, or in writing to the nearest showroom. It went on to say:
"The Minister concerned has appointed an independent committee to deal with complaints where you are not satisfied, and if you are not satisfied you can appeal and the address of the Secretary of the Committee is as follows …".
It went on further:
"There is a representative on that committee from your locality and if you want to know his name and address so that you can go and talk to him about your complaint we will give you his name and address at the nearest show room".
How far can you go in order to inform the public of their rights?
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend. Suppose my noble friend has a complaint against this particular industry on some matter which he regarded as important and addressed his question to the Departmental Minister concerned. What answer would he expect to receive? Surely the answer he would receive would be, "It is not the business of the Minister to interfere in day-to-day administration". Did it occur to my noble friend to ask the Minister concerned to get such an answer, or was he aware that that would be the answer he would get so he did not ask the question?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, if I addressed it to the Minister no doubt I would get that answer, but I did not address it to the Minister. I was merely quoting what was on my electricity bill. I would say to those who are so critical of the consumer arrangements within our nationalised industries that I wish only that some of our larger private corpora-tions gave the same kind of facility.

583
So far as gas is concerned, I have had quite different experience to that of my noble friend, but since the chairman of the Consumer Committee of the gas industry is to speak later in this debate I will leave her to deal with that. I would however mention that so far as the machinery being unknown is concerned the Gas Consumer Committee has put up proposals for publicity which have been accepted by the Government.
There is another thing about the nationalised industries committees about which we often seem surprised, although I cannot understand why we seem surprised. We often seem surprised that the effectiveness of these committees varies from one industry to another. My Lords, the quality of all our institutions, including Parliament itself, depends upon the quality of the people who are attracted to it. Likewise, since the quality of the people who are attracted to the committees in these various industries must vary, we must expect their effectiveness to vary. Even if they had a standard constitution and their powers were identical their effectiveness would vary. Some committees would be weaker than others, and no doubt there would occasionally be a committee so pugnacious and militant that it did not get the best co-operation from the management concerned. That I am sure can happen. I know that when I was in management the people who got the most out of me were those who put forward a balanced and reasonable case and showed that they had some knowledge of the difficulties which I had.
I am also pleased to see that the surveys of Which?, while showing that the consumer representation in the nationalised industries is not widely known, have shown evidence that the overwhelming majority of those who have had to contact the consumer committees were quite satisfied with the result. That I think is something which is well worth noting. On the other hand, it has to be admitted that this machinery, in one way or another, has been going on for a quarter of a century and it is time for a Review. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection intends that immediately the National Consumers Council is set up she will make a reference to it for an investigation
584
of the consumer interests in the nationalised industries. The Review will be completely independent and the Council will be free to review the membership of the committees, the structure, the organisation, the working methods, the resources available, the relationship to the consumer and the relationship to the consumer protection network, so it will be a complete review in every sense of the word.
In the meantime, as from 1st February, appointments to the committees in the nationalised industries will be made by the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. She will do it on the advice of the National Consumers Council and in consultation with the Minister concerned. Also the whole of the cost of operating the consumer interest in the nationalised industries, which amounts to £1¼ million, will become a Government charge instead of a charge upon the industry concerned.
I come now to private corporations and here I will deal with the matter very briefly. Existing company law imposes a duty upon the directors to act solely in the interests of the shareholders as a whole. In these days this exclusiveness is no longer acceptable. In the words of the CBI itself:
"Companies have a responsibility to creditors, customers, employees and to society at large ".
In consequence, the Government are giving high priority to a wide-ranging review of Company Law. In the meantime I would say that there is a case for the boards of our larger private corporations to have a group of directors who are not representing either shareholders or workers but who can take an independent view which embraces the interests of the consumer. May I direct the attention of the House to the view of the European Parliament on the European Company Statutes which is almost in line with what I have said.
Finally, while I may not agree with everything which has been said by my noble friend, I hope she will appreciate the Government's awareness of what remains to be done to establish a firm footing for consumer interest in big business, whether it be public or private. We are committed to this. We shall endeavour to get it right.
4.11 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I begin by offering my thanks, and I am sure they are endorsed by the whole House, to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, not merely for introducing this debate at a very apposite time but also for an outstandingly succinct and lucid survey of a most important and sensitive field. I follow her with the greatest diffidence. I say that it is an apposite time, because 1st February represents the beginning of the new regime, and I think that at the present stage of the development of our society there is a blurring of the understanding of the functions of the bricks and mortar of which it is made. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I start with some fairly fundamental statements which may seem almost simplistic.
For instance, in the commercial field businesses exist to make money and the money they make is used, among other things, to pay not only the management but also the work force. Although in some areas this seems to have escaped notice, the fact remains that if a firms' costs go up their prices go up, their sales go down and pressure is exerted on the whole of the industry to mend its ways. It is when this pressure is removed or diminished that the consumer is bereft of his chief weapon, which is the commercial weapon of going to another shop and paying his money to somebody else. It is at that stage that we need to look at the principles of the defence of the individual or the consumer in the face of the corporation.
We saw in the papers only yesterday that the Department of Trade and Industry is anticipating an increase in the number of private companies seeking Government help, and from experience one would say that few flies which enter that parlour will find the door open when they wish to leave. Therefore, the number of corporate or agglomerate bodies with which the consumer is faced will necessarily increase. In my view, Parliament has two principal duties—to preserve and promote the honour, freedom and prosperity of the State; and to preserve and promote the honour, freedom and prosperity of its individual citizens. A good number of the differences between political Parties arise from the areas where these two duties are, or are thought to be,
586
in conflict and we are on that precise ground at this moment.
It is, after all, to State monopolies that private citizens are frequently in danger of losing their freedom of choice, and it is to unprofitable State monopolies that an increasing flow of their taxes are directed. We on this side of the House are particularly anxious that the rights of the private individual should be preserved, whether he is a factory worker, or a farm labourer, or a managing director, or a clergyman, or the wife of any of them. We wish to preserve these rights in the face of corporate pressures, whether they are nationalised or private, and we are particularly concerned to see that the institutions which are set up to perform this function, whether Parliamentary or otherwise, are able to do so effectively, simply and reliably.
All bodies which are set up to act on behalf of the consumer interest, whether in a nationalised industry or in any other monopolistic situation, ought, in my view, to conform to the following criteria. They should be appointed by a body other than the industry with which they are con-cerned, or the Department responsible for it. They should be supplied with adequate funds by a body other than the industry with which they are concerned. They should have the duty and the means both of making themselves generally known to the consumer public, and of making their services readily available to them. They should have the duty and the means to concern themselves with, and exert pressures about, all aspects of that industry which affect the consumer. They should have the right to be informed of and, where possible, consulted about significant changes of policy affecting the consumer before they are embarked upon. Their constitution and composition should be such that their representations cannot be lightly set aside by the industry with which they are concerned. And they must, of course, be sensitive and responsive to the opinions and interests of the consumers whom they represent.
Here we are on common ground on both sides of this House in many, if not in all, areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, has expressly adduced a number of these principles, and I am confident that they will be supported also by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, since three of them in print, and

587
four or five of them by implication, are endorsed by Conference Document No. 6 of the Co-operative Party's Public Monopoly and the Consumer, which was printed in 1968 and with which I am sure the noble Lord must be familiar.
Let us see whether the present situation and the projected future situation give us bodies which answer to these criteria in the nationalised industries and in other corporate situations. First of all, the move to make consumer councils report to a Minister other than the Minister for their industry is fore-shadowed in the White Paper. In fact, it answers to this principle and is a step in the right direction. It is a step only which is taken, and it comes as something of a surprise, since we read in the remarkable document which was published for the last General Election by the Party of the noble Lords who sit opposite, "We have … set up a National Consumer Agency." I was interested in the change of name that was announced at the last moment, and I wonder whether this is a case of announcing the birth of a daughter shortly after the conception of a son. However, the child is with us and we are concerned with how it will perform.
I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government upon having appointed yesterday the first chairman of the body in question. I have one reservation about this. I see from The Times report, which may not be accurate, that he is retained on a two days a week basis. Having regard to the scope of his duties, the complexity of his work and the amount of work which in any case he will have to delegate, I wonder whether this will be enough time, although I do not doubt that he has sufficient experience to make the best use of that time.
I have another reservation about this body, and it is a much bigger one. It is set up as a body separate from the Directorate of Fair Trading. A new department or a new empire is a new claimant on funds and, like all empires, it will soon contain its empire builders and it will grow. The idea of allocating the functions of consumer protection to the Director-General of Fair Trading with powers of delegation was dismissed in the White Paper to which the noble
588
Lord referred in a sentence and a half on page 4. In fact, the noble Lord briefly elaborated this statement. He said, quoting from the White Paper:
"The gap left by the Consumer Council cannot suitably be filled by the Director-General whose role in respect of monopolies, mergers, restrictive practices and consumer credit precludes him from acting exclusively in the interest of consumers".
A reading of the Fair Trading Act 1973, from which the Director's powers derive, and more particularly of the paragraphs in Section 2 which delineate the general functions of the Director, does not seem to me to preclude this course, or his ability to set up a section of his Department which would act exclusively on behalf of the consumer. When we are always in danger of being overburdened with administrative costs, and when I personally am deeply suspicious of bureaucratic proliferation at any stage, and more deeply apprehensive of overlaps of responsibility and resultant conflicts in advice which I think are inherent in the present scheme, which will result in inefficiency of representation, prolongation of correspondence and multiplication of costs, I wish the National Consumers' Council and their new Director every success that they can hope for; but let them restrain, if possible, their growth. I hope that the Chairman will soon be given the Council of which he will take the chair. In fact, I am happy to hear that this will start next Saturday, 1st February, but I maintain that in the long run they would be both more effective and less expensive had they been a significant addition grafted on to the Directorate of Fair Trading, and not a little acorn planted on its own to wax, as acorns do, into something very much bigger. It is neither their power nor their function that I regret, but their separateness and the need for their own roots, branches and budgets.
The second criterion of separate funds is now promised, and we welcome it. It is important that the funds are adequate to meet the fulfilment of the third criterion, which is making the agency or the council known to consumers. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that he was not surprised—in fact he was surprised, but in the opposite sense to the rest of us—that only 8 per cent. of the public are aware of the facilities available, on the grounds that things very

589
rarely went wrong. I would say that he is lucky in his experience in that respect, and would point out that the healthiest man around knows where the local doctor lives. So it seems to me that there is much to be said for making these councils very much better known than they are now.
In my conversations with a number of these councils, I have discovered a general concern on this very point. It is my view that they must be able to advertise, not only with the general consent of the monopoly concerned; not in small print on the bill, though I agree that that is a good idea ; not on a sticker peeling off the bus stop—
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I did not say "small print".
Lord ELTON: No, my Lords, it may be that the noble Lord's spectacles are stronger than mine, because it is small print on my bill. But I take his point. However, it must be prominent and if necessary must be paid for—in the Press, in commercially produced timetables or in other vehicles of the media.
The outstanding success of the consumer protection programmes on the media, for instance, pioneered in this country by, I believe Bernard Braden, Jimmy Young and Esther Rantzen, has something to teach us; namely, that the media are very powerful, and also that they would not have their following if the present administrative system worked as it should. Publicity is a powerful weapon; exposure results in action, and I have even heard it suggested that local consumer councils should have the editor of the local paper as one of their members. I think that might lead to difficulty, but anonymity is the armour of the monopolists—anonymity of the customer's means of recourse, and the anonymity of the people by whom reparation is due to be made. The corporation, whether it is a State corporation or a private one, is too often a great cliff with no foothold for the consumer to climb up to the top. Too many people will not write to the top, as the noble Baroness has suggested they should, and for those who do not want to or do not feel able to there must be another route.
The fourth criterion is that the bodies must be able to take into their purview all aspects of the functioning of the
590
industry with which they are concerned, and not merely some of them. I think this goes almost without saying. However, there is one reservation; there are many people who have doubts about the pricing policy. Let me take fares as an example. Whereas I think that general public pressure can be left to look after the global sum obtained from fares, because it is usually Government money that is largely at stake on these occasions in the form of subsidies, the fares structure is a proper consideration for a consumer body dealing with buses or railway trains to be concerned with.
Fifthly, the good relations between consumer and supplier will not be properly fostered until the monopoly authority actually discuss their mutual problems in advance before they are resolved—or, happily, before they occur. I will not dwell on this point, because the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, has dwelt on it so succinctly and powerfully that 1 do not think it is necessary. But I entirely endorse what she has said, that it is crucial for the consumer to be brought in at the planning stage so that many of the tribulations that would otherwise occur do not, in fact, happen, and it should be left at that.
The constitution and composition of these bodies should be such that they cannot be lightly set aside when they make a recommendation. It is possible that with a new Minister in charge of this whole field, and with the channels now open to the new bodies to the Minister for Prices and Consumer Protection—if coupled with the right to information and consultation, which I have suggested—and with the publicity that I have outlined, this may suffice. In fact, the political channels that are open provide all that our political system can offer, beyond an actual executive authority, which such bodies are not equipped to wield. In the event, however, of unreasonable obstruction in what will come to be termed "the usual channels" in dealing with what the noble Baroness has referred to as "another estate of the realm", it should be possible to find some means of unblocking the log jam. I should like to put forward very tentatively, and only personally, the reflection that since exposure is the greatest pressure which can be brought to bear on

591
political channels, or on the State nationalised channels or, indeed, on commercial channels, a simple statement of the position of the bodies that are party to the argument, statutorily made and published in the Press, might be a very good way of doing this.
Of course there must be great care. It must not become a public slanging match. Only the basic situation may be stated, as opposed to the positions of the protagonists, drawn up in advance through the Press. I wish only to leave that thought with the Minister and anybody else who is concerned with this matter, because it seems to me that the ultimate deterrent is always publicity; properly handled it can be beneficial and indeed, if its powers of deterrence are such as I believe, it will be rarely used. There remains the question of recruitment, and I think we should await the original appointments and observations of the NCC. It is difficult not to speak for too long on so wide a field, but before I leave the nationalised industries may I draw your Lordships' attention once more to the position of the National Bus Company, and ask whether this is an area where a national consumer body should be set up to co-ordinate the positions of the various local bodies?
Turning to private corporations, considerable protection is already available under the Fair Trading Act 1973, where monopoly situations are specifically defined in Sections 6 to 9, and under of the Sale of Goods Act, and the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act. Your Lordships will know that Section 7 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 defines a monopoly situation in respect of services. Your Lordships will, I hope, also be aware of the benefits of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973. I think the introduction of a parallel piece of legislation, the Supply of Services (Implied Terms) Act, is overdue.
There are many instances of great difficulty for individuals where there is no recourse. It is not a question of not knowing what the recourse is. As an example of this, it is possible to drive into a large car park—and in some cities one may be in a monopoly situation at once when one does so, because there is the choice of doing that or finding a full parking meter or a parking ticket—and
592
when one drives out the barrier comes down smartly across one's bows, the bonnet is crumpled and the man at the guichet says, "I am sorry, but if you read the small print, you will see that this is nothing to do with me." This is the sort of area where much work has to be done.
I am aware that the noble Lord will say when replying to the debate—but if not I will put the words into his mouth—that we await the publication of the second Report on exclusion clauses by the Law Commission, and I am reassured to hear it is thought that we shall have this report within a short time. I hope the noble Lord is aware that we, on both sides of the House, are indeed anxious that work should begin on the Bill. It cannot begin until it is published, but the Report covers a wide field—much wider than this aspect. May I ask the noble Lord to expedite the work in this sphere?
My Lords, it would be wrong to over-look the work of other bodies less obvious than the consumer councils that we have already enumerated. Some tribute should be paid to the admirable work of the British Standards Institution. I question whether the pound for pound grant, in view of the tapering of the supplementary grant in early 1978, will be adequate for this service which benefits far more than the industry which for the most part finances it, and beyond these shores as well. So much of their work is brought in from abroad and is in the co-ordination of international standards.
I should like to quote one example where there is an interplay between the two spheres of the British Standards Institution and nationalised industry. There is a British Standard for coal at the production point. Those of your Lordships who have been in pit manager's offices will have noted the prominence of the quality sheets on the wall, but there is no equivalent for the delivery point. If the moisture content and contamination are the problem which in some places they are claimed to be, it would be useful if this rather difficult Standard could be worked out. This brings me to the sad story of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, though it is not quite so sad as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, suggested, because she referred to them throughout in the

593
past tense. I am happy to say that I have been in recent contact with them; they are still extant.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I put the matter right? If I did that, I spoke very badly. I said I was the chairman; I did not say the Committee had ceased to be.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I apologise. I took the past tense to refer to the time beyond the departure of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. This is an interesting case, because the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council was shorn of its powers by the exclusion of discussion of price and quality, the two things which I thought mattered most to the consumer, just at the time when we went into the European Coal and Steel Community. The Treaty of Paris provides for seats for producers, workers and consumer dealers on the Committee dealing with this, but a consumer/dealer is a mer-chant, not a chap who sits by the fireside toasting his toes. The Industrial Consumer Committee in this country went out of existence, being no longer able to discuss quality and price. The domestic consumers continue to be represented, and I hope that they will be reinstated under the new scheme with a voice and influence equivalent to that of the other bodies. I would make two points on this matter. One is that some noble Lords will leap at the opportunity of saying, "Another bad thing for Europe". There are many better things vis-â-vis the consumer in this respect, if only from the reduction of the number of protected monopolies by the opening of competition with concerns across the Channel.
My Lords, I have purposely refrained from cataloguing the record of my Party in consumer affairs, although I believe it to have been very credit-worthy, because on both sides of this House we are at one in our aims. I hope, therefore, that the Government—and any committee they may set up—will pay the greatest attention to everything that has been said from both sides in this debate, I have left much uncovered. There is nothing about protection against overseas corporations operating in this country; I have not referred at all to the Community Health Councils or to education, which is a vast monopoly. I have omitted these because the further we can get them out of politics the better.
594
In conclusion, I wish to revert to the great and fundamental principles to which I originally referred. The chief duties of our Parliament are to preserve and promote the honour, prosperity and freedom of the nation, and to preserve and promote the freedom and prosperity of the individual citizen. Any committee or council that reports to this House or the other place on consumer affairs is, or ought to be, reporting within those terms of reference. When the individual is ridden over roughshod, either by the State or by big business, tensions are set up which eventually threaten the whole fabric of our society. By extending the help and protection that can be afforded to countless thousands who, without it, would be at a loss to pursue their interest or secure restitution, we render this country not merely happier and better governed, but also more secure.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, who introduced this debate today, not only for the excellent way in which she has presented it, something we have come to know well, but for her bonny fight on behalf of the users of the airport. That she did not entirely achieve her aim is not in any way due to the fact that she did not continue her fight. I have always loved a bonny fighter; I have known her for many years, and I know how she has fought for the consumer.
My Lords, if we live long enough we see things happen that we have hoped would happen. I am in that rather fortunate position. In the consumer sphere, I have been working for a long time to try to improve matters. I have never attained the august position of being chairman of a nationalised board or even of a consumer council, but I have for many years continued my fight for the consumer. Therefore, it is rather marvellous to see certain things becoming realities. We now have a Director of Fair Trading; we have a Minister for Prices and Consumer Affairs; we now have the Consumer Council being set up yet again. So one might well ask, what more does the consumer need? Why do we need to have a debate of this kind? I do not wish to detract from the high level of this debate, but I have always used one measurement in any work that

595
I have done—namely, what is the end product to be? One can set up as many councils as one likes, as many corporations as one likes; but at the end of the day, if the patient, the consumer or the passenger has not got a better service, then in my judgment the exercise has failed.
My Lords, I have been a regular contributor to a consumer "phone-in" for some months now. It has given me a splendid insight into the types of problem with which the average consumer is confronted. Certain goods are always a feature, notably furniture and footwear. These are particularly part of a trade which is traditionally the province of the large corporation, the large group. We have had complaints about electircal goods of all kinds—washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators, televisions, transistor radios, et cetera. With all our legislation, at the end of the day I am left with a feeling that too many people have expensive rubbish in their homes which nobody is going to be able to help them to set right. This cannot be a satisfactory state of affairs.
I think that we, the politicians, are in some measure to blame for the fact that with the vast corporations we have been constantly appealing to people's greed. The lowest price is not necessarily the right ideal for the shopper. What the shopper needs is value for money. You can obtain the lowest price for the strangest reasons. You can buy things at a very low price if they have been knocked off a lorry and are rapidly on sale in a market; it is not a particularly good reason for them being there at a low price. It is not always worth buying a large piece of electrical equipment at a discount store (where you cannot even see inside the package unless you demand to do so) if there is in fact no follow-up, no after-service, no kind of maintenance, which has always been one's prerogative in regard to the larger kind of electrical equipment. The constant amalgamation of vast concerns very rarely benefits the consumer. It takes away from him his most valuable weapon, competition. I would commend to your Lordships this exercise: If you go to buy a pair of shoes, you may walk the length and breadth of Oxford Street and Regent Street and you will see many retail shops, all with
596
different names over them, but which all seem to belong to the same monopoly, and therefore you will be offered the same kinds of shoes. You either take them or do without them, so I suppose you can be said to have some choice.
In this field to try to get a remedy for any unsatisfactory goods is like ploughing your way through the worst kind of red tape of Government Departments. I was one of many who were very sad that services were left out of the Fair Trading Bill, and with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I am very happy if any kind of remedy is going to be introduced. Many people spend a great deal of money these days on services. I was among those who asked that even the professions be included in the Fair Trading Bill. I have been engaged in trying to acquire some office premises for six months, circumvented always by a solicitor, who obviously has a very large out-tray in which our affairs rest at the bottom. It is true he telephones me every few weeks to tell me that things are going on; I am not sure what things. To me this is an example of where the professions should be called into account, and there is no way in which the average citizen can do it.
There are many people who rent television sets, who have package travel holidays, who hire cars, who go to dry cleaners, who go to laundries. If we are not going to have any kind of recourse through legislation, let us have strong trade associations—maybe in the end they will be cheaper than Government intervention—with good self-disciplining machinery, and able to advise and counsel customers if they are having problems. Only today on my consumer "phone-in" I had a case, raising a very prevalent complaint, of the customer who bought double glazing and had it installed. It is giving great concern. The windows do not fit. What happens? The firm says it is the responsibility of the people who supplied the windows. The people who supplied the windows say it is the responsibility of the installer. But in between all this is the unfortunate customer who has spent a lot of money, and nobody seems able to do anything about it.
So we come to the public corporations. I take my homework from the same place as the noble Lord, Lord Elton. It is a splendid document, probably written by

597
Lord Jacques, called Public Monopoly and the Consumer. There is an excellent definition here which says:
"The mere fact of public ownership will not guarantee that a publicly owned industry will be sensitive to the needs of the consumer Just as in the case of the private enterprise monopoly, the great public monopolies remove from the customer his basic strength, the right to transfer his custom elsewhere if he is not satisfied."
If we look at the set-up of the consumer consultative committees, which the noble Baroness outlined and about which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has also given some details, they are not even called by the same names; some are domestic consumer councils, some are consultative councils, others are users' councils. But the end effect is that they are appointed by the Minister; the chairman is appointed by the Minister, and the representatives, although held to be representative of many people, indirectly, of course, come through the Ministry. I am not going to suggest that this in any way impairs one's independence, but I think it is always a little difficult to be completely independent if you feel that the Minister has been the one responsible for your chairmanship.
How do these consultative councils work in practice? We have just had all the trauma of the conversion to North Sea gas. I could give your Lordships chapter and verse of many strange incidents, but the one that rather intrigued me concerns the unfortunate lady who had her gas lighter removed when the engineers installed all the other equipment, and she was given one which apparently was so inefficient that it would not light the gas, Not unreasonably she asked for her old one back. She was told, "Yes, we have had a number of complaints about this new one; but of course this is an improvement". But worst of all, the Gas Board did not seem interested at all. She had to conduct her own fight with the merchants who had supplied the equipment.
We have seen the imposition of the new off-peak charges for electricity. I should like to think that the consultative council put up a fight, and I should be glad to know whether they did. It was not very obvious. I am afraid I cannot be quite so enthusiastic as the noble Baroness—this is the only place where I part company with her—on what the post
598
and telephone services consultative council appear to have done. Quite recently we had an almost complete breakdown of these services. We all know—and this is the frightening part of the matter—that if a consumer argues with the telephone service his telephone will be cut off; he has no chance of any competitive exercise there. If he argues with the electricity or gas board again his supply will be cut off. The powers of the monopoly are great and monolithic and can operate distinctly to the disadvantage of the customer, and in fact they do so.
The fact that these consumer councils have been in existence for a quarter of a century and hardly anybody knows about them seems to me to indicate that they stand condemned as a form of communication. Surely the nationalised industries should have some challenge to their expenditure from these councils. This must be the function of anybody who represents the customer. To take the Post Office, I understand that telephone charges will be going up. But I read that I can do certain things. I can dial-a-dish, I can dial-a-disc, I can get the cricket scores, and I can ask if it is likely to rain—something I probably could tell for myself. But I cannot get a telegram delivered after a certain time on a Saturday, and I know many people who are on new estates who cannot get telephones at all. Is there something slightly mixed up about this? Surely a customers group should have been looking at it.
I thought that one of the excellent examples of how not to spend money was a little circular which came to me, first-class post, telling me they were very sorry that there was a delay in dispatching my telephone bill. This is not a matter which causes me great regret, but it is very kind of them to send it. It read:
"You may have noticed that over recent months we have been later in sending your telephone bills. This is a result of a backlog due to an industrial dispute. This backlog is expensive …"—
this I am sure of—
"and if not quickly cleared will increase the cost of services."
So in order to keep down the cost of services they sent everybody this telling them that their telephone bills will be delayed. I am only a simple woman, but

599
I feel that that might, in some degree, have added to the cost rather than cut it down.
Then we have the very interesting example, which I think the customers should have challenged, of when the Post Office sent out to certain business-men—quite a large number—two envelopes, one green and one yellow. They asked these gentlemen which envelope they opened first, because they felt that this would be very useful information for people requiring mail order. Is this the function of a nationalised board? I should have thought not. When we are asked to pay more for services it seems to me that first we have the right to challenge the way the money is spent. To me, this is the basic concept of a good consumer relationship.
Wages and working conditions in the public services must be good; they must be high enough to attract actively and to retain staff. Workers should have the opportunity for active participation in any plans for change. I was told last week by a worker at our local power station that this was turned over to oil only five years ago. This must have been a period when someone at the top could have sensed that oil prices were to rise. We ceased to use our own indigenous fuel, and moved over to something which must be imported. I can think only that they were great friends of some of the powerful sheikhs. People on the job know more about the problems and difficulties than anyone else. The taxi driver is never consulted about the changes on the London roads. The postman is probably not even consulted about the siting of pillar boxes. There are so many ways in which their comments could be useful, practical and, indeed, money saving. There is no evidence that the nationalised industries use even their workers for effective consultation.
Consumer interests have made great strides in recent years. But their consolidation depends on information and education. It does not matter how many new laws, new regulations, and advice centres we have; if people do not know about them, then they will all be as naught. I am connected with a shoppers' advice centre—indeed, I have the honour to belong to one of the few women's organisations which actually set up a
600
shoppers' advice centre—and therefore I have been in close contact with the kind of consumer problems with which they have been concerned. I should like to quote one brief comment from my keen and energetic little organiser. She says:
"It sometimes seems that advice centres are also there as a sort of public relations body for Government Departments! There is continual publicity about keeping prices down".
However, there is never a full explanation of the work of the Price Commission. This I know to be true. People assume that the Price Commission actually controls prices rather than that they control profits.
I should also say that I am delighted to see that we have the Consumers" Council. I was very sad to hear that yet again it will not be able to take up individual complaints. Who can take up individual complaints? We are told that the nationalised boards can do it in that connection, but when it comes to the complaints concerned with private enterprise we can only hope that there will be enough consumer advice centres throughout the land so that these can be picked up. But there is an ominous sentence in a circular which has been sent out to local authorities about the rate support grant, in which it is suggested that there should be a deferment of consumer protection in the consumer protection field. Where are we getting? On the one hand the Minister is saying that we need these throughout the land, and another Department—a rather feared Department, I would suggest—is telling local authorities that they must hold off. The message that has come through from the splendid introduction from the noble Baroness and the excellent contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is that people count; and in the end, whether it be a public or a private corporation, it is there to serve people.
4.56 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, like others in this House I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for initiating this debate in, as has already been mentioned, her usual brilliant way. I am one who always comes to hear her speak in this House whenever I possibly can, and it is a pleasure for me to be able to contribute in some small way to a debate that she has initiated.

601
The consumer wheel seems at last to have come full circle. In my young days the customer was always right. During the post-War years we had to take what we were given, often without complaint. During the last five years, however, all Governments have brought forward legislation to protect, educate, and advise customers and consumers, all of which is in the right direction, and is rapidly gaining momentum. But one sometimes wonders whether the consumer is not bemused by the great number of bodies which have been set up to help him.
I have the honour to be a fairly hard-working member of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, and I should like to take a moment or two to explain how that part of the mass media—and also the BBC, with whom I have had telephonic communication this morning—tries to help the consumer, the listener, the customer. I have discovered that both the IBA and the BBC work on very similar lines although, as your Lordships will know, one has to make a profit or be viable, and the other does not. They are all very conscious of trying to help the consumer, or trying to make themselves aware of what the consumer wants. This is one of those fields where I am quite certain it would not be humanly possible for every customer to be happy on every occasion with every radio programme and every television service, but there are many consumer centres, consumer coun-cils and advisory bodies, from the top right the way through to advisory bodies representing and advising local radio throughout the country. The BBC, as you probably know, have 20 local radio councils and 52 advisory bodies. The IBA will have, when we have finished setting up the 19 radio stations, 19 radio councils. On top of that, there is the general advisory council appointed by the IBA, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Pike, is chairman. That consists of 25 people from all walks of life, representing everybody so far as is possible.
If there is any comment that I should like to make in this context it is that, as so many old age pensioners listen to radio and watch television, I think that at district level and at local radio level, both the BBC and IBA should perhaps get one or two older people on their radio councils. We have two schoolchildren—and
602
excellent they are—on two of our radio councils on the IBA. I do not know whether any notice will be taken of that suggestion but, as I have said, the older people are an enormous part of the listening and viewing audience, and I think that they should have a say in their programmes.
The General Advisory Council of the BBC is entirely an advisory body to the British Broadcasting Corporation as is the GAC to the Independent Broadcasting Authority. The mass media, as one noble Lord has said today, are of vital importance, not only for advertising the fact that other agencies are in existence, but in keeping people up to date in general. But both organisations stressed to me that they are enormously grateful to the public at large for being part of the whole set up and the whole team because without them and their contributions by letter and telephone, and being able to be on the other end of the television camera, they would perhaps at times be hard-pressed to interest the public.
My Lords, I suppose that I was asked to take part in this debate this afternoon primarily because, as one noble Lord said, I am national Chairman of the Gas Consumers' Council. When this aspect was mentioned earlier today, there was almost a groaning around your Lordships' House, so I am rather frightened of raising the subject. But I do not think that I need to be worried because we are a very forward-looking National Council. The Council, as your Lordships will probably know, was only set up in 1973 as a result of the Gas Act, but we have gained momentum and grown in strength since then. We have the 12 original councils which are coterminous with BGC throughout the country, under which we have many district councils representing the actual consumer because they are on the ground. The set-up of the district committees consists of local people who are entirely known within their own areas. They are responsible for reporting to the regional councils of the Gas Consumers' Council.
Therefore, all over the country we have a broad network which is very important. Today there are 1,175 people, all of whom, with specialist staff, are well-versed in the consumer difficulties which confront consumers of gas. It seems to me that the most important spheres in which we

603
can help consumers of gas is first of all in the area of safety. This factor is of paramount importance. Many accidents occur. The reasons for those accidents are not always given in the Press. But I can assure noble Lords that frequently their cause is because the consumer is not aware of how to use a particular appliance which he has either ordered or has within his house.
The next sphere concerns spare parts, a matter referred to earlier in the debate. We are pushing British Gas, the makers of spare parts and the trades people, as hard as we possibly can because we realise only too well that even if a nut or a small part of a gas cooker is missing, then that gas cooker cannot be used by that particular owner. It is vitally important to us that every single spare part that is needed, and which is not supplied, should be provided. This is a matter of interest both to us and to the Gas Consumers' Council.
The third difficulty which we have, which has also been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, is the keeping of appointments, usually by gas fitters. We are following up this problem to the best of our ability. I am in constant touch with BGC. They realise the situation and are doing their best to get it improved. I think perhaps this difficulty depends, in certain areas, on the numbers of fitters and others that can be called upon to go to a person's house and perform the necessary repair. In this context perhaps I may say that I have known cases in the conversions of big storey flats where the work has not been able to be carried out because the occupier of one flat has forgotten that he should be in or to leave the key to let in the gas man. This position has meant that the whole of that day's work has been lost. I know this to be a true illustration. On the whole, the public conform with the requests of the Gas Board. I am sure that they do their best, but it is very difficult when people are not at home.
A noble Lord mentioned today that it is absolutely vital that consumer councils of nationalised industries should be seen to be completely separate from the industry with which they are connected. That of course is true, but when one comes—and it is within the terms of reference of the National Gas Consumers'
604
Council—to having to report one's findings on such difficult matters as the increase in tariffs, for instance, it is clearly vital that one should know the way in which, in my specific case, the BGC minds are working. If we suddenly had to write to the Price Commission, with no knowledge from the BGC at all about their way of thinking, then we should be quite useless in that regard. But I am happy to say that over the last 18 months we have been able to establish a very good line of communication, which does not hamper us at all, and we are able to know the lines of thought of British Gas.
I am interested to know that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, found on the back of his electricity bill the address of the local consumer organisation. I can assure him that if he is a consumer of gas and eventually has a gas bill he will find exactly the same information on the back of that gas bill. I hope that information will be helpful to him. Also, posters giving the addresses and details of all the local consumer councils will be found in every gas showroom. I wish that the Gas Act 1973 had allowed me, as National Consumer Council Chairman, to be a member of BGC. It would have been most helpful, but it was specifically written out of the Bill. However, the BGC themselves and other people have thought that it would have been helpful if I had been on the inside from the beginning of all their deliberations.
I welcome most sincerely the appointment of Mr. Young as the new Chairman of the National Consumers' Council. We have for some time been waiting to know who was to be chairman of this exalted body. We still do not know the composition of the Council; we hope we shall be told very soon, because, as has already been said, it will have far-reaching implications on the nationalised industries and their consumer councils. But I, for my part, welcome him. I can assure him that the noble Lord, Lord Peddie (who has been referred to in exalted terms by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry) I, and other chairmen of nationalised industries will seek an appointment with Mr. Young as soon as he can possibly see us, so that he may have some idea of what the nationalised industries consumer councils are all about and what we hope to achieve. Presumably

605
he is to be a watchdog over other watchdogs.
My Lords, so far as the consumers themselves are concerned, they are our first priority. From my own point of view, every single person who has trouble with gas matters desperately. We have all been in trouble with problems ranging from the pilot light to various other things which go wrong. I am not inviting your Lordships to contact me if you have specific troubles, but I should of course be delighted to receive letters if any of your Lordships is in trouble. I think that I have been able to sort out some of your Lordships' troubles in the past and I hope that you will not have many in the future.
My Lords, I should like to end by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for giving us the opportunity of this debate.
5.12 p.m.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, I am very pleased indeed to join with other noble Lords in expressing appreciation of the contribution made by my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry. Her Motion is undoubtedly most timely and I am certain that the House will take full note of the comments she had to make. I also, personally and on behalf of the Post Office Users' National Council, of which I am Chairman, thank her for her kind references to our activities. I shall respond to the challenge she put to me and say a few words about the progress of the Post Office Users' National Council. It is a pity that this debate did not take place yesterday because it was five years ago yesterday that the first meeting of the Post Office Users' National Council was held.
My Lords, I was pleased that my noble friend, in putting down her Motion referred to the "interests" of consumers and did not use that hackneyed word "protection". I join with my noble friend in rejecting the concept of the protection of the consumer as the sole purpose of user organisations. We have marched along quite a good way over the years, though long ago there was probably full justification for the use of that term. Today, we are in a new era with regard to the true and full representation of the interests of the consumer, who is far more powerful than people
606
realised a short time ago. It is a question of harnessing that power, and I believe that much progress has been made in that regard.
In 1962, Molony, in his Report, excluded any reference to nationalised industries and expressed the view that the functions, duties and relationship with the public of nationalised industries were laid down by Government policy and of necessity did not conform to the normal producer/distributor/consumer relationship. He was but partially right. Indeed, I would go further and say that he was hopelessly wrong. There is just as much need for adequate representation of the user or consumer with regard to the nationalised industries as in any other sphere. I know that many long years ago—and I am proud of the fact that I played a part in urging the nationalisa-tion of certain industries—many of us believed that, with the coming of nationalisation, there would be a new concept in consumer relations and that we could all settle back and the nationalised industries would look after our interests very carefully. Nationalised industries have done a remarkable job of work, in my opinion, but, if any body is in a sense monopolistic—whether it be privately or nationally owned—it contains within itself the seeds of future inefficiency and lack of responsibility to the user and probably also to the worker. Therefore, strong trade union representation and strong user representation is still necessary.
My Lords, there was a time, as I have already stated, when there was some need to "protect" the consumer or the user and when "let the buyer beware" had a stark reality. Since then, we have seen a great deal of sound protection offered to consumers through the processes of legislative action, but it is as well to remember that, by the processes of legislative action, we cannot alone truly represent the interests of users or consumers. That is all the more reason why there is necessity for the establish-ment of effective user organisations in the nationalised industries.
My Lords, I am very pleased indeed to note the appointment of Mr. Michael Young. In the 1950s I remember him having discussions on the establishment of the Consumers' Association, of which he was the principal architect. That

607
body has done a remarkably good job over the years. I wish him well in his new endeavours. We have seen some changes over the years: we passed through the period of consumer protection, which I rather facetiously describe as the "SPCC" days; that is, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Consumers! The idea was that they were so innocent and defenceless that they needed protection, but we have moved on from that and today there is a demand for far more positive and constructive representation of the interests of users. I believe that the establishment of the Post Office Users' National Council marked a new era in the development of effective user organisations in the nationalised industries. That was recognised only two years after its formation by the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Nationalised Industries. The Report commented for all to read that the POUNC had established a method of operation which could be accepted as a model for other user bodies.
My Lords, right from the beginning, there was no intention—and this might to some extent be a reply to certain comments about the Post Office—of confining the activities of the POUNC to those of a complaints body. The power and responsibility which it possesses goes far beyond that, and it has a constructive role to play. It is true, as my noble friend Lady Burton indicated, that with the establishment of the Post Office Users' National Council we had the considerable advantage of nearly 25 years' experience of other user councils who had probably less powers than we possessed and who had been ploughing a very lonely furrow over such a long period of time. We had, I suppose, certain advantages. We had statutory powers, but I should point out, as I believe my noble friend Lord Jacques hinted, that the mere possession of statutory powers in itself does not guarantee that a body will function in a manner which would be in accord with what the creators of the body would have wished. Therefore, it depends very largely upon how the statutory powers are interpreted.
It is true that it is stated within the Act that the POUNC has the ability to
608
examine, without any reference by the Post Office, any matter that is of interest to Post Office users, and the Post Office has a duty laid upon it to consult with the POUNC with regard to any change in any major service. But from the very beginning—I want to emphasise this point; it might be of some help to others in the same boat—there was a desire that I should agree, or that the Council should agree, to a definition of the precise areas of responsibility of the POUNC. That we refused to do. It meant that in the early days it was necessary to argue the point as to whether or not we had the right to engage in any particular inquiry, and after a time the Post Office became tired of it and now there is no restriction at all. Therefore, the interpretation is very important.
Secondly, as my noble friend Lady Burton mentioned, we have the ability to call upon outside expertise; and that, I think, was the most fundamental and the most significant decision made in the early days by the Post Office Users' National Council. In making that comment I pay tribute to the previous Government, and the Minister at that time, who willingly agreed to my suggestion that that should be done. If he had rejected it, there is no doubt at all that our powers and our influence would have been severely curtailed, and therefore I pay credit where credit is due. Since then we have had the considerable advantage of successive Governments—and the appropriate Departments—giving us considerable aid.
Reference has been made to publicity. Of course, there is need for publicity, and I think we will find that the Press and the media are only too anxious to give publicity to an organisation like a users' council. Somebody said to us, right at the beginning, that he felt that the POUNC did not have enough teeth. I was not worried about having teeth, but I was concerned about having an effective bark, because if a bark is powerful enough, and the media—as they usually are—are sympathetic, one can rest assured that a powerful, strong bark, particularly with regard to a nationalised industry, is just as effective as teeth. We are not there to control the Post Office. If we were it would be the responsibility of some other POUNC to watch us.

609
I agree that the appointment of the right kind of people is important. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the persons engaged—the members of the Council—who receive no pay and, believe me, they are worked very hard indeed. I should indicate that the value of the POUNC is not merely in the sense that it is representing the user as such, but I believe that its association with the Post Office has been of practical, material benefit to the Post Office itself. I can give a series of suggestions, put forward by the POUNC and accepted by the Post Office, which have been of commercial advantage to the Post Office. The present basis of the contractual relationship between the Periodical Publishers Association and the Post Office was a suggestion of POUNC, and is now being copied by both the Australian Post Office and the American Post Office. We recommended the elimination of the non-liability clause in the Giro system. It is interesting to note that although the Post Office initially resisted that, it finally accepted it and is now advocating it in international circles. The Post Office accepted our own suggestions for the reconstruction of first- and second-class letter scales of 1974, which avoid unfair progression.
The metrication proposals with regard to the first weight step of 60 grammes—ultimately accepted by the Post Office—was originally suggested by POUNC. The study of metering of automatically dialled telephone calls which involved a long and detailed technical study, was embarked upon by the POUNC and a report published. We are now studying the subscribers' apparatus and the Post Office's monopoly. But, my Lords, I mention that not merely to put it on Record, but to express the belief that the POUNC and, I believe, other user councils are creating at the present moment guide-lines for the development of public accountability in the nationalised industries. To create adequate machinery for public accountability is terribly difficult, and no Government have yet been able to produce a solution in precise terms as to how it can be done. I believe that the development of user councils can offer guidelines to achieve just that, and in so doing will move very effectively towards a real and constructive representation of user interests.
610
We on the POUNC are urging at this moment—I hope with ultimate success—that we create tripartite discussions between the Post Office management, the trade unions and the user. If that is done it will mark a new development in user relations. It will mean that any fundamental developments—which at present are discussed probably with the trade unions but seldom with the user organis-ation—could mean discussions on a tri-partite basis. I believe that would open the door to enormous possibilities in that field.
There is much more that I could say on this matter, but I end my comments by saying that in the past few years we have undoubtedly developed user representation. If there had been time, I could have mentioned another very significant development, that of the Agrément Board established by the previous Government in 1966. I have since that date been chairman of that Board which, by the process of testing and certification, encourages innovation in the construction industry, and, at the same time, offers a strong measure of protection for the user.
Activities of this kind are going on today, but are not co-ordinated to the extent they could be. I believe that the new philosophy and the new policy of this Government provide the means to co-ordinate them. But in doing that I sincerely hope the Government do not create more harness than horse, and that they are absolutely sure that the type of machinery they create strengthens user organisations, not in any nitpicking way, but in developing cordial relationships—as I believe we have in the Post Office—with the industry concerned, with the full recognition that, in the long term, the interests of the user and the interests of the industry, whether private or public, are identical. With that recognition I am sure one can develop user organisations, not solely on the basis of protection, with all it implies, but rather in the form of a joint partnership that can make for a far more effective economy and far better representation of the true interests of the user.
5.30 p.m.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, may I first join in the appreciation expressed on all sides of the House for the opportunity that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of

611
Coventry, has afforded us to give our views on this important and topical matter of consumer rights. I am fully aware that there is a widespread feeling that big monopolistic production companies, particularly if they are multi-national, are prone to bludgeon their customers in many ways that are undesirable. My practical experience of trade and industry is that it is very rare to find a production company that has any really effective long-term monopoly; no production company has reached a stage of mature financial stability by exercising the brute power of monopoly. Indeed, very much the opposite is true. I submit that it is only by appealing to the tastes, desires and purchasing abilities of the consumers that industries can thrive and permanently prosper. In my past experience and present judgment, the most powerful force in the whole gamut of trade and industry is the housewife with her shopping basket. It is she who controls what comes across the counter after it has been fabricated or processed in the originating factory.
My Lords, I contend that we want to be quite clear in our minds what precisely we are discussing this afternoon. What the consumer buys can broadly be divided into goods, on the one hand, and services on the other. These can be sub-divided into perishable and non-perishable products; and a different set of conditions applies to each of them. A monopoly in the case of fabricated goods is a very sensitive area indeed. If the buying public, either at first or on the second time round, do not like the product that is preferred, the product does not sell, the producers do not make profits and cannot continue to offer employment. Equally, if the line of goods offered is brilliantly attractive and catches on, some other manufacturer will probably put a similar line on the market; and so the consumer has a choice, and probably a price alternative as well, and the would-be monopolist loses out again.
But when we come to consumer services the case is altered. Here monopolies, most unfortunately for the consumer, can and do react unfavourably. Here is no scope for the shopping basket, or even for window shopping, to sharpen either the appetite to buy or the taste for choice. I think that, executively and
612
functionally, it is much simpler for a small organisation that is privately owned to be flexible in its approach to the customer in matters of service as well as of goods than it is for some monolithic, nationalised business. The legion of customers today who buy coal, gas, electricity, postage, rail travel, air travel and so forth has very little power to influence prices or service right across the board. For any of the things that I have mentioned, and others, you must either take them in the style and at the price offered or go without, which may mean discomfort or even hardship.
All this comes round almost full circle to the wage element in their price structure, which in turn makes the history of our last half-century of economics such miserable reading. All these national consumer services are labour intensive, which makes the price at which the customer buys escalate in savage proportion when magnified by distributive costs in what is aptly called a vicious spiral. I submit that the basic customer services are far more price sensitive than are even consumer goods. We are apt to chide our British motor industry nowadays for its lack of uninterrupted continuity; but it has at least never tried to monopolise the market and trade by strong-arm methods. Several noble Lords will remember the American car called the Edsel. That was promoted in a blare of publicity and sold, certainly to the American motor trade, in a hard way that could only politely be called forceful. Almost at once customers exercised their right not to buy; and that was that.
In our own motor trade, I suggest that the formation of a big monolithic manufacturing massif has not been too happy. The share price tells the same sad story; but the lessons learned are now being put to good effect, and soon we shall see the results in the shape of cars that offer more customer choice while still benefiting from the economies of higher quantity component manufacture. One of the difficulties nowadays of making changes and improvements in any mechanical device is that the workers on the line want as much take-home pay for fabricating a product with which they are unfamiliar, and therefore slower, as they want for making a model on which they have developed manual and muscular dexterity and therefore are quicker and more efficient. It

613
takes anything up to five years nowadays to get an engineered product from the drawing board to the showroom, largely due to the persistent use of the strike weapon as a blunt bargaining instrument. When big car factories are halted by pressures from the shop floor for a change in status or title by a comparatively narrow sector of workers with specialised skills, it does not really give much hope for an overall economy which is based on power wielded from the wrong end of the spectrum rather than on traditional and well-trained managers and directors who are guided in broad terms by experienced Ministers in Government.
My Lords, it is this kind of caper which makes one wonder whether the nationalisation of industry, of itself, is really beneficial to the consumer. Size is no criterion of quality and if a product is not selling, and is not thereby providing good employment for workers, it does not matter who provides the finance, whether it be private enterprise or the nation's coffers. If the equations of production cost and price achieved are not properly in balance, the actual source of the money supply has no mystique about it—except that private enterprise would probably be more critical and realistic than in a case where finance was made available for other and probably non-commercial reasons.
But let me get back once more to the customer. There is a school of thought that tries to differentiate between the twin terms of marketing and selling by maintaining that selling is a process of bull-dozing or even hypnotising the customer into making him or her take what the producer aggressively wants him or her to take. On the other hand, marketing is providing customers with what they want, starting with information about the product and then seeing that effective means of getting it to the customer are organised, and that good service is given afterwards. The customer's choice is evoked mainly through informative advertising and the steps that have been taken of recent years to make advertising much more reliable and less flamboyant are beginning to work. I think that this is the line of development that seems to be gaining ground today, considerably helped by the comparatively newly-instituted Office of Fair Trading, So far as it has currently operated, the combination of the Office of Fair Trading
614
plus the Monopolies Commission looks like knocking down a lot of the bogies that were raised in the past, and it really seems as though the dangers of a monopolist or giant manufacturer putting unfair pressures on the consumer in this country are receding.
My Lords, this is not a controversial or divisive political matter, because Governments of both major Parties have pursued the anti-monopoly policy. Both started to bring it about and will continue to bring about better conditions for the consumer. For instance, action has already been taken in connection with the prices of detergents, breakfast cereals, colour films, estate agents' charges—to name but a few—and, again, the area of choice, the lack of selection of lubricants and ranges of motor accessories, including batteries, from petrol stations that are tied to major oil companies has been highlighted and the abuses rectified. There is far more information available nowadays, too, about primary battery supply for flash lamps, torches and the like. On the "distinctly household" front, the one-time monopoly of infant foods being available only from chemists it now being rectified.
I see a good deal of hope, not fuzzily on the horizon but clearly in the very near future, for the customer, and I hope that Ministers and the Director General of Fair Trading, who now has the power to launch investigations by the Monopolies Commission, will make full use of their powers to order further inquiries into monopolies which are supplying goods and services to customers. There is still admittedly plenty of scope for action on these and other fronts. I well recall how strongly the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, felt about the closure by British Airways of check-in facilities at the Cromwell Road West London Air Terminal. Only a very big nationalised organisation could have had the effrontery so to curtail the amenities to its customers. I am happy the noble Baroness is to continue her campaign about this.
It had always been my policy during the formative years of civil aviation that it was only by looking after the customer to the highest practical degree that increasing business could be obtained. Many noble Lords will remember how, in the immediate post-War years, British

615
Civil Aviation had access only to outdated converted bomber aircraft to carry passengers, whereas most of our competitors were able to purchase much more sophisticated and genuine passenger aeroplanes of American manufacture. We in Britain in those days had to offer attractions other than speed and long range. So we concentrated on polite passenger service, the provision of good food attractively served, crew courtesy, and competence rather than glamour on the part of the cabin staffs. As a result, we managed to build up a reputation for comfortable air travel, and I am happy to think that cabin comfort has continued into the jet age, which accounts for the very splendid share of international business that British Airways enjoys today.
Without dragging aviation matters into this discussion too boringly, I think it fair here to say that there are still some anomalies, more connected perhaps with airports than actual flying. For instance, we hear a great deal about duty free shops at airports. I suggest that the phrase "duty free" is by no means wholly accurate, because if all the duty were taken off, for example a bottle of whisky, or a scent sachet, or a carton of cigarettes at a so-called "duty-free" shop at an airport, those goods would be a tithe of the price that is charged at the moment. It is almost a misrepresentation of trade description to say that they are duty free, and it would be much more honest if the words "duty reduced" were used and so a false claim remedied and the customer not confused. My Lords, let me conclude by saying again that I think it is very healthy and helpful for points such as these to be ventilated here today, and I look forward with much interest to a continuation of the lively comments which were initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton.
5.43 p.m.
Lord MAIS: My Lords, may I first add my own thanks to those that have been extended already to my noble friend Lady Burton for giving us the opportunity this afternoon to discuss this very important subject. It is a problem that applies not only to the nationalised industries and larger private industries, but it in fact covers the whole of private and public commerce and industry. But unfortunately
616
I think the larger the organisation, the less contact there is with the consumer or customer and therefore the greater the problem. The majority of employers and employees have their own organisations to protect them, to speak for them and forcefully to present their interests. Any or all of such bodies can cause disruption, discomfort and hardship to the consumer. Unfortunately, the consumer does not have a correspondingly strong force to represent his grievances and problems. I sincerely hope that the new organisation to which reference has been made this afternoon may go some of the way to filling that gap.
Usually one finds the bigger the organisation the less concern there is shown for the consumer, who, after all, provides the money for the wage packet at the end of the week, the money to pay in interest to those investing in the company and, above all, to provide a cash-flow without which a company could not survive. You do not have to look very far these days to see the disastrous result which comes very rapidly when there is a falling demand and the cash-flow dries up. Without that all-important person, the consumer, profitable companies would soon become poorer. The poorer companies would soon become bankrupt. Here again, we have not had to look very far in recent times to see that this would have had happened on numerous occasions but for the support from public funds.
I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that one can still do business with smaller organisations and receive excellent service and consideration for your requirements. First, this is simply because in the smaller organisations, the owner or proprietor of the business is closer to the consumer. Secondly, if he fails to satisfy the customer, there is always someone down the road who is willing to take over. Lastly, if his customer relationship is poor then retribution comes to him far more quickly and personally than it does to a large company. In many cases large corporations and nationalised industries have protected themselves by reducing, if not eliminating, competition. Without competition, I believe efficiency suffers very greatly indeed.
Several noble Lords have referred to complaints. I have always found that if

617
you make your complaint through normal channels it is usually dealt with by a comparatively junior official, and I am certain his orders are to keep you quiet, placate you at all costs and see the complaint does not reach the table of a senior executive. If you happen to be fortunate enough to know a senior executive and write in to him personally, usually something happens. Unfortunately, more often than not, the ordinary consumer does not have those contacts. We all know that in the nationalised industries and some of the corporations in the private sector there are, of necessity, very large organisations. Could they be so organised as to be a little less impersonal, not only so far as the consumer is concerned, but so far as industrial relations are concerned and, above all, to ensure that there is greater interest in seeing that the consumer obtains the service for which he or she pays, and consideration in dealing with the company concerned.
May I now ask your Lordships to consider with me what I believe to be the principal cause of many of our difficulties today, not least those of the interests of the consumer. It stems from the general malaise from which this country is suffering at this moment. This applies particularly to the larger organisations. It stems from the fact that the rank and file who work in these very large organisations and nationalised industries are dissatisfied with their lot; and there is ample proof of this. They do not feel they are part of the whole; they do not feel they are part of a team. I doubt very much whether they feel it is part of their job to concern themselves with the welfare and/or satisfaction of the consumer. It is easy to blame them and some of the blame must be placed at their door for this. But I believe the blame is to a greater extent at the door of management. Management today tends to be too detached, too far removed from the shop floor, and too far removed from the people they supply and who buy their goods—the ordinary man and woman in the street.
Your Lordships may well ask: what has management to do with the debate this afternoon? I would say that it has everything to do with it. We are passing through a period of highly specialised management. If we put the clock back for some 25 years, then a great many
618
young men and women left school and went on to the factory floor at the age of 16, and from there they worked their way up to the top of large organisations. We have many men of great ability in business today who did just that, and they have one great asset—they know from personal experience the desires and feelings of those who now work for them. Above all, they understand the requirements of the customer or the consumer who buys the goods their company produces.
Since those days we have made progress, which is fortunate of course, but unfortunately in doing so we have perhaps overlooked one or two things. Young people went on to the shop floor at 16 in those days, because the educational system did not then offer the same opportunities as it does today for them to go to a university or a college of advanced technology. Nowadays, many of them go on further to take postgraduate courses in business studies, and when they have finished they come along for a job. It is not very often that they are prepared to accept—nor would they expect to do so—that they must start their job on the shop floor in order to learn the business from the grass roots. But unless they do this they lose contact, and difficulties arise later both with their own workpeople and with consumers. They do not have a point of contact or the knowledge they would have had if they had spent perhaps a period of only one year at the bottom.
One or two Sundays ago, I studied the job advertisement pages in one of the better known Sunday newspapers. There were 12 pages of advertisements for managers, senior executives, professional and technical specialists, covering 200 jobs ranging from £3,000 to £10,000 a year. The potential candidates were tempted with wonderful descriptions of exotic equipment that they would be designing, building, operating, servicing or selling. Successful job-seekers were required to possess high-level technical and professional qualifications; but not one of those advertisements for managers specified the need for personal qualities which would win respect and inspire those whom they would manage, or those to whom they would be required to sell the products of their companies. One advertisement stated that in business today there is no room for individualists.

619
What a dreadful state of affairs, my Lords! Can you picture your Lord-ships' House if we removed all our individualists? It would indeed be a very dull place.
Most of us would agree that we have a crisis of confidence and morale in industry. Fewer and fewer employees identify themselves with the aims of the company. This also means that they do not identify themselves with the requirements of the consumer. Why is it that this generation of highly educated managers have apparently failed to learn how to inspire their manual and clerical colleagues? Why is it that the gulf between the shop floor and this new class of management is wider than it was even in the old days between the old autocratic owner-manager and his much less privileged employees?
It could be that although they might not have liked him very much, at least they knew him and saw him frequently; and he knew his job thoroughly, having learned it from the shop floor upwards. Could it be that in producing the highly trained managers that we have today, we have somehow forgotten that their fundamental job is to manage, to lead and to understand the fundamental problems of those for whose work they are responsible? Could it also be that we have forgotten the need to understand the require-ments and problems of customers who purchase what the company produces, whether it is goods or services?
Another problem concerning customer relations is that head offices tend to be too far away from the point at which the end product comes out. A few weeks, ago I heard British industry likened unto a dinosaur, with a tiny, intelligent head in London and a massive slow-moving tail out in the "sticks". I would not accept that British industry has a small head—it certainly has an intelligent one and a large one at that—but I think that it has a very long tail.
There is another problem affecting consumer relations; that is, the conflict of loyalties. We are tempted to forget that the only wealth we have comes from the customer. We can produce all the aeroplanes, motorcars, refrigerators and television sets that we like, but they have no value whatsoever unless someone will
620
buy them. I am afraid that at the moment we are passing through a period in time when, apparently, workers do not always think of the company in which they are employed as a unit of performance, whose degree of success will ultimately determine their rate of real pay and also the satisfaction of the customer who buys from them.
Real pay—although I am sure I need not spell it out to your Lordships—is the pay that a company or a country can afford to pay and remain competitive and solvent. And who makes that possible?—it is the consumer. Without him there would be insolvency and unemployment. Therefore, it is imperative that we should pay more attention to seeing that at all levels in industry a bigger interest is taken in the work, and that employees are in-formed of the end product. I sometimes feel that perhaps the feedback to the shop floor, where men and women often work on a very uninteresting and sometimes dirty job, does not give them enough encouragement. The shop floor people need to be told what is happening within the company, and whether their sales are going up or down. This is something which ought to receive very careful attention. I am certain of one fact. The average consumer today has cause for complaint, particularly as regards the service that is received, but also as regards the attitude towards him when he has the temerity to complain.
In support of what I have said, may I give your Lordships a few facts obtained as a result of a survey which has been carried out every year since 1969. I regret that I do not have any figures later than 1973, because 1974 ones are not yet available. Questions were put to a cross-section of the public in England, Scotland and Wales—if any of your Lordships thinks that I should have used a different order, I will apologise now—and the answers showed that the public accept the economic necessity for larger corporations. As many as 71 per cent. of the adults who were asked agreed with the statement that,
"large companies are essential to the nation's growth and expansion."
Nevertheless, people are not as convinced as they once were that there is an economic necessity for large companies. In fact, in 1969 only 11 per cent. thought that large companies were necessary, and by

621
1973 the figure had risen to 18 per cent. One may say that that is not a very large increase; nevertheless, it gives an idea of the trend.
Also, there are indications that even if large companies are considered necessary, a significant and growing number of people who were interviewed regarded them as a necessary evil. Large companies are, for example, criticised for being impersonal in much the same way as are Government bureaucracies. Eighty-two per cent. of the adults interviewed in 1973 felt that the larger a company grew, the colder and more impersonal it became in its relationships with people—with not only its own employees but the people it served. The proportion who feel this way has risen annually since 1969 when it was only 73 per cent. The figure has risen nearly 10 per cent. in four years. As I have said before, it is not a big increase but it indicates how people are thinking.
One very interesting outcome of the survey showed that the proportion of adults who believe that the profit of a large company helps to make things better for everybody who buys its products or services has fallen to a marked extent. In 1970, 53 per cent. of people believed that the large companies helped the community; in 1973, the figure was down to 41 per cent.—a 12 per cent. drop. Similarly, there is an indication of an erosion in public confidence by a fall from 75 per cent. in 1970 to 65 per cent. in 1973 in the number of adults agreeing that a company which has a good reputation will not sell poor goods. In this research young people were particularly sceptical. Only 47 per cent. of those aged between 16 and 24 believe that a company's reputation provides a reliable guide to the quality of its products.
Also, whatever criticism consumers had of large private companies, they did not believe that these problems would necessarily be tackled any better by wholesale nationalisation. The consumer's opinion of nationalised industries is clearly lower than that held of private industry. Fifty-six per cent. believe that nationalised industries, generally speaking, are less efficient than private companies. The question was put:
"Have major companies a responsibility not only to solve current problems at present facing Great Britain, but also a primary responsibility
622
to see that the consumer and the customer they serve receive a fair deal?"
As one would expect, there was a resound-ing response: 69 per cent. said, Yes; and only 14 per cent. said, No.
All this, my Lords, comes back to what I was saying earlier. I gave your Lord-ships figures and quotations from the survey, because I believe they support my contention that the consumer and the customer have doubts—doubts which are growing—of the large organisation, whether private or national. The general consensus of opinion is that it is impersonal and takes little interest in, or shows little concern for, those upon whom the whole future of its business depends; namely, the consumer. We all know that there are bound to be exceptions to these comments, and those in regard to whom these comments are probably unjust. Nevertheless, they give, I hope, an indication of how public opinion is moving and as such it should not be ignored. If it is ignored, it is ignored at our peril.
May I conclude by saying that I have delayed your Lordships longer than has been my custom in the past. I do not think I have ever been on my feet so long in your Lordships' House. May I end by once again thanking my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry for allowing me to take part in what has been a most stimulating debate.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, may I join in the congratulation and thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for her strategy in securing time for so well-supported a debate, and also for the verve with which she opened this discussion. Having been at the receiving end of the noble Baroness's searching questions in another place, I know over how many years she has championed the cause of the consumer, and how persistently she sticks to her guns. My support in this debate stems mainly from my experience, over some years in another place, of the complaints brought by one's constituents. It is an interesting fact that, although we now have a proliferation of consumer advisory councils, it has done nothing to lessen the number of complaints which are lodged with Members of Parliament. Indeed, it is my experience that constituents tend to approach their Member of Parliament when they feel they cannot

623
get redress through the machinery of the advisory committees. It would be interesting to know just how many Government-authorised consumer protection agencies or councils there are; how much they cost the Government, the local authorities or the nationalised industries, and how often their representations on increased charges or inadequate services have produced fruitful results. We have no league table or batting average by which to judge the success of these very many councils.
I was particularly interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, regret that when she was Chairman of the Coal Consumers' Council she was not able to achieve all that she would have wished to. I am quite sure it was due not to lack of persistence or ability on her part, or that of the distinguished people who served with her on that council, but perhaps to the limitation of the terms of reference imposed on many of these councils. They are not equipped to do the job which the consumer expects this kind of organisation is set up to undertake. We have of course a clear division in the two types of agencies to protect the consumer. We have those which are advisory and those who have real statutory powers and teeth—the weights and measures inspectorate, the public health inspectorate and the various safety inspectorates. Their jobs are defined. They have power to correct, to ban, to alleviate and to protect. But too often the consumer advisory councils are denied powers to make their efforts effective. In the case of the nationalised industries, as they are monopolies we have no yardstick to judge them on a competitive basis, like with like.
If I may for one moment return to the subject which always provided the largest group of complaints in my previous existence in another place, I would refer to the transport advisory committees. Through no fault of the dedicated men and women who have served on these committees, they have always been frustrated. In my experience, they have been hitting their heads against a brick wall in trying to achieve any concrete results regarding the vast and tremendous problems of the London area commuter traffic. So much so that in many areas local groups have been formed, quite spontaneously and
624
voluntarily, because of frustration caused by the inability of the transport advisory committees to do anything to alleviate their problems at all. When breakdowns and strikes deny the season-ticket holder his train journey to work, he has to pay again for an alternative transport. I do not know how long a strike has to last before British Rail compensate season ticket holders by letting their tickets run for a period of days after the date of expiry. When trains are cancelled, that is just too bad: one goes and pays another fare somewhere else!
If a theatre has to take off its show, one has the opportunity to use one's ticket another day or to have the money refunded at the box office. If an airport is fogbound and you have a ticket they give you a warrant to go by train, and if you are stuck somewhere overnight they pay your hotel bill. Is this because the foreign tourist is so valuable that the air traveller gets better treatment than the poor, regular British commuter? Whatever complaints the advisory councils receive, the complaints still flood in to the Members of Parliament whether it is delegations, phone calls or, not in frequently, lobbies not very far from this this Chamber.
There is a different point which has caused tremendous frustration to people—the new fashion of a computer. All of us have received beautiful expressions of how much better we would be served by this company, or that nationalised industry, because they were going to install a computer, and all its efficiencies would be wholly to our advantage. I would be the last to belittle the great contribution which such equipment can make in saving manhours by doing electronically in seconds what would take the mind of man weeks to collate, and indeed in saving record space. But the hardware is only as good as the human brain which feeds it.
Why, with all the skills that we are told these computers have, must the records and accounts which they produce be intelligible only to the operational staff who send them to us, and wrapped in mystery for the consumer who has to pay the bills? And why, when through human error a wrong key is punched by a nervous beginner, and a modest but regular credit of a banking account is suddenly turned into a massive overdraft

625
and a dozen cheques are returned "RD", should it take the customer weeks to straighten it out, and months to restore his credit with those who were told he was not in funds? If the computer goes berserk on your Gas Board account, you will be charmingly received at the showroom and will be told, "It is the computer". Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, takes the advice on his electricity bill and rings up, they will ask him to post in his bill with the complaint and will say, "It is the computer". They will promise to correct it and send an amended account.
But before the computer churns out the corrected account it produces a demand note. You ring up, say that you have been in and that you have already phoned. They say again that it is the computer and promise to put it right. But inexorably the great machine churns on and you are then listed as a defaulter, and your name goes out to the engineer who comes around to cut you off. The meter "cutters-off" are a much tougher breed than the meter readers. The latter, finding you out, put a card through the door telling you to read the meter yourself. But those who come to cut you off go down to the basement, find the porter and let themselves in, and you are cut off. You get back, you ring up the board, you give them a piece of your mind and there are then further phone calls, and you invoke the aid of your MP. This is the diary of a case which I had to deal with for a constituent. Finally, your supply is restored. Then the computer plays its trump card—it charges you for the restoration of supplies!
I fully appreciate why the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is not here and I hope that the noble Lord opposite will report to him, because there were words in his speech which I endeavoured to take down verbatim and which I feel are very relevant to this discussion today. I join in the pleasure with which I saw the announcement last night of Mr. Michael Young as the new chairman of the National Consumers' Council. He is somebody with enormous experience in whom consumers will have great confidence. But, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, destroyed my pleasure by three sentences which he uttered concerning the new terms of reference applying to the chairman and the new
626
Council. I think I am correct in saying that he will not be concerned with information to the consumer.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for coming back. This is not an attack ; it is asking for clarification. If I may I will repeat that one sentence because I am endeavouring to be proved wrong. I understood the noble Lord to say that Mr. Michael Young, the chair-man of the new Council, will not be concerned with information to the consumer. This I regret, because there are the whole fields of safety and of fuel economy. After all, the head of a consumers' interest organisation would be more impartial in telling us which of the fuels would save us most, and which might be more applicable to certain situations; whereas the three or four different fuel organisations would naturally be endeavouring to sell their own products. I regret that information will not be channelled through this new Council.
Then, if I am right, the noble Lord said that the chairman would not be concerned with individual complaints. My Lords, that is what this debate is about. We are appalled that these councils do not have teeth. The public want to know where they can find some means of getting their complaints dealt with rapidly. They would not need a consumers' council if they were satisfied that industries as such would deal with all their problems. It is because they do not think that they are dealt with adequately that they want a consumers' council.
As was the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, I am appalled that someone experienced—and I was so glad to hear that Mr. Young has been appointed—is not to be allowed to take up individual complaints; he is to be concerned with strategy. I am sorry, but I think the public will be appalled at the limitation of the terms of reference, and will feel that this is not what they expected when this Council was promised by the present Government, when they were led to believe that it would deal with their complaints. The noble Lord said that the Council will be interested in protection within the law. Bad service and high prices, however reprehensible, are not necessarily crimes. They may break the spirit of the nationalised industries' charter but they do not break the Statute

627
Law, and I believe it is a very great short-coming if the limitations imposed on the chairman and his Council are to be circumscribed in this way.
I should like clarification, too, of one other point. I have, of course, read the White Paper and I should like to know from the noble Lord whether the nationalised industries' councils are merely to be supervised, as it were, and amalgamated into one, or whether they will still be independent entities under the umbrella of this new Council. It is an undoubted fact that many of the public believe that the voluntary consumer protection groups are far more effective than the nationalised industries' advisory councils. I say again that this is not the fault of the members of those councils; it is the fault of their terms by which they are proscribed.
I believe it is important that the public should feel that they can indeed get speedier service and better treatment, and should see that their complaints go to the right place and are dealt with more rapidly. It is strange that one critical article in Which? can scare the day-lights out of a private company. But of course that company has competition; that company has to give the consumer what he wants at a price he is prepared to pay. All too often the nationalised industries and monopolies know very well that we have no option but to pay the prices which they impose upon us. In drafting this new set-up, I hope very much that we shall be able to be persuaded that the interest and protection of the consumer is real and not illusory.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, it is now fairly late in the evening. However, we have had a quite fascinating debate and I am deeply indebted to the noble Baroness for having inaugurated it. We have learned the extraordinary amount of knowledge which your Lordships have on this particular subject. We know that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, has wide experience and knowledge and that she has worked indefatigably in this field. There must be few Parliaments which have in their midst someone like the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who is on a "phone-in-direct-to-the-consumer" service. I congratulate her.
628
She must know far more about the consumer than almost anybody in this House. The fact that she gives this service regularly is of tremendous help and I think she ought to be congratulated for having undertaken that particular job. It must be very time-consuming and, at times, quite trying. However, it shows that in your Lordships' House we have great experts in this field.
I was particularly interested in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Mais. He made a number of points which other Members of your Lordships' House had not made. The long experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, in the House of Commons, where she dealt with problems direct from her constituents is, of course, of vital importance. Curiously enough, we are people who have split personal-ties on this subject. Whoever we are, whatever we are, wherever we work, or whatever happens to us, first and fore- most we are consumers, not only of goods but of services, and of all that we have been talking about. At the same time, the contribution we make to consumption depends upon how much money we have to spend, how much we earn, and so on. Very often those two things do not harmonise. There can be conflicting interests, and how these can be brought into harmony is one of the things which consumers, manufacturers, industry and nationalised industry is all about.
I was very glad to read today, and to hear this morning on the radio, the discussion between the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and Mr. Michael Young, on the new council which has been set up. We must hand it to Mr. Michael Young that he has been a pioneer in this work. He pioneered the Consumer Association and the great publication Which? He pioneered the educational side in the publication called Where. He is a man of great enterprise and imagination, and I very much hope that he will be highly successful with this new council.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and also with the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, when they say, "Let us get away from the word 'protection'". It is not consumer protection that we are interested in; we are interested in the place of the consumer in

629
the whole set-up of the manufacturing industry, distribution and services. It is that place which, as consumers, we are concerned about. It is not protecting the consumer. They are not in need of protection. What is needed is an important place in the set-up of the manufacturing industries and the services they provide.
As your Lordships know, I was the unfortunate person who first took on the Consumer Council. There have been many changes since then. I was appointed by Mr. Harold Macmillan when he was Prime Minister. He asked me to be chairman. We had absolutely nothing at all to go on except the Molony Committee Report which was our Bible and which we tried to emulate. The first time that I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, making a tremendous speech in the House of Commons was on the Molony Report. Nobody knew more about it than she did and I was fascinated by what she said in the debate in another place. I do not know whether we were successful or not, but we worked very hard. I had the help of the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, and various other people, on the Council. We did a pioneering job.
I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, asked me to address the Manchester Chamber of Commerce at the very beginning of our activities, in order to try to interest this great Chamber of Commerce in consumer interest. I was the only woman there. There was absolutely nobody in the audience who had thought about the consumer. It was not a very big audience. It was a private meeting. I came away thinking, "Good Heavens! how shall we get these people to realise that the consumer voice is something which is vital to their interests, just as it is vital to the consumers themselves". We toured the country and did our best to try to get across the information about what we were trying to do. We had very little money to spend and we were pioneering. However, we began this work.
I was chairman of the Council for five years only and was succeeded by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge. I was disappointed because one of the first things that the Conservative Party did was to do away with the Consumer Council. I do not know why, because afterwards they tried to find ways
630
to bring it back in some other form. Since then there has been a great deal of valuable legislation and there exist all the organisations which have been spoken about today. They have arisen from our original efforts. Now we have something which I hope, with the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, will not be limited in the way which has been suggested by the Government. I hope that they will give further thought to this. They have only to ask the people who worked originally in this field, to understand that unless you are to deal with the individual complaints and unless you are able to deal with a whole variety of subjects you are limiting the value of this organisation. It is much bigger and more expensive than the original organisation.
What has emerged from this debate is that a great number of people have done very active work with the users committees of the nationalised industries. My feeling is that their voice is muffled all the time. It is muffled for the reason that the position of the consumer in industry, particularly in the case of nationalised industries, but also in the case of other industries, too, is on the outside. I listened carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peddie. Nobody has done better than he has done on the Post Office Users' National Council. It is an admirable body and it is admirably led. However, the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, is not on the management side of the Post Office. If complaints about alterations in postal services are made, the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, is not in the inner circle of discussion. He has to voice the views of the consumer after decisions have been taken. Just the same happens in other industries. I think it is most un-likely, but I wonder whether in the recent request of unions not to allow the Post Office to buy Swedish telecommunications equipment Mr. Benn has heard the users' views. Presumably he has heard the management's views and the unions' views, but not those of the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, and the Post Office Users' Council, although new equipment might be a very economical and possibly more efficient way to keep down the postal costs, so affecting everyone in the community. Since there is only one postal service we have all got to use it, and it is therefore vital that we get the best value. It is also vital to the Government.

631
We have also heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, about gas, and another speaker mentioned electricity, both of which industries have users' councils. Again, they are on the fringe; they are not in the industrial machinery.
A case has been made for the councils to be quite independent. Perhaps, in a way, that could put them in a strong position, but I consider that they would be in a much stronger position if they had somebody who could sit down at the management level with the management and with the unions, as representing the people who are going to use the product. So far as I know, that matter has not been considered. They are in the background, and as long as they are in that position I do not believe that they will ever have the voice that some of us would like them to have.
Many members of the public do consult the users' councils, and I think they are well served by those councils. But the real policy-making committees of industry, whether nationalised or private, are still really independent. They do not have a representative of the users on their management boards. I should like the consumer councils to have the power to initiate as well as the duty to consider representations that are made to them.
I think it is indicative of the rather patronising attitude of all Governments—not merely this Government—that these councils are considered to be good for examining consumers' complaints but not for examining management proposals which will affect the future of the service provided by the industry. I should like them to have that as one of their powers. John Methven, the Director General of Fair Trading, has said that the boards of large British firms marketing products for domestic consumers are too concerned with production and too little concerned with marketing or with the provision of effective after-sales service. If there was someone at board level with those responsibilities for consumer satisfaction—which is not the same thing as being responsible for production or the sales targets—I believe that would be a big step forward in the interests of the consumers.
Much has been said about nationalised industries, but in my view the same faults
632
exist in the large corporations. The chain store is part of modern life, although I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mais, as I, too, have a nostalgia for the somewhat smaller shop. But if the chain store were to pay more attention to individual needs that would be a big step forward. There are some chain stores dealing in shoes, for instance, which do not have telephones. Another retail group has no telephone facilities except for out-going calls. All these things may make the central administration simpler, but to the consumer in a small provincial town or far from the headquarters of the chain, it is leaving the branch shop to be responsible for consumer demands, or complaints with which it may find it quite impossible to deal.
One may say that the size of the modern retail firms makes the personal touch so difficult; yet there are some retail chains, of which one can give Sainsbury's and Marks and Spencer as examples, where the principle of the village shop prevails—that is a shop where the needs of customers are of primary concern, and nothing is started on a huge scale which has not been tried out first on a small scale and proved to be what the consumer wants.
In the first Consumer Council we tried very hard to bring about improvements in the representation of consumer interests on boards which control the nationalised industries; to assess the public interest in the case, for example, of monopolies, mergers and restrictive practices. We did not succeed, but that was 10 or 12 years ago and much has been done since. I still think that on many of the boards there are subjects on which consumers ought to be consulted. For instance, if we are considering railways or buses, nobody is ever consulted about fares; equally, the consumers of electricity cannot represent their views when tariffs are discussed by the Electricity Board. That matter was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, when she spoke about the question of electricity for night storage heaters. Also, of course, the passengers of British Airways could not influence the management in regard to stopping the check-in facilities at London Airport; and but for the persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, the matter would not have come to light. I am sure that she

633
frightened the Board of British Airways very much indeed, although at the end of the day she was unsuccessful.
I do not like the feeling that hard-working people, with no payment of any kind, should be all the time on the fringe and more or less merely a voice crying in the wilderness. They ought to be part and parcel of the management of the companies; they ought to be another Estate of the Realm, as it were, and part and parcel of our industry. We really need a fundamental change in the attitude of management and of trade unions to this problem. In my opinion, the prevailing view that consumers are not fit to take part in management is wrong. Who better knows their needs than the people who buy and use the goods and services which industry provides than those who purchase them? I believe it is high time that someone with particular concern for consumers should be on the board of every major company in the country which provides goods and services, and I hope the new Council will have this as one of their objects when they plan for the future.
6.38 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, it is always a humbling experience to rise in this House after a debate in which one has listened to chairmen and ex-chairmen of councils, to Ministers and ex-Ministers, to industrialists, and finally it comes down to me—a pure, simple (if there are such persons) consumer. I am nothing but a consumer. I have never produced; I have consumed. So perhaps although I am humble in the matter it is not inappropriate that at this late stage I should come to support my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry in this debate which she has so excellently introduced.
My attitude towards this is perhaps slightly different from other people's, although I found myself very much in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, in all her remarks. In all these matters I am a Socialist. I approach the whole thing as a Socialist. I am a Socialist because I firmly believe that without Socialism it is impossible to bring about a really good life for all the individuals in the country. Because I am concerned with the good life of all individuals, I am necessarily concerned with the consumer; because in one form or
634
another, we are all consumers. The organisation of our industry must serve the people of this country, and ensure that we, the people of the country, get what we want. I think it was my noble friend Lord Mais who pointed out that industry had no other purpose than to produce those things used by the consumer. Therefore, it is surely the duty of any industry, whether it be a national industry—which is what I should like to see—or a private industry, which perforce we have, to ensure that the consumer gets what he wants.
My Lords, much of the debate has been concerned inevitably with the transport services and things of this type, necessarily so because these are some of the big industries in the country. They are largely under national control. But we have many other industries, equally large and important. The noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, referred to the banks, which play a very important part; they are not yet nationally controlled, but they will be. It will not make much difference from the point of view of the impact on the consumer, because one of the important and interesting points is that most of the problems are problems of size rather than of the particular form of control—although I believe that national control means also that if we insist upon it, we can have better and easier public control.
In the first place, problems arise because whenever there is a large organisation, that organisation runs by itself and it has an impetus of its own; it has a method of dealing with its own procedure. During the last war I went to see a chemical works situated in the North of England. I travelled there with the Deputy Director from the old Ministry of Aircraft Production. We were going to see the production of aviation fuel. We had a very pleasant time there; we were entertained, and had a very interesting talk with the directors. My friend, the Deputy Director, asked them specifically how they ran various parts of the organisation. They gave us a very detailed account. My friend then said, "How very interesting. It is exactly as we work inside the Ministry." That was an important private industry in this country. Indeed, when one looks at the matter, one cannot help doing things that way simply because

635
of the scale and nature of the organisation. But because of this, at all times we must have proper consumer representation and control, not necessarily in one simple specified form. There are many different ways in which we can and, indeed, ought to do this.
My Lords, if we look at the impact of different industries, we see—as I have already mentioned—that we have public services which have been much discussed, including transport. These services can be controlled, partly by legislation, partly by setting up consumer bodies. But there is another point which arises; that is, the local representation. If one takes such an industry as the gas or the electricity industry—where one is concerned with the manufacturing side—the production of gas and electricity is something which has no direct impact on the consumer. It is true that unless this is well done, the consumer does not get the product, or gets it at too high a price. But it has no simple, direct impact. When it comes to bringing electricity or gas into the home, when it comes to supplying equipment, there is a direct impact. Most of the complaints made are made because of the remoteness of the contact between the individual consumer and the supplier.
For example, you want a gas cooker, or something has gone wrong with the one you already own. Perhaps you are to have a change-over to natural gas. As has been described already this evening, troubles frequently arise. There is no easy way for the consumer to go straight to someone and say, "This is what I want done". My sister, who lives at Reigate, ran into this difficulty a few years ago. She tried for six months to find a remedy. It was not until I picked up the telephone, got on to the manager and told him who I was that they immediately gave way and the job was done within a week—after six months' delay. This is highly unsatisfactory. But this arose because the man was not residing in Reigate, but somewhere like Worthing. It is necessary to pick up the telephone to get in touch with someone so far away that he knows perfectly well that the ordinary consumer is not going to take a lot of trouble to pursue the matter further. Whereas, if one can go straight to a local manager and it is the responsibility of that local
636
manager to see the job is done, then one proceeds in a far better way.
My Lords, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, said, I am not satisfied so far as individual complaints are concerned. I am not at all satisfied that a National Consumer Council is the way to deal with individual complaints. It is more appropriate that it should deal with general matters. My own feeling is that the individual complaint should be dealt with locally. These are not matters of principle, but rather of common sense in running something. We must do something like this, not only with nationalised industries—although we must do it there—but also with the big private industries, which should be subject to exactly the same type of control.
My Lords, it is now two and a half years since in this House, under the previous Government, the Gas Bill was introduced. The Gas Bill was concerned with the functions of the Gas Board which, m essence, was really the central manufacturing board; as it were, the board which deals with producing the gas and distributing it to the main regions of the country and to the local distribution bodies. This Bill made no provision for dealing with accidents. I moved an Amendment which was not accepted. I maintained at the time that this Amendment was essential to the interest of the consumers—"consumers" being everyone. I felt that any explosion that took place in a street or outside the premises of the individual, where it is separately dealt with, was the responsibility of the Gas Board. I maintained this to be the case.
Whether it is a private industry or a national one, it is not right that any failure that occurs inside its system should then be thrown upon the individual who is the unfortunate sufferer. If he happens to be driving a car in the street and a gas main explodes, he suffers serious damage. Under the present law he alone has to carry the responsibility. It was said, of course, that he ought to insure against it, but the average person, the pedestrian, does not go round insuring against every possibility of that sort. I think it is essentially something that should be carried by the Gas Board. In the same way, when the chemical industry distributes highly dangerous chemicals around the country, as they do, they ought to be governed by very strict rules, but they are

637
not. They ought also to be responsible for any damage caused by any accident in transport. It seems to me that in these matters we must put the responsibility directly upon the manufacturer, the producer.
I believe that if we do this we move more steadily towards the ideal; that is, that we are running the country, we are running our industry, we are running everything for the benefit of the ordinary person in the country. Of course, there is a corollary—and I again speak as a Socialist—and that is that we will never achieve this so long as we have disparities of income. It is only when people are equal, not only in a nominal sense before the law, but strictly, that we then reach the point where men matter. If I may remind your Lordships of the words of Goldsmith :
"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates, and men decay."
6.52 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I must first apologise very sincerely that I was not able to be present at the beginning of the debate, and I apologise particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, whose speech I much regret having missed. If I may say so without being pompous about it, I was engaged on a public duty which had been fixed long before I knew the date of this debate. I think it is a little sad that, although the hour is late, we have so small a gathering in the House tonight. As I see it, we are dealing with a matter which is central to our ills at the present time, which reflects and is indeed the product of deep-rooted ills in our society.
May I point to two particular facets of this. We have forgotten, I think, in many parts of the country and in many sections of society that work, after all, is valuable only because somebody wants to have it done; in other words, that all work acquires its value because there is a consumer at the end to be satisfied. Listening as one does to so many discussions on these matters of work and the rewards of work, one would think that the consumer was an unfortunate necessity at the end of the line who must be expected to put up with whatever product of work is put in front of him—and that, indeed, is to put the cart seriously before the horse.
The other facet is the extent to which as one of our central problems we are
638
today the victims of monopoly, monopoly among employing groups; monopoly in nationalised industries; monopoly of power within great trade unions. If we could deal effectively with this problem of monopoly, and if we could remind ourselves and act in the light of the fact that work is valuable only because there is a consumer, then we would begin to recover from the malaise, the difficulties in which we find ourselves. May I say that it is not surprising to find a member of my Party attacking monopoly wherever it is found. Reference has been made to the attacks on monopoly by the other Parties, but I think your Lordships will forgive me if I say that the Liberal Party was in hue and cry against the monopolists long before there were converts from either of the other two Parties in this particular battle.
How can we tackle this problem of monopoly in relation to the consumer? I think what has happened here is what has happened so often, that society has changed and the problems of society have grown, but the institutions of society have not kept pace and have not been reshaped to match society's new needs. That is really what we are talking about tonight. I believe that there are two ways—maybe there are many others, but I believe two important ways—in which the consumer needs protection and for which we need institutional changes if this protection is to be made effective.
I am very much in sympathy with the line of argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot. I know that a great deal of extremely praiseworthy effort goes into consumer councils. I know that a great deal of money and support is given—at any rate lip service is paid—to the existence of these councils. But they suffer from a fatal flaw. They have no real power base and, as the noble Baroness said, the consumer is not represented when the real decisions are being taken. It really is not much good being the people who criticise from outside the territory in which the essential decisions are taken. You have to be in on the decisions, and you have to be in with a rightful place and have your legitimate interest counting equally with the other interests when the decisions are being taken. You can do something afterwards, but it is totally different to be looking at the problems after the decisions have

639
been made, after opinions have been formed, to be bringing forward your criticisms from outside and without any real position of power with which to act. So I am gravely doubtful whether strengthening the consumer councils as they exist at present is really going to deal with these issues, or that we realise how important it is to solve this problem if we are satisfied to leave it in this way.
This applies to the private sector, but it applies particularly to the public sector, because in our wisdom or unwisdom we nationalised those sectors of industry which were of the greatest importance to the ordinary consumer—transport, heat, power. These are matters of prime concern. In nationalising them and creating them into powerful public monopolies, we removed from the consumer the power, which, after all, he always had outside the monopoly part of the private sector, of voting with his feet. There is nowhere you can go if you find it intolerable to travel on the Underground or the London bus. There is nowhere you can go if you find you get intolerable service, as sometimes you do, from the Post Office. There is no option.
That is why we need to change not merely the way in which the consumer councils are constructed, but to change the way in which the decisions are taken inside these powerful monopoly public concerns. There is much talk of change in the shape of the company, in the way in which enterprise is to be controlled in the future. We have had the Fifth Directive from Europe talking about the supervisory board. I believe that we shall move towards very important changes in this area—whether along the lines suggested by the Fifth Directive I do not know, but changes I am sure there will be. If these changes are to be for the good, then it is highly desirable that we should experiment. I should like to suggest that we take one of these important public monopolies and experiment with the idea of a supervisory board with tripartite representation—representation from the Government, from the trades unions, and from the consumers—so that the consumers would be there arguing it out with Government representatives and with the trade unions when the decisions are being taken. I believe that we should learn a great deal from this; we should learn a great deal about how to protect
640
the consumer. We might at the same time learn a great deal which would be very useful for the reorganisation of the control of industry that is undoubtedly coming.
There is a second way in which I should like to see institutional changes which could really assist the consumer in having an effective say in what goes on. If we worked through the tripartite supervisory board, this would deal with the big issues of policy; but it is not only the big issues of policy on which the consumer needs to be taken into account. There are practices and standards that the consumer ought to be able to require, and, incidentally, for which he ought to have redress if those standards were not met. At present, if a public authority fails to deliver the goods, in many ways it is extremely difficult to get any redress. There are certain circumstances in which you can, but on the whole you have to put up with the service, good, bad or indifferent, and there is very little hope that you will be able to have any come-back.
I should like to see methods developed by which consumer representatives have the opportunity to be involved in the working out of standards. I speak here, and declare an interest, as President of the British Standards Institution where, in the working out of standards, they have developed schemes, which are operating, whereby the consumers sit on the committees working out standards and drawing agreements for standards with the producers and suppliers. Therefore, when those standards are being determined, the consumers at that point are actually taking part. They do not wait until the standards have been set, and then come back in.
For example, standards are being set in such important matters as safety. If you pay enough, you can probably get absolute safety, but it is of great importance that the consumers are able to say: "All right, it is perhaps worth a 5 per cent. risk to modify the cost to that extent, but not a 10 per cent. risk. We are prepared to pay that much, and no more." The point is that in the procedures that have been developed and are working in the BSI, the consumers are there with the producers, with the other interests, having their say when the standards are being set. These are just two suggestions of

641
ways in which the consumer interest can get inside the boundaries, and not be always just talking to the powers and people, employers and trade unions, who are in fact making all the decisions that really matter. Of course they are polite to the consumers, but it is not politeness that consumers want, it is power.
7.4 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, before my noble friend winds up the debate, I should like to reply briefly to some of the questions addressed to the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, questioned the two days a week to be spent by the Chairman of the National Consumers' Council. In a reply yesterday at the Press conference, he said that this would be flexible and that in the early stages he expected to have to spend much more than two days until the Council was established. One comment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, shows that there has been some confusion as to dates. The 1st February is the date when the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection takes over the responsibility for the appointments in the nationalised industries' consumer councils, but it is not the date when the National Consumers' Council will be established.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I had intended to imply that. I am sorry if I misled the House.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the only date we have for that was given at the Press conference yesterday. In answer to a question, the Secretary of State said that she hoped the National Consumers' Council would be established by early April. I suspect she meant that by then she would have made all the appointments. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, raised the question whether the chairman of the consumer council in a particular nationalised industry should also be chairman of the board of management.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, with great respect, not chairman of the board but a member of the board.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this is a matter on which there is a great difference of opinion. We have tried both methods, and in the discussions that have taken place up to date there has been an almost equal division of opinion as to whether or
642
not it is a good thing. Those who are opposed to it believe that the chairman of the consumer council would lose some independence by being a member of the board of management control. It will be quite within the remit of the National Consumers' Council to give consideration to that when it makes its review of consumer councils in the nationalised industries.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was critical of the duty free prices. I have a lot of sympathy with him there. The fact is that the Airports Authority has to find its income from somewhere. It feels that it is justified in encouraging the licensees of sites to take what the market will bear for their exports, and to fix its rents accordingly. It points out that if it did not adopt that policy it would have to increase airport fees of one kind or another. The service has to be paid for in some way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, asked four questions; first, the question why the National Consumers' Council should not be concerned with information to consumers. Here we are trying to avoid duplication. We are not divorcing the Council entirely from information, but we do not want to duplicate the work of other authorities that have both the statutory power and the facilities for publication. You need both statutory power and facilities, and they have both. For example, the Office of Fair Trading has the statutory power as well as the facilities, which of course includes legal advice. The National Consumers' Council will be able to recommend that consumers should be informed about this and that, and it will be for the other media to deal with the publication, so that the Council will not be divorced entirely from publication. We are trying to avoid duplication.
As to the Council not taking up individual complaints, here again we wish to avoid duplication. I must point out that we made it clear in paragraph 11 of the White Paper that the Council would not itself handle individual consumers' com-plaints and cases. There are plenty of bodies which handle individual cases. What is needed is a co-ordinating and rationalising body, and this is to be the function of the Council. The next point was that the Council will be confined to protection within the law. We dealt with

643
this point in paragraph 7(a) of the White Paper, which lists among the Council's functions making representations on the law and on proposed legislation. The Council are free to propose new laws and new ways of enforcing laws. I tried to make that clear in my initial statement, but apparently I failed.
On the question of the independence of the national industries' consumer councils, they will continue to be completely independent. In paragraph 12 of the White Paper, we make it clear that it is not intended that the new Council will either supersede or duplicate the work of these councils. The whole exercise has been one to avoid unnecessary duplication and, obviously, to save expense so far as possible. I have covered the principal points raised, and I hope that my remarks have been helpful.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, sits down, may I remind him of my request, which I think was generally popular, that there should be some expedition, when the Second Report of the Law Commissioners on exclusion clauses is available, in extracting from it the material which is necessary for introducing a Bill on the Supply of Services (Implied Terms) to match the Act on the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) which we already have? It may be that there are channels through which the Report itself can be expedited, but I do not know. But will the noble Lord assure us of early action once it is with us?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to that request. I think she may have the necessary bark.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, will the noble Lord also give me some reply in writing about the rate support grant circular, in which we are told to defer the local consumer advice centres? This is important. I do not expect the information now, but if the Minister could let me have some answer in writing I should be happy.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think I should prefer to let the Minister answer that question. My answer might not be in accordance with Government policy. I do not know. But, quite bluntly, the
644
economic position is such that I would save every damn thing I could, including advice centres.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, we have had a most excellent debate. I think we are all agreed on that. So far as I am concerned—and I think all of us—it has been a completely non-Party debate, and this is a non-Party matter. Without mentioning the name, I know of one speaker today who was due to fly off on holiday yesterday, and who, at great inconvenience, deferred that flight to speak in the debate today. I will not even say whether it was "he" or "she", so that the sex will not be known. But I think we have had a very good debate. It came at a most apposite time and I do not think it is necessary to ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, about his intentions, because I am sure he will be reporting to his right honourable friend and to Mr. Young on this debate. I hope he will give them both a copy of our Hansard. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
  RATES AND SEWERAGE SERVICES
  RATES AND SEWERAGE SERVICES
  LAY JUSTICES: CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
  LAY JUSTICES: CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
  COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS
  COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS
  CHURCHES AND STATE AID
  CHURCHES AND STATE AID
  AFRICAN AND MALAGASY ASSOCIATED STATES: VISITORS
  AFRICAN AND MALAGASY ASSOCIATED STATES: VISITORS
  SEYCHELLES ISLANDS
  SEYCHELLES ISLANDS
  NORTHERN IRELAND SECURITY FORCES: COST OF TRAINING
  NORTHERN IRELAND SECURITY FORCES: COST OF TRAINING
  NORTHERN IRELAND: COST OF UDR AND RUC
  NORTHERN IRELAND: COST OF UDR AND RUC
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UDR RESIGNATIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UDR RESIGNATIONS