Blog

Jim Callaghan – 1978 Statement on Industrial Democracy

Below is the text of the statement made by Jim Callaghan, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 23 May 1978.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the White Paper on Industrial Democracy to be presented to Parliament this afternoon. Copies of the White Paper are in the Vote Office.

The Government have now completed wide-ranging consultations on the report of Lord Bullock’s Committee of Inquiry. It has not been possible to reach agreement between those principally concerned and the Government accordingly submit their own proposals.

The basis of the White Paper is that employees at every level in companies and nationalised industries like their counterparts in some other advanced industrial countries, should have a real share in the decisions within their enterprise which affect their working lives. The objective is positive partnership rather than defensive coexistence. This shared responsibility should bring improved industrial relations and increase the efficiency of British industry.

The Government’s intention is that this objective should be secured, wherever possible, by voluntary agreement between employers and representatives of employees. It is not the purpose to impose a standard pattern of participation on industry by law. Employers and employees will be encouraged to devise arrangements best suited to their own circumstances.

However, where agreement proves impossible, employees will be able to claim certain statutory rights and the Government will introduce legislation to that end.

The White Paper proposes that employees in companies employing 500 or more people in the United Kingdom should have a statutory right to have all major proposals of the company affecting them discussed with their representatives before decisions are taken. These discussions would include such matters as investment plans, mergers, takeovers, expansion or contraction of establishments and major organisational changes. This right should be vested in a joint representation committee. The committee would be composed of representatives of trade unions who are employees of the company and discussions will take place with this committee.

The Government’s consultations show that in some cases arrangements on these lines will be as far as employees will wish to go in taking part in the affairs of the enterprise.

But in many cases there will be a wish to go further and for representatives of employees to be appointed to company boards. If this cannot be achieved by voluntary agreement, the Government propose that employees in companies employing 2,000 or more people in the United Kingdom should be able, if they wish, to claim a statutory right to appoint, as a reasonable first step, up to one-third of the directors on the policy board of a new two-tier board structure. This right would be initiated by a request to the company from the joint representation committee and would be invoked after a ballot of all the company’s employees to decide whether they wanted to be represented on the policy board.

Company law would be amended to provide for the option of a two-tier board system where the company prefers. Where there is agreement, the right to board representation can be on the existing unitary boards. The White Paper proposes that there should be a period of three or four years experience from the date of establishment of the joint representation committee before this statutory right comes into operation. The introduction of industrial democracy will be a developing process and the Government do not exclude parity of representation as an ultimate outcome.
The Government are convinced that trade unionists have an essential role to play in industrial democracy. But the White Paper recognises that the responsibilities to be given to trade unions for the appointment of employee representatives on the boards will need further discussion. The Government will reach a decision on this matter after further consultations.

The Government will continue to encourage the development of industrial democracy at all levels in the nationalised industries. Chairmen of nationalised industries have been asked to consult unions and to put forward proposals by August 1978. When legislation is introduced, it will give employees in nationalised industries the right to representation on boards, where it is desired.

In the public service, accountability of Ministers to Parliament and Parliament to the electorate must not be eroded. Similar considerations apply in local government. But, subject to this principle and the need to safeguard the interests of the community as a whole, the Government want employees and their representatives in the public services to be given all possible opportunities to contribute their views on matters affecting their legitimate interests.

The Bullock Committee proposed the establishment of an industrial democracy commission to provide advice on the implementation of industrial democracy. The Government are disposed to accept this recommendation, but are ready to consult further about it.

The direct involvement in overall company policies will require employee representatives to have a knowledge of business, finance, management and other subjects. Training for board members in these matters will be essential. No doubt much will be undertaken within the organisation itself, but it is also proposed that training should take place in residential or non-residential colleges and other institutions. Public finance will be needed to assist this.

The Government believe that these proposals will enable employees and managements to achieve real co-operation by sharing responsibility for the future prosperity of the companies in which they work. Both our economy and our democracy can benefit greatly. The Government will continue to consult widely so as to achieve the greatest possible agreement on the legislation that will be laid before the House.

Mrs. Thatcher

First, I thank the Prime Minister for his courtesy in letting me have an advance copy of the White Paper this morning.

Is he aware that the Opposition welcome proposals which will lead to greater involvement by the whole work force and note that these proposals seem to be very different from the Bullock version, and rightly so?

I should like to put four questions to the Prime Minister. First, will all employees, whether trade union members or not, have an equal chance to participate in the processes of consultation? Secondly, will independent unions not affiliated to the TUC be equally treated with those which are? Thirdly, will it be right to assume that any statutory rights to be created will apply equally to the whole work force, or will there be discrimination against those who are not members of unions?

Finally, what provision will be made to cover the special and vital role of those employees in junior and middle management? The Prime Minister will be aware that a number of them have felt demoralised because they are not involved as much as they might be. He will note that in the German scheme they are not bypassed. There is a special place for them. What special provision will be made for junior and middle management in participation?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Lady is basically concerned with employees who are not members of trade unions. I shall seek to deal with those questions, because this has been a difficult matter. It is our intention and desire that all employees should take part in any ballot to decide whether the scheme for electing directors should take place—in other words, whether the scheme should be initiated. That seems important. It is also important that worker directors and, indeed, the joint representation committees should be drawn from employees of the company.

I come now to the particular points made by the right hon. Lady. First, all employees can be involved in consultation.

Whether the joint representation committee will include them will be a matter for discussion, because clearly the statute will not be able to cover that aspect. [HON. MEMBERS: “Why not?”] I shall explain that in detail when the legislation comes along. But there will be nothing to prevent the company from setting up parallel discussions with employees who are not members of trade unions if they are unable to get agreement through the joint representation committees. That seems to be the best way of achieving that result.

It is certainly not intended that unions not affiliated to the Trades Union Congress should be excluded from the joint representation committees.

As regards statutory rights, the system of parallel representation can apply. I think that it will have to be parallel representation. Otherwise, we may never get it going.

Finally, there must be further discussion about junior and middle management. There are a number of issues on which we need to have further discussion, because clearly they have as much concern about the future welfare of the companies in which they work as anyone else. To that extent, we should like to see provision made for them.

In conclusion—it is not in conclusion; I hope that it is the start of a long and important debate that could have a profound effect on the efficiency of British industry—one thing which we must have, of which I have been very conscious, is our own system of industrial organisation through trade unions. It is not like that of the Germans or of other countries. Therefore, although we want to make the trade unions in the companies the prior means of consultation and discussion, we do not want to exclude, and certainly no legislation would exclude, employees outside the trade unions. The legislation would have to be framed accordingly.

April 4, 2020
Edward Rowlands – 1978 Statement on British Subjects in Zaire

Below is the text of the statement made by Edward Rowlands, the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 22 May 1978.

I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on British citizens in Zaire.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs informed the House on 16th May about the situation of British citizens in Zaire.

I now have to tell the House with very deep regret that five British subjects must now be presumed to have been killed in the appalling atrocities which have taken place in Kolwezi in the past few days. An RAF officer, who was sent there yesterday as soon as the first information about British loss of life was received, has reported that he has firmly established the deaths of three of those concerned. We shall make every effort to confirm the position over the remaining two reported British victims as quickly as possible.

The remaining 19 United Kingdom citizens who were known to have been in Kolwezi are now safely accounted for. Some have already been evacuated to Europe and others are still in Zaire. The British Embassy at Kinshasa is doing everything it can to help. It has not, in the event, been necessary to use two British Army medical teams which were sent.

I am sure that the House will join with me in expressing deep sympathy to the families of those who have been so wantonly killed in these tragic events, as well as to all those of every nationality who have suffered in this terrible ordeal.

April 4, 2020
Hamish Watt – 1978 Speech on Drift Net Fishing

Below is the text of the speech made by Hamish Watt, the then SNP MP for Banff, in the House of Commons on 19 May 1978.

I note that the Minister who is to reply to the debate comes from the West of Scotland. I come from the North-East of Scotland. The matter that we are debating is entirely Scottish. There must be a message there for someone.

I welcome the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House and to the public at large the continuing and, inded, what is worse, the intensifying of the ban on the drift netting for salmon off the Scottish coast.

This ban was imposed on the fishermen of Scotland, all of whom at that time operated small boats of about 40 feet, in 1962. That measure which went quickly through the House, was described by Sir William Duthie, who was my predecessor but one as the Member of Parliament for Banff, as the worst piece of class legislation that ever went through Parliament. Sir William found it necessary to resign from the Tory Party in protest at the time. Since then, these fishermen have still been denied the opportunity to get a fair share of the catch of salmon which yearly return from their feeding grounds in the North Atlantic and which swim around the coast of Scotland seeking to return to their river of origin.

Let me make it clear at the outset that it is in everyone’s interest to ensure that the salmon cycle continues in perpetuity and that there is no desire on the part of anyone in Scotland to seek to damage the salmon stocks. Scotland’s fishermen have proved beyond doubt that they are the most responsible fishermen in the whole of the North Sea. They adopt conservation measures whenever any stock is in danger. The salmon is in no danger and the huge catches in recent years by the bag net and drag net operators surely prove this to be the case. The fishermen of Scotland are seeking only a reasonable share of the catch of the salmon that swim within three miles of the shore.

At present, because of the ban which was so unfairly imposed by a Tory Government in 1962, only two sets of people can get an opportunity to catch salmon. First are the riparian owners—individuals, trusts, or companies who believe that because they happen to own land on the banks of a river they have also some God-given right to dictate to other people how they should or should not conduct their business. No one is suggesting at this stage that salmon swimming in the rivers within the banks on their land do not belong to them. But in passing I should like to say that I am somewhat amused to find that the law says that these landowners may not take water from the river, but they claim that the fish that swim in the river are all theirs. I shall let that fly stick to the wall at the moment.

The second group of people who have the right to catch salmon are those operators who net the salmon at the mouth of the rivers as these salmon pass from salt water into fresh water. At present, these net operators totally close the mouth of the river for six days of the week, and the salmon have only about 24 hours out of the seven days in which they can run the gauntlet of the nets and reach the river.

The Minister knows better than I of the vast profits that have been made in four of the past five years by these salmon fishers. In some cases the lease to such fishing has become virtually a licence to print money. There are very few operators who would not gladly concede one day of the week so that the salmon could have 48 hours, or preferably 54 hours, in which to reach the lower reaches of their parent river. If this were to be the case and the mouth of the river were to be opened that bit longer, there would be salmon for everyone.

Everyone is well aware of the tremendous lobby that riparian owners, anglers and netting operators have, especially in the House, and of the continual shout that goes up whenever salmon angling is poor. But the fact that salmon are not rising to the angler does not mean that the salmon are not in the river. As the salmon do not feed at all while they are in the river, the wonder is that they ever rise to a lure at all. If the water level is not right or the weather is not suitable, the angler goes home in a huff blaming everybody but himself for his lack of luck. If that same fisherman came back to the upper tributaries of the main river in the dead of winter he would see salmon lying dead, dying or diseased and would realise the appalling waste of fish that would otherwise have reached the housewife’s table at a reasonable price.

It is in a genuine desire to see that a fair proportion of the fish reach the market at a reasonable price that the sea fishermen round Scotland’s coast want to have the right to fish for salmon under a strict licensing system such as has worked so successfully off the Northumberland coast all these years.

These fishermen are prepared to abide by whatever rules are drawn up and I commend the Northumberland scheme to the Government. The fishermen who have approached me and my colleagues in the SNP claim that they are even prepared to pay a reasonable levy per pound of salmon landed to pay for the stocking of every tributary with salmon fry—young salmon—as a double insurance in case nature has missed one tributary.

These men are further prepared to abide by rules governing the length of nets allocated per man and will abide by a quota placed on the number of salmon to be caught annually. Here they would take advice from scientists. But they are not prepared to abide by the continuation of a grossly unfair ban where two sections of the community, which are backed by high finance, are allowed exclusive access to this one fish stock, while they are totally denied it.

Even more disgraceful has been the action of certain of the riparian owners who virtually take the law into their own hands and promote one of their number to be a bailiff, who takes advantage of unfair laws to seek to act as some kind of Don Quixote and boards fishing vessels at sea and tries to arrest fishermen he suspects of poaching even when no policemen are present. This is a dangerous concept. The Government ought to look into the present situation and search their own conscience whether they wish to perpetuate this grossly unfair ban, which is in essence one law for the rich and another for the poor Is the Minister so proud of a situation where his Government, so-called Socialist Government, back the action of a self-confessed Fascist who believes that Adolf Hitler was right?

I would appreciate it if the Minister in his reply will tell the people of Scotland just how far he is prepared to go in backing the action of the dangerous gentleman with the double-barrelled name. Will he also tell the House how much public money was spent last year in trying to catch men whom he chooses to call poachers?

Everyone has heard of the unacceptable face of capitalism, but surely that face was at its ugliest in 1962 when this unfair and unrighteous ban was passed by the House. There was no real evidence that drift netting had caused a shortage of salmon at that time. Certainly there was disease around at that time.

How can anyone justify the claim that a drift net is a deadly weapon? These nets hang a maximum of three fathoms deep and fish can surely get round, under or over the nets if they choose. Drift netting can be carried out only in favourable weather. It can never be as deadly efficient as the sweep nets which are used in the rivers so that no salmon can pass them.

If there is a scarcity of salmon, why have the Minister and his colleagues never taken steps to regulate or monitor properly the actions of these net operators? Why is it that the Minister’s counterparts in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England, who have jurisdiction over the coasts of England, have never sought to impose such a ban in England? The Minister knows and should admit that the method of licensing small boats administered by the Northumberland fisheries committee works well, fairly and equitably. I do not blame Scottish fishermen for seeking parity with their near neighbours. They are also seeking parity with their partners in the EEC.

Surely the Minister sees that there is no legitimate ground for continuing this grossly unfair ban. There have been four Socialist Governments since 1962. Is it not time that we began to see the social face of Socialism? Surely it is time to bring an end of this “one law for the rich and another for the poor” syndrome.

Scottish fishermen are no longer prepared to be treated as second-class citizens. There has been increasing evidence of that in recent months. Some small boat operators have been driven to defy this unfair ban because of the shortage of other species of fish.

The Government must give strong evidence to justify the continuance of the ban and impose it equally throughout Britain. Indeed, they should attempt to impose it throughout the EEC. The fishermen of Scotland regard the ban as a fundamental denial of basic human rights. They request—indeed they demand—its immediate withdrawal.

April 4, 2020
Angela Rayner – 2020 Statement After Becoming Labour Deputy Leader

Below is the text of the statement made by Angela Rayner, the new deputy leader of the Labour Party, on 4 April 2020.

I want to thank everyone who took part in this election, and all those who have supported me through the campaign. I promise that I will do everything I can to repay your trust.

Things have dramatically changed in our country in recent months but our values remain the same, and more important than ever.

Those are the values we will reflect in our actions as an opposition and a movement – standing up for our public services, for our workers and carers, and for a society in which people work together and look after one another.

Together, we must rebuild and reconnect with communities right across Britain who need our support now, more than ever before.

I know we face a long and difficult road ahead but we must unite, both in the face of this crisis and to offer the better future that the citizens of our country deserve.

I also want to offer my congratulations to Keir. This was a long campaign and by the end one conducted in extraordinary circumstances. The hard work begins today, and Keir will have my full support in both getting Labour on the path back to government and in being a voice for those who need us during this national crisis.

We must make sure the government delivers on its promises, and acts faster to provide the protection frontline workers need.

April 4, 2020
Keir Starmer – 2020 Statement After Becoming Labour Leader

Below is the text of the statement made by Keir Starmer, the new leader of the Labour Party, on 4 April 2020.

It is the honour and the privilege of my life to be elected as leader of the Labour Party. It comes at a moment like none other in our lifetime.

Coronavirus has brought normal life to a halt. Our cities, our towns and our villages are silent, our roads deserted. Public life has all but come to a standstill and we’re missing each other.

People are frightened by the strangeness, anxious about what will happen next. And we have to remember that every number is a family shaken to its foundation.

Unable even to carry out the most poignant of ceremonies, a funeral, in the way that they would like. It reminds us of how precious life is, but also how fragile.

It reminds us of what really matters, our family, our friends, our relationships. The love we have for one another. Our health.

Our connections with those that we don’t know. A greeting from a stranger, a kind word from a neighbour. These make up society. They remind us that we share our lives together. We have to trust one another and look after one another.

And I can see this happening, people coming together to help the isolated and the vulnerable, checking on their neighbours.

So many volunteering for the NHS, millions of people doing their bit to stop this virus and to save lives.

Our willingness to come together like this as a nation has been lying dormant for too long. When millions of us stepped out onto our doorsteps to applaud the carers visibly moved there was hope of a better future. In times like this, we need good government, a government that saves lives and protects our country.

It’s a huge responsibility and whether we voted for this Government or not, we all rely on it to get this right. That’s why in the national interest the Labour Party will play its full part.

Under my leadership we will engage constructively with the Government, not opposition for opposition’s sake. Not scoring party political points or making impossible demands. But with the courage to support where that’s the right thing to do.

But we will test the arguments that are put forward. We will shine a torch on critical issues and where we see mistakes or faltering government or things not happening as quickly as they should we’ll challenge that and call that out.

Our purpose when we do that is the same as the Government’s, to save lives and to protect our country, a shared purpose.

But that is not the only task for the Labour Party. The weeks ahead are going to be really difficult. I fear there are going to be some awful moments for many of us.

But we will get through this. The curve will flatten, the wards will empty, the immediate threat will subside. And we have scientists working on vaccines.

But when we do get through this we cannot go back to business as usual. This virus has exposed the fragility of our society. It’s lifted a curtain.

Too many will have given too much. Some of us will have lost too much. We know in our hearts, things are going to have to change.

We can see so clearly now who the key workers really are.

When we get through this it’ll be because of our NHS staff, our care workers, our ambulance drivers, our emergency services, our cleaners, our porters.

It will be because of the hard work and bravery of every key worker as they took on this virus and kept our country going.

For too long they’ve been taken for granted and poorly paid. They were last and now they should be first.

In their courage and their sacrifice and their bravery, we can see a better future. This crisis has brought out the resilience and human spirit in all of us.

We must go forward with a vision of a better society built on that resilience and built on that human spirit. That will require bravery and change in our party as well.

I want to thank Rebecca and Lisa for running such passionate and powerful campaigns and for their friendship and support along the way.

I want to thank our Labour Party staff who worked really hard and my own amazing campaign team, full of positivity, with that unifying spirit.

I want to pay tribute to Jeremy Corbyn, who led our party through some really difficult times, who energised our movement and who’s a friend as well as a colleague.

And to all of our members, supporters and affiliates I say this: whether you voted for me or not I will represent you, I will listen to you and I will bring our party together.

But we have to face the future with honesty.

Antisemitism has been a stain on our party. I have seen the grief that it’s brought to so many Jewish communities.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I am sorry.

And I will tear out this poison by its roots and judge success by the return of Jewish members and those who felt that they could no longer support us.

The Labour Party is an incredible and powerful force for good.

Together with those that went before us we’ve changed the lives of millions of people for the better.

We created the NHS. We created the welfare state. We passed equalities legislation, the Race Relations Act, we set up the Open University. We built hospitals and schools, established Sure Start and played our part in bringing about peace in Northern Ireland.

But we’ve just lost four elections in a row. We’re failing in our historic purpose.

Be in no doubt I understand the scale of the task, the gravity of the position that we’re in.

We’ve got a mountain to climb.

But we will climb it, and I will do my utmost to reconnect us across the country, to re-engage with our communities and voters, to establish a coalition across our towns and our cities and our regions with all creeds and communities to speak for the whole of the country.

Where that requires change, we will change. Where that requires us to rethink, we will rethink.

Our mission has to be to restore trust in our party as a force for good and a force for change.

This is my pledge to the British people. I will do my utmost to guide us through these difficult times, to serve all of our communities and to strive for the good of our country.

I will lead this great party into a new era, with confidence and with hope.

So that when the time comes, we can serve our country again in government.

April 4, 2020
Jim Prior – 1978 Speech on the Newspaper Industry

Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Prior, the then Conservative MP for Lowestoft, in the House of Commons on 18 May 1978.

The subject of debate today is “Industrial relations in the newspaper industry”. I think that it points to the wisdom of the Opposition that they have tabled this matter for debate on a Supply Day. This is emphasised by the spate of comment in the national Press and on radio and television since the announcement was made last week. I believe that the problems go much wider than simply those that beset Fleet Street, although I suspect that a large part of this debate will concentrate on Fleet Street’s problems.

The loss of papers in 1976 amounted to 72 million and in 1977 to 101 million. In the first three months of this year we lost 32 million copies of national daily and Sunday papers, and in the first four months of this year we lost 60 million.
This is not only a problem for the capitalist Press, because I was interested to see that Tribune, in its special May Day edition, when it was hoping above all to be able to print large numbers of May Day greetings messages, found itself facing production difficulties. A notice in Tribune said:

“We very much regret that because of production difficulties at our printers, over which we have no control, this week’s special May Day issue has to be severely curtailed.”

This is a fairly widespread problem and is obviously a serious situation for the country. It is a situation that was unheard of a few years ago. It has always been one of the acceptable facts of British life that the papers were there on the breakfast table and that one could always rely on getting the paper of one’s choice early in the morning. It is only in the last few years that people have come to realise that they now do not know whether they will receive their paper. Therefore, it is right that the House should debate this subject today. I believe that it should be a considered debate and that we should try to reach the maximum degree of agreement in all parts of the House.

I begin by quoting something that the Leader of the House said in 1974 when he was Secretary of State for Employment. He said:

“I agree that disputes which lead to frequent and persistent stoppages in the newspaper industry have a special significance, in the sense that they touch upon the free flow of opinion. If such disputes were to persist in the way that some people forecast, they could drain away the life blood of democracy in this country.”—[Official Report, 21st November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1531.]

That was said nearly four years ago, and the situation today is certainly a good deal more serious than it was then.
There is the whole question of the financial loss of those who work in the industry. There is a loss of the profits which could be put into new investment by management and companies and there is a loss of pay which could, in certain circumstances, have gone to the people who works in the industry. Secondly, there have been considerable losses for the wholesale and retail newsagents, commonly called the CTNs—confectionery, tobacco and newsagents. These have been going out of business, not entirely for these reasons but partly because of them, at the rate of about 200 a week. Their numbers in the past four to five years have fallen from around 34,000 to about 27,000.

The people who run those shops are important in our society. They open their shops at all hours of the day or night and they perform an extraordinarily useful service to the community. We must try in every way we can to help them run their businesses. They have made strong representations to me and, I have no doubt, to all hon. Members. There is an employment factor involved here, because if the CTNs go out of business at the present rate we shall be adding even further to our unemployment problems. That is something of which we must not lose sight.

There are also many implications for advertising. I have received a number of complaints over the past few days about the effect that the uncertainty over the printing of newspapers has on the whole advertising industry. It is a lucky thing that at the moment the television companies are fairly full of advertising, otherwise, national newspapers would be suffering a great deal more than they are. The newspapers are suffering, and this in itself has a considerable effect on industry and commerce. If a company cannot plan an advertising campaign with the launching of a new product and be certain that the advertising will be available at the right time, this disrupts the selling of the new product and means that companies tend to go to the medium with which they can be certain of getting advertising space.

The position is even more damaging than that. People from overseas who have looked at this country and admired not only our free Press but the miraculous way in which we have distributed our newspapers over a long time see the present situation and regard it as symptomatic of our malaise. By inference, that damages the reputation of our country and its ability to compete. For all these reasons, it is right that we should debate this subject.

There is no shortage of analyses of the problems. Most of the problems are familiar. A leading trade unionist said to me this week “Fleet Street is in a mess because both sides have made it so. Bad management has been chiefly responsible, but the unions have lost control at national level and union leaders have been stripped of their authority.” I put that statement to a leading manager in Fleet Street and he agreed with every word of it. This is not a situation in which we can say that there is a lack of analysis or diagnosis of the problem.

Is the present situation inevitable? Is it getting worse? Where will it end? I do not believe that the current position is inevitable. Other industries facing technological change are doing so without the trauma affecting Fleet Street. What is more—and we must be clear on this point—a lot of people are having to accept technological change who are a lot worse off and who have been offered much worse compensation than some of ‘the Fleet Street printers.

I do not believe that it is inevitable that we should have got into this situation. Is the current position getting worse? I think that for the moment it is. It is getting worse because, perhaps, management is at last starting to stand firm. Trade union leaders, trade unionists and Labour Members who know about this subject will know how important it is that when management has made a decision it should stick to it. I have had a good deal of evidence this week from trade union leaders to the effect that nothing has undermined their position so much as managers saying that they will do one thing and, 24 or 48 hours later, when they were frightened about losing circulation to some other newspaper, changing their mind and undercutting the position which the union leadership was trying to take in support of management.

When I say that the situation is getting worse and that we are losing a larger number of papers because management is starting to stand firm, I must make another point. One of the circumstances of union ill discipline has been the changing pattern of newspaper ownership. About 20 years ago newspapers were small companies run by private individuals, and even if a publicly owned company was involved it was usually narrowly based on newspapers and treated by the newspaper proprietors as a private company. Now, individual companies have been steadily eliminated. Kemsley, Cadbury, Aitken and Astor have gone and, instead, newspapers are small parts of large, in some cases multinational, companies. There are Trafalgar House, Atlantic Richfield, the Thomson Organisation, Reeds, Pearson and so on.

Because of the nature of control and because of the wealth of the parent companies, the top boards are not concerned so much either about ownership of newspapers or about the losses that standing up to strikes would involve for them. This will have the effect—it is already having such an effect—of more companies having the financial muscle to resist claims. The most obvious examples of this are The Observer and the Daily Express, where neither David Astor nor Max Aitken had the money to face strikes in the way that perhaps the present management is starting to do. This is an example of where union intransigence has brought its own reaction in terms of more powerful proprietors. Whether this is in the long-term interests of the Press is open to dispute. Whatever might be said about individual proprietors, they knew all about the freedom of the Press. We shall have to wait and see whether the present proprietors know quite so much.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I find it absolutely fascinating that he should develop this vital point of view. Would he not agree that one of the central problems is the fact that in the Fleet Street papers a great number of casuals are employed? The question of casual employment has always bedevilled every industry and has led to serious problems. The people who really want to solve the difficulties in Fleet Street should be thinking seriously about how to get away from casual employment in the industry.

Mr. Prior

This is obviously an important point. The casuals are very much part of the Sunday newspaper scene. They are people who have earned a pretty good screw during the week and want to pick up an extra £50 on a Saturday night by working for the Sundays. This is a general point, too. One of the things that has happened is that people no longer have a loyalty towards their papers. As a result, regrettably, the sort of situation to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has referred tends to occur.

I draw the attention of the House to an extract from an excellent publication entitled “Programme for Action” which deals with the report of a body on which management and union leaders sit. There was full agreement on this report. Referring to the future of the industry and the programme’s package, it says:

“To adopt this package is not therefore to accept the soft option. But rejection of it would result in titles continuing to fail as newspaper economies forced them out of business. The inevitable consequences would be compulsory redundancy with little or no advance warning to workers and unions. No Government aid would be available to workers and unions. New forms of printed communications utilising the new technology, if necessary, printed abroad, could compete more and more successfully with a diminishing range of British national newspapers.”

That is the view of the joint standing committee for the national newspaper industry, which met to consider this problem.

What advice and help should the House give? We all have a deep interest in the maintenance of a competitive free Press, giving a wide choice in political attitudes, analysis of the state of the nation, highbrow or lowbrow, sport or entertainment—the whole gamut. We have a deep interest in all of that. Certainly this “Programme for Action,” drawn up by the joint standing committee, points the way to the solution. I believe that a renewed effort should be made to gain its acceptance. Perhaps an attitude survey of shop-floor reaction, sponsored by management and unions, could show how better to get the message across.

I want to look at the management side for a minute. I believe that the management of newspapers has been subject to less influence in industrial relations than perhaps the editorial columns have exerted on nearly every other interest in the country. I cannot help thinking to myself sometimes that, if only the management of the newspapers had subjected themselves to such editorial advice as we have been subjected to in the House or industry generally has been subjected to on various matters, they might not be in quite the mess that they are.

There are one or two things that one can say. I believe that there is not enough involvement and participation at shop-floor level. There must be more down-the-line personnel involvement. It seems to me that too often when something goes wrong it is to the top man that people go, whereas in industry that sort of thing would not happen. There would be much more managerial content the whole way down the managerial line. There is nothing more damaging in industrial relations—I suppose that we all learn this the hard way—than strong words which are followed by weak action or sometimes by no action at all. That is a lesson that needs to be learnt by management too.

On the union side—

Mr. Robin Corbett (Hemel Hempstead)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prior

Is not the hon. Gentleman going to take part in the debate? If he is, he had better make his own speech.

Union leaders must reassert their undoubted authority. They must use their strength, and, if necessary, they must get together in order to do so. They cannot go on saying, as I think they are inclined to do at present, “We are so fed up with Fleet Street that we’re washing our hands of what happens there”, because it is far too important. What happens in Fleet Street is vital nationally. Therefore, they must take a personal interest in what happens.

I believe that union leaders have adopted a responsible attitude. I do not want to praise them, because if I did so I should do them no good. I think that they have adopted a responsible attitude, but I hope that they will exert all their pressures to make certain that they can achieve the necessary discipline. In this respect, what is absolutely vital is a proper disputes procedure. The disputes procedure laid down on pages 28 and 29 of the “Programme for Action” seems to me vital. It is a first-class document, one which should be followed.

We cannot afford the constant disruptions. I think it is true to say that there has not been an official dispute in Fleet Street for some while. All the disputes have been unofficial.

Next, I want to say a word to the workers and to quote to them words which were said to me the other day: “Unless there is an industry, there is nothing to fight about. If they go as they are at the moment, there will not be anything to fight about.”

The vast majority of printers, as we all know them—we in this House probably know them better than most other people do—are decent people. What we see is the influence of the few being allowed to sway the many. It is not an unusual state of affairs where management has been weak. Those weaknesses can be exploited. There is no point in talking about holding pistols to the heads of these people or anything of that nature.

I have tried to analyse the various problems dispassionately. I hope that a message can go out from the House today that we do not like what is going on. We recognise how damaging it is from the point of view of the industry, those who work in it and a free Press. We expect to see authority restored and common sense prevail. We are telling the industry, all sections of it, to get round the table again and sort it out, and sort it out quickly.

I turn to another matter, which is much more a question for the provincial and magazine Press than for Fleet Street, but is also a matter of considerable concern. I refer to the whole question of the National Union of Journalists and the control it tries to exercise or might try to exercise were it to have a closed shop. I should like to put the matter in this way. One understands the problems of young journalists. One sees that in a number of provincial papers they have been badly paid. They see the much greater pay and much greater strength that perhaps the linotype operators have gathered for themselves, and they say to themselves “If they can do that as a result of a strong union, why can’t we have the same?”

There is no doubt that in many respects a number of journalists in a number of newspapers have been badly paid, and they look to the closed shop as a means of giving them the collective strength that they feel they otherwise lack. I understand that, but there are too many examples now where a closed shop certainly could be used, and would be used, as a means of controlling what was published. In this respect I should like to quote from a leading article in The Times some months ago:

“Rigid application of the closed shop in journalism creates an unacceptable risk of restraint upon liberty. Effective control of what is or is not printed would be put in the hands of a single politically active organisation. The NUJ would be able to decide who wrote for the press and to require its members to write in a particular way on pain of effective exclusion from their trade. The union’s present leaders may be fully determined never to exploit the powers that a closed shop would give them. But the political currents in the union are strong and it is impossible to be certain that the same will always be true.”

That is why we on the Conservative Benches have stated that any Press charter should be firm about the right to join or not to join a union. What has happened to the Press charter? When does the Secretary of State expect to be able to bring a charter before the House?

I now have a further suggestions to make to the right hon. Gentleman. The Government have recently stated—at any rate, they have come out in the Press—the conditions for union membership agreements within certain Civil Service unions. I do not like closed shops, but if one is to have a closed shop the union membership agreement must be drawn in a certain way to give freedom to individuals to decide whether they will pay union dues, pay to a charity or use some other means of paying.

It seems to me that the conditions that the Government are laying down for union membership agreements for their own employees in the Civil Service are perfectly reasonable and suitable for the conditions of a union membership agreement, for example, in the newspaper industry, because it would give that freedom for the individual journalist to decide whether he wished to join a union. If he did not wish to join, he would not be subject to the pressures of discipline which the union might try to exert if he was writing material with which it disagreed.

I believe, therefore, that the Government have another way out of this situation now, not just through the Press charter but through stating that they would support union membership agreements with the sorts of provision that they have discussed themselves and which we have been talking about for some time. That is another thing on which I believe that the Government should now give a lead.

April 3, 2020
Giles Shaw – 1978 Speech on Bread Prices

Below is the text of the speech made by Giles Shaw, the then Conservative MP for Pudsey, in the House of Commons on 18 May 1978.

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of the Bread Prices (No. 2) Order 1976 (Amendment) (No. 5) Order 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 516), dated 31st March 1978, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st March.

We turn from the problems of Fleet Street and industrial relations at a fairly late hour at night to discuss another problem which is in no way related to it, namely, the maximum price orders for bread. We make no apology for seeking to have a debate on this matter. As the House will observe, it is not a Prayer but a motion to take note that we are debating.

There are, we believe, very good reasons why we should set aside a little time to discuss questions concerning the pricing of bread and the methods under which the pricing is currently administered. Let me say at the outset that what we are not debating tonight is a motion which could result in a change in the bread price. This is not a debate to affect prices in the shops, as might be the case if we were to find ourselves asking the Government to tear up the order and reduce the price of bread by 2p, 3p or 4p.

I suspect that hon. Members on each side of the House know full well that there is a substantial gap in the relationship between the maximum price order that we are debating and the prices which are charged for bread in the shops. This has nearly always been the case, so that we have to admit straight away that the maximum price order permits a range of prices in the standard loaf between 28½p and 31½p, according to the area of the country.

We are not debating what the consumer should be charged for bread. We are debating the method by which the Government are using a maximum price order under the Prices Act 1974 to seek to influence that price. The maximum price order has been operating for some time. It came into effect, according to Statutory Instrument No. 516, on 3rd April 1978, so that any views we may seek to express about it now must be essentially retrospective. This is another reason why we are not talking here about suddenly reducing overnight the price of bread in shops.

There are, in my view, important reasons why we should have a discussion about the order and why we should question the wisdom and, indeed, the desirability of orders of this kind. I think it could be reasonably said that they seem to be sadly irrelevant to the real problems of the baking industry and the distribution, the pricing and selling of bread today.

I think it right that I should remind the House of some of the actions which the Government have taken in recent years in the name of affecting the price of bread. There was the initial period of substantial subsidy, followed by the steady withdrawal of subsidy. After that came the maximum price orders, one of which we are now debating. Then we had the imposition of discount controls, which were subsequently removed. Then we had the price check scheme, involving a wide range of household foods. Then we had the implementation of changes in the Price Code. This was admittedly a code which had existed for some time back. The Price Code system was then replaced by the operation of the Prices Commission under the new legislation introduced by the Conservative Government.

There have been frequent investigations by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the operation of the bread industry. It has considered the steadily reducing number of large bakers and whether they were operating within or without the public interest. I doubt whether there is an industry in the country which has been examined by the Commission as frequently as the baking industry.

It is not surprising, therefore, that one could say about bread prices and the baking industry that there has been virtually no agency of the Government, no method of intervention or piece of legislation which involves pricing or regulation which has not been applied at some time, and in some strength, to the operations of the baking industry with particular reference to the price of bread. Our colleagues in the baking industry would say that these various devices which Governments have introduced have been operated with great frequency.

It is not just a matter of taking a quick dip-stick here and there. It is a matter of regularly examining in depth the way in which the industry operates and the prices for bread which it charges to the consumer. It is not surprising that in recent years the baking industry has been in some state of turmoil. It is also not surprising that many of those who work in the industry should feel that the scale of intervention and examination and the number of restraints placed upon the marketing operations for bread have contributed in large measure to the decline of certain sectors of the bread industry and to a general air of lack of confidence in the way in which the industry operates.

As the Monopolies and Mergers Commission pointed out in its report last year, Government interference has played a major part in creating the industry’s present problems. Tonight we are discussing a maximum price order for the 28-ounce loaf which in area 1 involves a recommended price of 28½p. I should correct myself. It is not even a recommended price, it is a statutorily imposed maximum price. No loaf in area I should be sold at a price higher than 28½p. Within the area of variations the scale rises to 31½p in area 4. The standard recommended price, therefore, ranges from 28½p to 31½p. What a far cry that is from the 1974 General Election campaign when there were charges and counter-charges across the hustings of the possibility and threat of the “three bob loaf”. That was the way in which bread prices were talked about in the not-so-distant past. Now we are talking about bread prices reaching a figure double that operating at the time of the 1974 General Election. That reason alone justifies the opportunity to debate the pricing of bread in this House.

A lot of howling took place when the threat of 15p per loaf was suggested. Indeed, from then on the price of bread has escalated rapidly in line with the general rate of inflation and with the hideous increase in costs which manufacturers have incurred. In my view the price of bread has probably for far too long been the talisman by which the cost of living is measured. One can understand that. There has been the old concept of bread being the staff of life. It has been the diet of the English, Scots, Welsh or Irish for so long that it has become a traditional form of measuring the daily diet and the traditional way of describing the impact of prices or costs on the individual family.

On would not deny that bread is an extremely important component in the housewife’s budget. But one of the penalties of being a talisman by which we wish to measure costs or prices in general as they affect the family is that Governments cannot leave the price alone. It has been one of the things which magnetically have attracted them to seek to influence the price, to subsidise it, to stabilise it, to control it, to regulate it or to offer, as we have in this order tonight, a means by which a maximum price, area by area, can be established. Yet, for the most part, in recent times the consumer has not been as besotted with the price of bread as perhaps Governments have. Let us face it—there has been a steady, consistent and long-term trend away from the consumption of bread.

Since the war, the basic consumption has fallen from some 50 ounces per head per week—I make no apology for using the old Imperial measures, which now the Government have blessed—to 30 ounces per head per week. It is estimated that in April 1978, consumption was running at some 3 per cent. below what it was in April 1977. Frankly, there appears to be little expectation that this trend will alter.

Therefore, I think that one can conclude that the days of an increasing bread market are now over and the days in which the consumer was, as it were, wedded to that particular form of nutrient are also over. There is too much competition in processed foods. There are too many other alternatives on offer to consumers in forms and at prices which they find attractive.

Let us not deceive the House. Bread continues to be a very important commodity. But the trend of consumer expenditure and consumption of bread has clearly shifted, and in my view it has probably shifted permanently.

Therefore, consumption has been affected, and therefore, the importance and the capacity of the industry have been affected.

On 8th April there was an article in The Times entitled

“Britain’s shrinking stomach for bread.”

No doubt the Under-Secretary has read it with some care. It contains this sentence:

“If people did not turn back to eating bread in the lean years of economic recession, they are hardly likely to start eating more of it when they have more money in their pockets.”

Therefore, I think that one could turn to the prospects for the bread market and say that it is almost certain that the days of heavy or higher consumption of standard forms of bread will probably not return if what we hope is achieved—namely, an increase in the standard of living, with more money available for expenditure on the whole range of foodstuffs. The consumption pattern has probably moved on and moved down.

However, given that particular climate of how the consumer behaves towards bread, Government policies on price regulations and profit control have been operating in entirely the other direction. In fact, Government policies in this area have been pretty disastrous. Can anyone really deny that if Spillers Company had been earning adequate profits on its baking of bread and bread products, 8,000 jobs would be available today which, alas, are not available, and presumably 14 or more of the 23 plants would now be available for work when they are now threatened with closure?

Surely this is a sad commentary on the ways in which Governments have sought to intervene in the marketing of bread and the profitability of baking, to a point at which one-third of the industry, in terms of the three major plant bakers, has been forced to close. It is a very odd commentary on the Government’s attitude to this problem that the Secretary of State did not see fit to refer a change in the industry’s marketing potential, from three manufacturers to but two manufacturers, to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Obviously, the Secretary of State took the view at the time that what was more important in the general interest, as he saw it, was the preservation of the maximum number of jobs rather than the preservation of optimum variety and availability to the consumer. We must take note that in relation to competition policy, however strident the Secretary of State may be, when it comes to the crunch of decision, his decision clearly lies as it did in the case of sugar refining, in favour of maintaining the optimum number of jobs, even if this means that the consumer is put at risk of a reduced variety and a reduced availability of products. That is something to which we ought to return on another occasion.

However, with the prices charged for bread and the costs incurred in the baking of bread, all of our major United Kingdom bakers are operating at unprofitable levels. Associated British Foods and Rank Hovis McDougal have made no secret of the fact that the baking operations of their groups are unprofitable.

We are debating a maximum price order for the products of an industry in which at this time a year ago there were three major plant bakers. There are now two. That reduction has taken place with the blessing of the Secretary of State. The baking and the production of the product are unprofitable for each of the two remaining plant bakers.

We have to hope that the so-called rationalisation, which is the polite word for what is now happening, will result in an improvement in the utilisation of capacity and in a reduction of overheads per ton of bread produced, which might help profit margins in baking. What we cannot accept is that maximum pricing is a sensible and relevant system of handling a market when the unprofitability of the lines on which we are seeking to impose prices has been so clearly demonstrated and has been taken to such inordinate lengths that major closures have occurred.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

If the hon. Gentleman’s main complaint is the unprofitability of the industry, will he at least mention that wheat imports into the EEC are now bearing a 100 per cent. levy? Is it not natural that if the main raw material of the industry is artificially increased in price by 100 per cent., the industry will become less profitable for that reason?

Mr. Shaw

I think that that is so, but, as the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree, even under the restrictions pertaining now under the Price Commission, the recovery of those raw material prices is admissible by the Price Commission as costs. Under the Price Code, which operated for most of the period under discussion, such recovery was freely admissible.

Mr. Jay

But that would mean passing on the 100 per cent. levy on the import price to the consumer, would it not?

Mr. Shaw

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. The argument that I adduce is that the price of bread has been held down for so long to a level that is clearly unprofitable that there is an inability to recover costs. The consumer has been encouraged to believe that there is a low and acceptable price for bread. That is not so.

Only two policies can emerge from that situation. We either drive people out of work because the industry is operating unprofitably, or we seek to contain prices through subsidy and taxation. The Government have achieved some progress in that latter course—namely, their decision to reduce the subsidy and the level of taxation. However, they still seek to impose some control on the price of bread by means of maximum price orders. That is entirely artificial. It distorts the market for the buying and selling of bread.

It has been long held on the Opposition Benches that, however skilfully we design intervention in the market place in pricing policy, the distortions that we create will inevitably come back in one form or another to rebound to the discredit of those who intervened. It comes back either in the unpalatable form of increased prices or in decreased jobs. It does not seem that there is any other way in which we can adequately have an effect on supply and demand of a product as sensitive as bread to import costs

Mr. Jay

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that at least one of the factors that has produced the distortion is the import levy that is now having to be paid?

Mr. Shaw

The right hon. Gentleman is probably quite right. Import levies have helped to increase the costs that the manufacturers have had to face. However, I do not think there is a food manufacturer who would say now that he would willingly withdraw from the Community. The food industry was totally in favour of entering the Community. It has readily sought to alter its operating practices to compete effectively within the Community. I know of no influence in the bread baking industry, parlous though its state has been, that suggests that it would be materially helped if the industry were to come out of the Community and were to operate outside it.

It may be that we are moving a little far from the maximum price order that we are debating. However, the lesson that I seek to draw has been satisfactorily put. We are talking about an intervention operation that has had a fairly miserable history for the baking industry. The fact that the bread industry is unprofitable today is almost sufficient reason in itself for objecting to the passage of the order.

But there are other reasons why we think it right to have a debate on this issue and to offer the House an opportunity to discuss the system which is used. The use of maximum price orders is a hangover from the Prices Act 1974, which gave power to the Secretary of State to operate maximum pricing for those products—in particular, food products—which enjoyed subsidy. At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) made it clear, with some reluctance I think, that maximum price orders should be accepted for subsidised products. We concede that, where the taxpayer is involved in paying an element in the price in order to restrict it, his contribution should not be pocketed for other purposes and the consumer should have the benefit clearly transferred in terms of a lower maximum price.

Therefore, maximum price orders came about as an integral part of the food subsidy system, and we accept that.

The fact now is that food subsidies have, with one exception, been phased out. Subsidy is no longer paid on bread.

Indeed, the subsidy has not been paid since the spring of last year. Why do the Government seek to continue a regulatory system of maximum pricing for bread when no subsidy is being paid?

I remind the House of the Committee stage of the Prices Act 1975 when the Under-Secretary of State, confirming the position, said:

“The orders under Section 2 are necessary to ensure that the benefit of the subsidies is passed on to retail prices. They will be required so long as any food on which subsidy has been paid is available for retail sale.”

So far, so good. But later the hon. Gentleman went on to say:

“The position, however, on the use of the powers outside the area is that the subsidised food remains the same as it was when the powers were taken last year. It is necessary to have them available for use if required, so that we are in a position to take action if there has been extraordinary inflationary pressure in a particular area. We have no intention at the moment of using the powers other than in the matter of subsidised foods, but we intend them to be kept as a reserve power if necessary to regulate prices in the shops for a limited number of products.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 25th February 1975; c. 224.]

That was the expression of policy that the Under-Secretary of State gave to the Prices Bill Committee in 1975, and that broadly resulted in an extension of the regulatory powers ad infinitum. Indeed, the Secretary of State now has powers for use of the regulation on any foodstuff or, as I interpret it, any other product if he deems it to be right.

Therefore, we must ask the Under-Secretary to tell us why the Government are continuing to operate maximum price orders for bread when the subsidies have been removed. Is he using the regulatory powers which he obtained under the Prices Act 1975, for which, as I see it, there is no closing date? If so, we should have a statement on the Government’s policy on price regulation. If he feels that it is necessary for bread, there is no doubt in my mind that he may feel it necessary for many other products.

The Minister may say that the Government intend to use this regulatory power on foodstuffs or, indeed, on other products or services in this election year as we come up to a decision. The hon. Gentleman owes it to the House, if he wishes to continue with maximum pricing on bread, to explain the policy under which he is operating, because it is clearly no longer related to food subsidy. The first serious question is what is the policy under which the Minister is operating, and why.

The Under-Secretary will argue in the second place that it is necessary for him to have these price regulatory powers in order to control retailers’ profits. This is not an argument that can be adduced. Under the Price Commission’s operation, the retail trade has margin controls which operate at the gross and net levels. There is no way in which one can adduce the necessity for a regulatory price power such as the one we are discussing in order to control retail margins. That is already available under the Price Commission.

It is not just a matter of the way in which we are issuing price orders. There are other aspects of the old subsidy system which are continuing. The retailer has still to keep records of sales, even though there is no subsidy element involved in those sales. Therefore, the small shopkeeper is involved in an administrative load which is unnecessary.

I put it to the Under-Secretary firmly that if he seeks to demonstrate that he recognises the problems of small shopkeepers and traders—or large ones, for that matter—to reduce the administrative burden of an operation such as maximum pricing and the maintenance of records would be simple. He could do it without fear of any consequence to the consumer, but in the knowledge that there would be a lifting of the load that is on the retailer—and that is something sensible and long overdue.

One might argue that a maximum price order was a sensible form of consumer protection. I consider it to be a fatuous form of consumer protection. Originally these orders were all to be displayed, no doubt prominently, in shops. After various altercations with the Opposition on the Prices Bill, the Government eventually very grudgingly agreed that the maximum prices notices may be kept for reference and may be asked to be inspected rather than displayed, though the requirement for display is still in the Act. We now have the alternative of availability of them on request.

The maximum prices notices are of no consumer value. No self-respecting housewife will go into a shop and ask to see the maximum prices order for bread before making her purchase. We have no right to expect her to work in that way. If the notices have no relevance to the consumer, what relevance have they to anybody?

The maintenance of the regulation is in the hands of the hard-pressed weights and measures inspectors or the trading standards officers. They will have the right to ask to see that retailers have these maximum prices orders available on request on their premises. But if we are merely producing orders in the House through the whole panoply of Government machinery in order to allow them to be examined when the occasional trading standards officer calls, we are not making a sensible contribution to the consumer or the retailer of bread. The matter has got out of hand and is ludicrous.

Another reason for objecting to the maximum prices orders is that they get out of date so easily. The order that we are debating, which is order No. 516, is virtually already superseded by order No. 545, which, although it has not been discussed in the House, was laid on 11th April and came into operation on 2nd May.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the numbers that he has quoted are related not to bread orders but to Statutory Instruments made in 1978?

Mr. Shaw

The Statutory Instruments are related to the general parliamentary process, but both orders Nos. 516 and 545 are related to bread prices, as I am sure the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) recognises. The order that was laid before the House on 11th April and came into force on 2nd May relates to the metrication of loaves of bread.

We are bound to ask whether the Minister expects that order to be withdrawn. If the Government are proceeding with an order that, as the explanatory note makes clear, withdraws the prescribed Imperial quantities in which certain whole loaves may be made for sale and replaces them with a net weight of 400 grams or multiples of 400 grams, how is that consistent with the new posture that the Secretary of State has taken up in regard to metrication? I hope that the Under-Secretary can give us a clean, crisp and definitive answer.

It is self-evident that these orders get out of date quickly because prices and costs in the baking of bread continue to rise as general costs rise. Therefore, though there may be a holding of the price for a matter of months, there is no doubt that maximum price orders will have to be reviewed, probably several times a year as the price of a standard loaf will rise. If that is the case, how valuable is the system to the consumer?

We must recognise that for every order there is an administrative cost. Someone somewhere is preparing it, someone is printing it and someone is distributing it. Just how costly is this operation? How much money is tied up from public funds in the administration of such orders? The House would be interested to know.

Without the element of subsidy in the bread price, the orders are nothing more than a disguised form of retail price maintenance. This is a new principle for the Government to adopt. Happily, the competitive nature of the industry is such that much lower prices than the maximum are available to the widest range of consumers, but if we are operating a maximum price system, that at least is a containment of the retail level and if it is an unprofitable level, it is a stupid level at which to contain the price. Again, it seems an absurd way of operating.

I contend that it is no part of sensible Government policy to apply maximum price orders for a whole range of foodstuffs or other goods. Why should bread be singled out in this way? The only reason is that bread is a talisman, has a special place and is a magnetic field in which the Government seek to intervene.

I think that we are discussing merely the tip of the iceberg of bureaucratic incompetence that is handling our affairs. I do not believe that it has any relevance to the consumer or an effective part to play in the Government’s total pricing policy. It is an unnecessary piece of bureaucracy, an irritant to the shopkeeper and another wretched chore to weights and measures and trading standards officers. It should be taken away and torn up. It is a piece of intervention which has long since outlived its usefulness.

We take note of the order because that is the parliamentary parlance, but we take note of it because it is an order that is scarcely worth ignoring.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) addressed the House for 35 minutes in his usual urbane, civil and reasonably pleasant manner—but that is the end of my praise.

The whole of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was oriented around the convenience of the producer and distributor. There were references to the consumer, but the hon. Gentleman claimed that the order had no relevance to the consumer. No doubt the Minister will deal with that claim. I can think of one way in which it could be helpful.

I can imagine someone who lives a long way from a bakery, perhaps in the Highlands of Scotland who, but for a maximum price order such as this, would have to pay a much higher price. I see the hon. Member for Pudsey nodding his head. He did not quote any of the figures in the order. The maximum price for a 28oz. standard wrapped or unwrapped loaf is between 28p and 30½p. I notice that the same sized wholemeal loaf or milk bread has a maximum price in most areas of 36p. I agree that for certain reasons—perhaps good reasons—prices might be below that. We welcome that. But what change will one get out of 50p if one has to pay 36p for a loaf of wholemeal bread?

Bread is now becoming expensive. It ill behoves a party which supported the increase in bread prices when a century ago it was entwined by the Corn Laws to criticise an effort by a Government to keep bread prices down.

Mr. Giles Shaw

I understand the hon. Member’s deep anxiety to associate us with the Corn Laws, which are as relevant to this debate as the other matters that he will raise. He must address himself to a simple proposition: if the costs involved in the baking and distribution of bread go up, would he wish to see the price subsidised through taxation?

Mr. Spearing

We are not dealing with subsidies. I turn to the question of prices. The hon. Member for Pudsey mentioned the 1976 Price Commission report. I refer to table 4 of its 13th report. It shows that in 1976 the bakers paid about £413 million for flour and that the cost of flour was a high proportion of the total baking cost. In Great Britain the cost of flour was 7.3p for a 28oz loaf compared with a total production cost of 15.35p. A more up-to-date figure appears in the figures for September 1977. This shows that flour was 9.24p, out of a 21.21p cost of producing the same loaf.

Unlike many processed foods and other food commodities, the cost of flour is relatively high. This is where we return to the Corn Laws. Flour comes from grain, which, in common parlance, is wheat or corn. The cost of wheat will to some extent determine the cost of flour.

In his desire to deal with the order in his own way the hon. Member for Pudsey omitted one of the great mysteries of the bread market. I hope that the Minister will say something about it. There might be narrow margins and sometimes losses involved in the baking of bread. But we should like to hear about the millers’ margin—the difference between the cost of grain and the equivalent flour, making allowance for the side extractions of germ. Are the millers’ costs reasonable? Do they tie up? Is there, as many people suspect, a great deal of profit made by the millers because of the difference between the costs of grain and flour? That might offset some of the alleged losses involved in baking and distribution. The figures in the Price Commission report unfortunately do not show that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to cast some light on that point—if not tonight, then in due course.

I wish to draw attention to the cost of wheat. The cost of the raw material is a very high proportion of the cost of bread. The hon. Member for Pudsey may laugh off the idea of the Corn Laws, but he and his party, like many other hon. Members, alas, voted for the taxation of imported wheat. Wheat from the rest of the EEC does not bear a tax, but wheat from North America and our other traditional suppliers of bread wheats certainly is taxed. That fact is not as well known as it might be. I put a Question to the Minister of Agricluture on this matter on 19th April. He told me:

“During 1977 1·5 million tonnes of common wheat mainly of breadmaking quality were imported into the United Kingdom from outside the EEC. The value of these imports before payment of levies was £117·6 million. The net revenue derived from import levies on common wheat during the same period was £45·1 million.”

I do not know what the gross revenue was, but the buyers of wheat and, ultimately, the people who consume it paid over £45 million in levies. We may surmise that a very high proportion of that money, if not all of it, went on the cost of bread.

But that is not the end of the story. In past years a very high proportion of bread wheats consisted of American Northern Spring, or its equivalent Australian varieties. Millers were able to add a small proportion of soft British wheats. There is, however, a surplus of wheat in the EEC and it has been found desirable to increase the proportion of soft wheat in bread flour, thus reducing the amount needed to be imported. The resulting flour requires different processes and different mixes and probably adds to the problems of baking and of maintaining quality. But that change does not necessarily decrease the price of the flour. The EEC wheat which is used is much more expensive than the hard wheats that would otherwise be imported.

I hope that the Minister will tell us, broadly, the proportion of EEC wheat as compared with non-EEC wheat used to make bread. If it is half-and-half, it means that we are paying about £90 million a year more than we need to for our bread grain. Perhaps the proportion is less or more than that. But, whatever the proportion, the ultimate additional cost has to be met by the consumer whom the hon. Member for Pudsey pretends to want to help, but in truth does not. If he did he would have mentioned some of the matters I have raised.

I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to confirm the broad outline of the points that I have made, and that if the figures that I have produced are not correct he will send me a letter correcting them because I am sure that this is something that the other hon. Members will wish to follow up and that people who buy and eat bread will want to know the facts.

Not only may we be spending between £40 million and £90 million a year more than we need to on our bread because of the new corn laws voted in by the Conservatives; the EEC is overflowing with wheat. In a Written Answer on 11th May—column 596 of Hansard—the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, told me that in 1975–76 the EEC exported 9 million tonnes of wheat, with a provisional figure of 4½ million tonnes for 1976–77, and that it was having to pay out about £158 million in the process for dumping it on world markets. Not only do we have to pay more in tax for our bread, but some of that tax is apparently going to help to dump wheat on a world market that does not necessarily require it.

I hope that in taking note of this order we shall not only note the high maximum prices—although I welcome the limits, for the reasons that I have mentioned—but that in due course the Government, or the Price Commission, will disgorge the figures that will illustrate just some of the reasons why we are having to pay more.

April 3, 2020
George Thomas – 1978 Statement on Lord Selwyn-Lloyd

Below is the text of the statement made by George Thomas, the then Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 18 May 1978.

Right hon. and hon. Members have learned with deep sorrow of the death of Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, my immediate predecessor as Speaker of this House.

I wish on behalf of all parties and of each and every hon. and right hon. Member to pay tribute to the memory of one of the most outstanding parliamentarians of our generation.

Both in peace and in war, Selwyn Lloyd proved his utter devotion to our country. It fell to him to carry the burden of some of the highest offices of State and he never spared himself in fulfilling his responsibilities. When he became Leader of this House he very quickly earned both the unqualified respect and the abounding affection of hon. and right hon. Members in all parties. He was a doughty fighter for the rights of Back Benchers, and we shall always be in debt to him for the reforms he helped to initiate.

Selwyn Lloyd was a man incapable of malice. He enjoyed the remarkable blessing of never nursing a grudge. His patent integrity and his massive loyalty both to our country and to all with whom he worked marked him out as a man of noble quality. He was always the quintessence of courtesy in his dealings with those with whom he disagreed. His five years as Speaker of this House are fresh in our memory. His compassion, his patience, his humour and his strength of character ensured that he will always have an honoured place as one of the greatest Speakers in our history.

In saluting Selwyn Lloyd’s memory, we thank God for his life of selfless service and extend to his family our heartfelt sympathy in their sorrow.

April 3, 2020
Michael Neubert – 1978 Speech on Litter in London

Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Neubert, the then Conservative MP for Romford, in the House of Commons on 16 May 1978.

Well over 10 million people now come to visit the British Isles each year, many of them to London. About 10 million people live in London, many of them working, as we do, in Westminster. At the centre of our capital city we are surrounded by a wealth of historic buildings and Royal parks, rightly renowned world-wide. Yet all too often the state of our streets is a disgrace. It used to be said that the streets of London were paved with gold. Too often these days too many of the streets of London are paved with plastic bags, empty Coke cans and cigarette packets.

As a Londoner, with some interest in travel and tourism, especially I regret the adverse impression that this must leave with many visitors to our city. There is one feature to which I particularly object and that is the new established practice of leaving refuse on public pavements and private forecourts for long periods for later collection. This has the effect of detracting very much from the London street scene. Unless it is vigorously resisted and arrested, the appearance of London can only get worse.

It is not only the fact that we have litter in our streets that causes me concern. That is a more evident problem. At least the strewing of litter is usually thoughtless and inconsiderate, whereas the practice of dumping rubbish on our streets in plastic bags and cardboard boxes is deliberate and becoming more widespread. This process must not be allowed to continue. If it does, the contrast between our noble buildings and our slovenly streets will widen, and the disparity between taxpayers’ money spent on restoring the fabric of our buildings and ratepayers’ money spent on the cleansing of our streets will sharpen. The amenities of living in London will be severely damaged.

For all these reasons, I seek to raise this issue tonight, in the hope that the process can not only be arrested but reversed. Unfortunately, even this apparently simple point, which I take the opportunity to put to the Minister, is not really as simple and straightforward as it might seem. There are many complex factors involved and it is not possible within the scope of this short debate to include all of them.

What are the main reasons for this state of affairs? There are three major difficulties facing anyone attempting to maintain high standards of cleanliness in London’s streets: the nature of our historic buildings, the inadequacy of access to older property, and the traffic congestion which inhibits and slows down refuse rounds. These factors in themselves are not peculiar to London.

There seem to be three other factors which are particularly pertinent to this problem. The first derives from the origins of this practice, namely, the lowering of standards which took place in the 1969 “dirty jobs” strike, which is an illustration of how a strike can do damage that lives on long after the dispute is settled. The outward effects of this dispute were most unfortunate. It led people at that time, of necessity, to deposit their rubbish on the streets. They saw, day after day, rubbish and rotting refuse at their doorstep. They thought nothing of it. It became almost acceptable. Ever since that precedent was established there has not been the same resistance to such a state of affairs which there would otherwise have been and which existed before. In the past nine years or so this trend has been increasing.

We have then to consider the inadequacy of the present law. Many of these matters are still governed by the provisions of the Public Health Act 1936. It is not surprising that, 42 years later, those provisions are not meeting modern needs. Circumstances have radically changed in so many evident ways and the regulations under that legislation are no longer satisfactory to deal with the problem.

Let me give one example. “Waste” is defined as being in two categories—either domestic or trade. Hotels and restaurants are not apparently committed to the latter category, and they often enjoy a free service, whereas the demands made on that service by hotels and restaurants are by their nature exceptional and heavy. In the centre of London where we live and work that consideration is especially the case. There is a need to update the legislation, and I shall return to that matter later.

There is a third thread which is important. In such a service as refuse collection, which is labour intensive, the attitudes of the men working that service will be critical. This will require a constructive and co-operative approach to the problem by trade unionists, members and leaders alike, if the problems, are to be solved, particularly in central London.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the implications of the Health and Safety at Work, Etc. Act. I know that that legislation is not his responsibility, but I think he will agree that he will need to take those provisions into account. The provisions of that Act, if fully carried through, could prove calamitous to refuse collecting services in central London.

The principles of the legislation are unexceptionable, namely, the wish to ensure healthy and safe conditions for men and women at work. But the detailed provisions of the Act, if carried to the extreme, will prove highly costly and counter-productive in many respects in the service that is being undertaken. It is clear, for example, that any one of a number of objections could be made on present practice to dangerous steps to basements or to high rise buildings, defective back alleyways, low ceilings, inadequate lighting, ice and frost on stairs, rotting refuse, rodents, and broken handrails. Any one of those reasons could be taken by an eager beaver union representative, eager to make his mark, as an objection to carrying out the collection. If carried to extremes, it is clear that the practice of kerbside collections, so far from diminishing, will increase. Therefore, we have all these factors in the background.

What needs to be done? First, a higher priority must be accorded to this Cinderella service. Attitudes to refuse collection have always been gently derisory, and probably always will be, but the service is the very essence of our standard of living. Amenities play a very important part in that standard of living. Living standards depend not just on the size of the cigar or on the cubic capacity of the next new car, or even on holidays in Spain. Standards of living depend on humdrum, everyday events which all too often we take for granted. I refer to the twice-daily delivery of post, the daily delivery of a pint of milk, and, of course, the regular cleansing of our streets and the collection of refuse.
Greater priority must be given within local council budgets to this service. I pay tribute to the work that has been done in the face of enormous difficulties by the directors of cleansing in the three central London authorities which I have consulted. I refer to the City of Westminster, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the City Corporation.

Nothing in my remarks should be taken to disparage the work they are doing or the policy of their authorities. But it is clear from figures given to me of expenditure on the service in the past four years that, although expenditure has increased substantially in cash terms, in real terms it has shown a cut-back. Although some of that may be due to special circumstances, or even perhaps to greater efficiency and achieving the same amount of work at smaller cost, I suspect that in a period of economic restraint inevitably this service has suffered, and it is all too easy for it to suffer.

I should like to see a recording of priorities not only by the councils themselves but by the Department, too. I make the point to the Minister that, as local government nowadays is so much Government-directed, he, too, might play some part in reordering priorities in this matter. Although humdrum, commonplace, everyday and taken for granted, this service is vital to the well being of our community, and especially in central London.

Second, and specifically, I draw attention to the fact that, four years after the passing of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, there remain outstanding provisions in Part I still to be implemented. It is regrettable that after this lapse of time they should remain unimplemented. The Act itself was a successor to the Protection of the Environment Bill introduced by the last Conservative Government, which fell at the time of the General Election early in 1974, and it is now time to consider early implementation of its outstanding provisions.

Those provisions would allow powers to councils to ensure that there were adequate facilities for the storage of refuse and its eventual disposal and that there were adequate facilities for the disposal of waste. In addition, the councils could levy charges, in particular on hotels and restaurants, which are the principal, though not the only, offenders.

Here is an example of how the present system works to the disadvantage of London. There is a small hotel in South Kensington which enjoys twice-weekly free service from the Royal borough, and it does so by means of an accumulation of bags of refuse which, during the course of the week, can total 500. There is a considerable amount of refuse, and there can be 250 bags at any given time, stacked neatly on the hotel’s own ground but none the less an eyesore to those who pass down that side street on their way to the hotel or going about their business or pleasure in London.

If a charge were levied, it could provide revenue for a self-financing scheme, or the potential ability to apply a charge could be used as a deterrent to encourage such hotels and commercial enterprises to invest in compaction equipment which could reduce the volume of such rubbish by a ratio of four to one, thereby making better use of their own space and also removing some of the worst eyesores when rubbish overflows on to forecourts and pavements. In that way, a great deal could be done.

I call on the Minister tonight to bring about early implementation of those provisions. Although he is not directly responsible for the service, he has a vital role to play because only he can bring in the full implementation of Part I of the Act, and only he can effectively co-ordinate a campaign to improve the appearance of London. He must show a determination not to tolerate a lowering of standards in our capital city. I hope that he will take that opportunity tonight.

April 3, 2020
David Owen – 1978 Statement on Zaire

Below is the text of the statement made by David Owen, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 16 May 1978.

The Government are making every effort, through the British Embassy in Kinshasa and other Western countries with communities in Shaba province to ensure the safety of the British community in the area of the fighting. The total number of British and Commonwealth citizens in the Shaba province—the area affected—is believed to be 171. We are in close touch with the mining companies, who employ a number of British subjects. The town of Kolwezi, where there are 24 British and Commonwealth citizens, is reported to have been taken by the invading force. We have, so far, had no reports of harm to British subjects. The mining town of Tenke-Fungurume, east of Kolwezi, could be affected. Of the 19 British subjects there, six dependants were flown by their company to Kinshasa yesterday and other dependants are being flown today to Zambia.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I discussed this question in detail with President Kaunda yesterday. The President has assured us that Zambia will give every facility to British subjects evacuated from Shaba province.
This is a serious and threatening development to the stability of this part of Africa. I will keep the House closely informed and make all possible information available to the relatives of those concerned.

April 3, 2020