UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1978

  • Christopher Price – 1978 Speech on MP Salaries

    Below is the text of the speech made by Christopher Price, the then Labour MP for Lewisham West, in the House of Commons on 28 July 1978.

    The speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was, in one sense, preposterous and ludicrous. However, it contained, as do all the right hon. Member’s speeches, certain germs of truth with which I have a sympathy.

    The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) spoke about company chairman earning £36,000 per year and said that that was an appropriate salary for our Prime Minister. There are dangers in taking the monetary values of our capitalist society and judging our salaries by them.

    There are some dangers—I do not wish to exaggerate them—in taking the salary of, for example, an assistant secretary or colonel and comparing it with ours. The danger in that is that we would type ourselves as assistant secretaries or colonels. I believe that that would be undesirable.

    I speak with some experience, because I have voluntarily stopped being a Member of the European Assembly, where I mixed daily with Members of Parliament who earned four, five and sometimes six times as much as I. Those Members of Parliament were firmly notched into a particular position within the hierarchy of their countries.

    I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South that we would lose something important if we admitted for one moment that the House of Commons was not unique. It is not to be judged by any other standard in British life. For my sins, I happen to have appeared before the Committee of Privileges for doing something in the House which I thought asserted exactly that principle—that we have the right to say things here which no one else and no other court in the land has the right to say.

    I suspect that Boyle will recommend a linkage, but I hope that we shall not allow any linkage that emerges to lead to the Treasury’s imposing regulation after regulation upon our salaries. That would break us away from the unique position that we are now in.

    Many changes have been pushed through. There was the little change which no one noticed which made us no ​ longer self-employed but employed people. The small print said that to be employed one did not have to have an employer. Technically, we are the only group which receives an employed person’s salary but which has no employer.

    Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

    Let us not put that notion abroad. What happened was that in the 1973 Social Security Act it was provided that all persons who paid tax under schedule E as against schedule D would in future be treated as employed earners for the purpose of national insurance. We are not the only group that fits that category. Company directors are in that category. It is important that that idea should not be given any more currency, because it is not true.

    Mr. Price

    I persist in my argument. I do not understand enough about company directors to know whether they are technically employed by companies.

    Whatever the arrangements for our salaries and allowances, and however they are organised, it is important that we should not be “employed” in the same way as civil servants. Our role is different, and we must assert the right to keep it that way.

    The most eloquent testimony in the speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South was that this Parliament happens, for good or bad reasons, to be different from the other Parliaments with which I have come into contact on the Continent, because of the puritanical conspiracy that is unique to Britain and that stretches across from the right hon. Member for Down, South to the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. It is a conspiracy which, in a curious way, asserts that our democracy is different and that we should not try to fix our rate for the job in relation to anything else. It considers poverty in politics a virtue.

    Mr. Powell

    The word is not puritanical. It is aristocratic.

    Mr. Price

    I agree that there is an element of that. But the greatest characteristic is its nonconformist nature. It springs from the country’s being Protestant rather than Catholic at heart. This puritan conspiracy has both good and bad points. I do not believe that the ​ aristocratic element is anything of which to be proud.

    The reason why this House used not to pay its Members a salary at all, and then began to pay its Members a comparatively low salary, was that before the Second World War a large majority of its Members did not need any pay. In fact, for quite a long time this House was a machine for ensuring that the aristocracy and the moneyed folk of the country kept unscathed their position of power and wealth in society. The reason we had to bring in salaries was that there came into Parliament increasing numbers of people who wanted fundamentally to change that balance of power.

    We still have many people in this Parliament who want to change that fundamental balance of power. Indeed, I was elected in October 1974 on a manifesto whose last sentence is engraved, I hope, on my leader’s mind and certainly on the minds of everyone on the Government side of the House—that our whole aim is to change the balance of power and wealth in favour of the working people of Britain. I think that we have gone a little way towards doing that.

    Therefore, in the sense that we pay ourselves half salaries, as it were, as compared with the sorts of salaries that a large proportion of Members could get if they decided not to come into the House, it is an unattractive proposition, because it is a hangover of the old idea that so long as we pay ourselves low salaries we shall get here the sort of people who can earn their money outside and, therefore, will support those professions in which they can earn their money outside.

    I feel a little persecuted by the lawyers at present, because the lawyers are one such group in the House. I wish that I could earn, through my humble journalistic efforts, as much as some of my lawyer colleagues in the House receive. But as long as we have a tremendous legal element in the House, to those people the salary is not all that important.

    Mr. Lawrence

    The hon. Member seems to be in danger of perpetuating the widely held myth that most of this House is made up of practising lawyers. I think that there are fewer than 30 practising lawyers in the House. I wish that the hon. ​ Member would take that on board and not go on repeating what is clearly a falsehood.

    Mr. Price

    I did not make any statement about the proportion. The hon. Member may well be right. I do not know. The only point that I was trying to make was that as long as we have a comparatively low salary we shall attract people of that kind. To the extent that we attract that sort of person, there will be no incentive to raise the salary at all.

    Mr. Alan Clark

    I should like to ask the hon. Member a question about the aristocracy. As I understand it, he equates the aristocracy with moneyed folk. But “aristocracy” means “the best”. I am sure that the hon. Member would feel that this House, from which the Government are drawn, should consist of aristocrats. Does not he agree that the aristocracy is something whose ingredients shift and alter? I take the view that it is perfectly legitimate and possible that the trade union movement can contribute aristocrats to our Government.

    Mr. Price

    I do not want to pursue that point, except to say that it has always been the characteristic of the moneyed folk, in all societies, to call themselves the best, the aristocrats—even in Athens. However, I do not want to get drawn down that road; I want to move over to what I believe to be the admirable side of the puritanical conspiracy that governs our salaries and has governed them ever since 1945.

    I reject the aristocratic side, but there is a very strong strain in British life, in, for instance, our trade union movement, which is reluctant to pay a general secretary more than the average wage that the membership of the union receives. One could replicate that in various other parts of our national life.

    During my year in Europe, I found that this tradition, this strain, was unique to this country. To the extent that our salaries have been held down for this sort of reason, it does not derogate from our honour, standing and status; it is something that simply must be taken into account by anyone who comes into the House.

    Having said that, however, I feel, like my right hon. Friend the Member for ​ Fulham (Mr. Stewart), that all those things being considered, and in spite of the figures given by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr Powell), things have got quite badly out of joint. There is a point at which salaries drop to a level at which people simply do not understand why we allow the situation to continue. My feeling is that this is connected with the sort of fear that Labour

    Governments, particularly, have had, especially after the Labour Government’s experience in 1964. They were quite wrongly castigated by a vicious, nasty Tory press, for purely political reasons, for implementing the recommendations of the Lawrence committee, which had been set up by a Tory Government and agreed by both parties.

    That traumatic experience of the Lawrence committee is so branded on the hearts of every Labour Cabinet—it was said that we were putting up our salaries before pensioners could get their money—that over the period of Government from 1974 through to the 1990s, they have been and will be unduly concerned about it.

    The Boyle report recommends increases in November or December. I do not know what sort of time scale the Leader of the House has in mind for all this. My view is that when we are reelected, if salaries were then to rise, with an increase of what might well look like nearly 100 per cent.—nearly double—it would pass with little more than a murmur.

  • Michael Stewart – 1978 Speech on MP Salaries

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Stewart, the then Labour MP for Fulham, in the House of Commons on 28 July 1978.

    I, like the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), was a Member of the House in the 1950s. I wish to make some comments not entirely in accord with his description of the situation. It is true that there were some hon. Members then, as there are now, who had other sources of income, private means, and therefore found what I believe was a most unsatisfactory salary to be a salary on which they could manage tolerably well.

    As the right hon. Gentleman has somewhat personalised the debate, I shall weary the House for a short while by describing my own position. Compared with many hon. Members, I had a number of advantages. I had a London home and a London constituency. My wife and I did not have any dependent children. We were both able to earn a certain amount by writing and lecturing. We did not earn substantial sums because education work is never tremendously well rewarded. However, we had advantages that many hon. Members did not enjoy. Even with the possession of those advantages, I could only just about manage. I was able to manage because I had been a junior Minister from 1945 to 1950 and in that time I had been able to save. I was able to keep going during the 1950s by gradually reducing those savings. I do not think that I lived extravagantly.

    With the advantages that I have mentioned, I could just about manage. That meant that many other younger hon. Members with three or four dependent children and with travelling expenses that I did not have to meet, and who before coming into the House pursued occupations that they could not continue once they were here, even on a part-time basis, were in a grave situation. They had to hope for the best. They had to hope that somehow they would be able to make some provision for their old age.

    I accept that many hon. Members in that position at that time did their work diligently. However, it is not right that people should be asked to do the work of Members of Parliament under the financial strain that many of us—I to a limited extent and others to a much greater extent—had to suffer. Members should not be required to do the work under that strain. I reject the idea that in the early 1950s we were all right. That is not borne out by the experience of most hon. Members who served at that time, unless they were fortunate enough to have private incomes.

    It is also reasonable to say that the fact that the general standard of life has risen to some extent affects the amount that we should receive. I agree that Members of Parliament should not be desperately eager to see that they are always ahead of the pack. However, it is not desirable that over the years they should drop down and down in the general scale of incomes. That is what the right hon. Member for Down, South is suggesting. When it was pointed out to him that incomes in general had risen, his reply was one of the expressions of contempt which, if I may say so, he frequently uses as a substitute for argument. I do not think that we can accept his proposition.

    The right hon. Gentleman spoke frequently of honour and of how we are discredited by raising our own salaries. I am entitled to point out that what is proposed will not make all that difference to me or to any hon. Members who are to retire at the next General Election. It will make some difference and I shall not be sorry to receive it, but I am not concerned about these matters very greatly on my own behalf. However, I should be failing in my duty if I did not have some regard to those who are to come to the House.

    It is true that there are some who will say “I care nothing for my income so long as I can be a Member of Parliament.” My own feeling is that anyone who is a family man has to pay some attention to his income. Anyone who is so devoted to being a Member as to be not greatly concerned about what happens to his family is not entirely likely to make the best sort of Member. The right hon. ​ Member for Down, South should take a more generous view of what a Member of Parliament is entitled to and should be entitled to in future.

  • Enoch Powell – 1978 Speech on MP Salaries

    Below is the text of the speech made by Enoch Powell, the then Ulster Unionist MP for South Down, in the House of Commons on 28 July 1978.

    I am not opposed to the third of the three motions which are being considered together in this debate, but I am opposed to the first and the second. Although I suspect, from divers indications, that there may be general support for them in the House and, indeed, for propositions more far reaching, it is perhaps right that a contrary view should be stated.

    My opposition is upon two separate grounds, the one narrower, the other ​ broader. The narrow ground is that Members of this House of Commons ought not, even when they decide that it is right and necessary to increase the remuneration of Members of Parliament, to do so in such a way as to benefit themselves in this present Parliament. We, who alone have control of the public purse, ought not to vote money to ourselves. If we think the remuneration should be increased, let us make that decision for subsequent Parliaments—for those whom the electorate shall decide to return here in future; but let us not be seen to be using our power to benefit ourselves who sit here in this present Parliament.

    That argument would, in my view, be valid quite apart from one of the principal reasons which brings us here, time after time, with this question, as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said. Part of the reason is inflation. What we are doing is voting ourselves, or seeking to vote ourselves, an offset to the deterioration in the value of money for which we ourselves are responsible.

    I shall not attempt to divert this debate into an economic discussion; but the Prime Minister believes that it was the profligacy of the previous Administration which, by increasing the money supply, caused the inflation of 1975 and 1976. That is the official view of the Government. So, at any rate on that view, we stand self-accused of being the cause of the inflation which has been inflicted upon the country. When that is so, it is an addition of shamelessness to use our power of the purse to vote ourselves an offset to see that we are all right, Jack. That is the narrower ground why I consider this to be a shameful thing that we are doing in the form in which we are doing it.

    But the wider ground is that we have the whole idea of remuneration of Members completely and dangerously wrong. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said that the financial position of Members had slipped. He assents to my quotation. Of course, all these comparisons very much depend upon the starting point which one takes. But I shall take a starting point which is not arbitrary from my point of view. The House and the country may be interested in the ​ financial comparison between the year 1950 and the year 1978.

    I belong, as others still here do, to the generation which came into the House after the war. It was a generation which longed to find a place in this House. To say the worst of it, those who came in at the General Election of 1950, the first General Election after the cessation of hostilities, were not the least distinguished generation of hon. Members to have entered this House and to have served in it.

    The salary then was £1,000. It may surprise hon. Members to recall that a single Member of Parliament, who had no other income, paid £344 in tax out of that £1,000. In 1950 one was “passing rich” on £1,000 a year, if I may misquote Oliver Goldsmith. With a gross income of £1,000 in 1950, an unmarried Member of Parliament had a net income of £656.

    Many of us who threw ourselves with the utmost enthusiasm into the work of this House were in some demand for journalism, broadcasting and in other ways. But the majority of those of whom I am thinking were, while Members of Parliament, mainly dependent upon that remuneration.

    I have ascertained the net income which would correspond today to £656. It is £3,589 in purchasing power. I have ascertained further what at today’s rates of tax the remuneration of a single Member of Parliament would have to be to yield the same net purchasing power after tax as the salary in 1950. That sum is £4,782, somewhat larger than the salary payable at the beginning of this Parliament, which some of us still draw and which was £4,250.

    A salary of £4,782 would be the equivalent in purchasing power, net, after tax, of the remuneration on which the post-war generation of Members of Parliament, who against heavy competition managed to find a place in this House, in some cases very marginally, did their duties here nearly full time in many cases and reared families and provided by insurance for their old age or the other events which might befall their families. I thought the House might like to be reminded of those facts.

    Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, East)

    I have been following the right hon. Member’s argument very closely, and it is extremely interesting. But there is a factor which he has not taken into consideration. It is that the general standard of living in the country has increased considerably since 1950. The standard of living has increased, and the expectations of all the people have increased since that time, including those of Members of Parliament.

    Mr. Powell

    The desire to be in this House has neither increased nor diminished, so far as I observe. However, there were factors that I had omitted, and I shall proceed to mention them.

    At that time, there were none of the perks of all kinds which we receive today. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is not the right word. I should have said “allowances, reimbursements and facilities.” As the hon. Member for Fife, Central said, except for correspondence with local authorities and Ministries, we stamped our own letters, as our constituents did theirs to us. There was no secretarial allowance.

    Let me spend a moment on that, since one of these motions relates to payment for a secretary. The majority of hon. Members in this House do not need a secretary for the proper discharge of their duties.

    Mr. William Hamilton

    Oh, come.

    Mr. Powell

    Very well. One of the privileges which we have in this House, according to the right hon. Member for Taunton, is that of free speech. During the first 18 years that I was a Member of this House I had no secretary. In those years many complaints were made of me; but one complaint that was not made was that I neglected my correspondence or my duties to my constituents; nor was it urged against me that I was failing in diligence in applying my mind to the matters which successively were put before this House.

    Has the volume of constituency correspondence increased? [HON. MEMBERS: “Yes”.] That is curious. I am well aware of Parkinson’s law; and I dare say that it operates in all sorts of areas. But my recollection is pretty clear about the volume of constituency correspondence ​ when I came into the House in 1950. Of course, we could have some statistics about this. But I depose that in my own case the volume of correspondence which I received as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was higher then than it was 25 years later. That is one hon. Member’s testimony.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—

    Mr. Powell

    I see that a new hon. Member wants to intervene.

    Mr. Bottomley

    The right hon. Member is not putting forward an argument; nor is he giving any general information which may be of use to the House or the country. Has he sought information from the House of Commons post office to confirm his impression about the volume of incoming correspondence to Members of Parliament?

    Mr. Powell

    If hon. Members wished, I am sure that an investigation could be made. I am not suggesting it but, if hon. Members wished, I am sure that we could have an investigation made of the number of constituents’ letters received by hon. Members per diem and per week. But in the absence of those figures we must state our own experience, opinion and, in the case of those who have a considerable length of service, our recollection.

    I now have 90,000 constituents and a very considerable correspondence otherwise. I find at present, taking one week with another, that a half-time secretary meets my needs. I am not saying that she is not a very good secretary. I am not saying that I am not a very fast worker. But it is perhaps a little local colour which is worth contributing to a debate in which we are enhancing further the allowance to enable every hon. Member of this House to employ a full-time secretary if he wishes.

    Mr. William Hamilton

    He will not be paid it if he does not.

    Mr. Powell

    The hon. Member for Fife, Central says that he will not be paid it if he does not employ a full-time secretary. Well, we are all hon. Members in this House and, therefore, what he says must be true.

    I shall not pile on the agony by referring to research assistants, although it sometimes strikes me to wonder what most ​ Members of Parliament could possibly do with a research assistant, considering the excellent services, very much better than 25 or 30 years ago, that we can receive in the House of Commons Library without additional cost to the public purse.

    When I said that the equivalent remuneration to 1950 is £4,782, that was an overstatement. It would probably be truer to say that, taking one thing with another—I have not mentioned all the details such as reimbursement for travel by car and so on which did not exist 28 years ago—the real remuneration of hon. Members who are now on £4,250 is the same as the real remuneration of hon. Members in 1950, the post-war generation on £1,000.

    What, then, is the case for a higher remuneration? What is the case for the figure of nearly £7,000 as proposed in the motion, let alone the case for the much higher figures which have been mentioned?

    Mr. William Price

    As I understand it, the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech was devoted to the belief that I had no right at all to introduce any provision today. He has been consistent in that view, and I respect him for it. I understand him to be saying that we should not have any increase within an existing Parliament. Does it follow from that that he accepts my right to introduce something in the next Parliament? If so, what should that figure be?

    Mr. Powell

    I was at that moment about to come to the question whether there was any justification for the real remuneration of an hon. Member of this House being increased above the traditional figure, if I may so roughly describe what it stood at for several years before or after 1950, with adjustment for the deterioration in the value of money.

    The hon. Member for Fife, Central, in comparing our remuneration with that of a police constable and other worthy members of the community, said that we get the respect we deserve, and he seemed to think that we should increase the respect we get by increasing our remuneration. He even went so far as to say that it was our inadequate remuneration which ​ was the cause of our not being sufficiently respected.

    I wish to state the opposite view. I do not believe one can make oneself respected by putting up one’s income—certainly not by voting oneself an increase in income. It may or may not be right to do so; but the notion that we should be more respected because we put ourselves on the basis of an assistant secretary in a Government Department or a county court judge is something which this House should unite in repudiating.

    It is inherently impossible to discover an analogue outside for a Member of Parliament. This is a unique House and the Members of it fill a unique position, and a uniquely honourable position. Whatever analogue one chooses, it is still absurd to say that the remuneration of a full colonel—or a field marshal perhaps?—a county court judge or a stipendiary magistrate or what one pleases is an analogue for the remuneration of a Member of Parliament.

    Our position is unique, this House is unique by reason of our unique position, and we alone fix arbitrarily what remuneration we believe is defensible and what remuneration we believe will be to the future benefit of this House; for when we take decisions on this kind of subject we are taking decisions about the future of this House of Commons and about the quality of those who will sit here.

    Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

    The right hon. Gentleman said that there are no analogues in this respect. There are analogues, but not in this country. If we look over the water to the United States Congress, where there is a large estate but where the Members have fewer responsibilities because they are responsible only for federal government, we see that they fix their pay on the simple basis that no civil servant should be paid more than a member of the legislature. I am reliably informed that the civil service trade unions in the United States are among the strongest advocates of an increase in pay for representatives there.

    Mr. Powell

    The right hon. Member for Taunton said earlier that modesty is our characteristic in this House. He was heard without dissent. But in one respect, ​ at any rate, I am not modest—and that is in regard to this House. I regard no other assembly in the world as in any way comparable with this House of Commons. I have nothing but contempt for those who would argue that we should conduct ourselves in such and such a way, or remunerate ourselves in such and such a way, because the assemblies in France or the United States or some other part of the world do this or do that.

    Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

    It could be done for nothing.

    Mr. Powell

    There is a very good case for doing it for nothing Our honour and the honour of this House is derived from the view that is held of our motives. It is upon that, and that only, that our honour rests—namely, on our motivation. If we pay ourselves in this House a salary such as a person of reasonable talents and education might aspire to if he gets to be a county court judge or a full colonel, if we arrange for ourselves allowances for the expenses we decide to incur such as an employee in a Government office would have, if we provide ourselves with a pension so as to make a career with retirement to look to afterwards, we shall be valued at the valuation we put upon ourselves—as hacks, as people who have come into the job which offered us the best return for our limited talents and who wish to make a career of it, intending to hang on as long as possible until we disappear into a relatively comfortable retirement.

    It ought always to be a privilege, and a privilege that demands some sacrifice—that is a word that has been used already in the debate—to belong to the House. There has been talk about hon. Members having undergone sacrifices in receiving the remuneration that has been available to them over the past 25 years. They did not seem to be conscious of the sacrifice they were undergoing when they sought to be re-elected.

    We ought to be worthy of our honour and tradition. We should claim no more than that minimum remuneration on which any, high or low, can find the means, if that is his ambition, of serving in the House so long as the electors return him. If we alter that basis, we shall become a career assembly, we shall become an assembly that is not one ​ which men compete to belong to for the sake of belonging to it whatever they have to lose elsewhere in order to do so. We shall become an assembly that will be valued by the scale suggested by the hon. Member for Fife, Central—in accordance with the money that we pay ourselves.

  • Edward du Cann – 1978 Speech on MP Salaries

    Below is the text of the speech made by Edward du Cann, the then Conservative MP for Taunton, in the House of Commons on 28 July 1978.

    I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who has given that clear explanation which we all so much appreciate, will not think me in any way discourteous if my first words are of complaint. It seems to me profoundly unsatisfactory that all the proposed amendments to the motion are out of order. I understand that the reasons for that are largely technical. The chief reason, at least in respect of the amendment standing in the names of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and myself, is likely to be removed in a day or two, when the Parliamentary Pensions Bill receives Royal Assent, but that is scant consolation if one is not able to move the amendment today. This is typical of the confusion, muddle and total unsatisfactoriness which bedevil the whole of the situation and the discussions about Members’ remuneration.

    Not only did the House as a whole appreciate the explanation that the hon. Gentleman was good enough to give us; I am sure that all of us who have been responsible for the meetings with the Leader of the House, to which he referred, appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about the way in which the representations have been conducted. It might be appropriate if I were to say now directly to the Leader of the House in public something that I have already said to him in private—that is, how much those of us who have been to see him have appreciated the courtesy and infinite fairness with which he has consistently heard us.

    We have had a large number of meetings and a large number of people have seen the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will not mind my adding that I think that the way in which those meetings progressed indicates clearly how necessary it was to have them. The ​ Leader of the House took a great deal of convincing in the first instance that what we had to say was sensible and, indeed, responsible and in the general interest, but the fact that he has accepted that view and now has done something constructive about it is something for which we should all be grateful.

    I should like to express appreciation that these motions have now been tabled. It is unquestionably right—no one can deny it—that the pay and allowances and pensions of Members of Parliament should be improved in the terms described by the Parliamentary Secretary.

    It is also totally appropriate—I have always agreed to and acknowledge this—that what is done at this moment must come within the Government’s guidelines. I have never suggested that Members should do anything other than conform to the same rules and obligations, voluntary or compulsory, which affect the remainder of our fellow citizens. If we are lucky enough to have certain privileges in this House—for example, free speech—we should be extremely jealous of those privileges. They should never be exploited, and in the ordinary way we have no business to argue that we should be in a privileged position in any other sense than what is necessary for the performance of our duties.

    But certain things need to be said, and said plainly while we have the opportunity. There is no doubt that even at these enhanced rates the pay of Members, their pensions, and certain of their facilities are abysmally and stupidly inadequate. That is a matter of fact, not of argument. For many years the way in which we have dealt with our own situation has been unfair, but that is cur fault—I would not argue differently. As the Parliamentary Secretary suggested, this has always been a difficult and embarrassing matter. It is right, however, that it should be realistically approached, and that is my purpose this morning.

    I am all for modesty. Modesty is one of the happiest and most charming of human virtues, and I think it behoves all of us who have the privilege of being in this place to be especially modest. However, I believe that in relation to our own circumstances we have displayed a degree of modesty which shows it to be a false modesty, and in so doing we have done ​ the nation as a whole a disservice. To pretend that everyone should be paid some trivial remuneration because merit or responsibility cannot be properly rewarded may be honourable enough, but it is a foolish policy.

    Therefore, my aim this morning is clear—to bring into the open some of these matters and, above all, to make the point that the responsibilities that we have cannot in any way be delegated. Hence the campaign in which I have been engaged, with my right hon. and hon. Friends and right hon. and hon. Members opposite—I am grateful to them for their support and encouragement in it—to ensure that the issues are better appreciated.

    What is the right rate of pay for a Member of Parliament? Should we be paid the equivalent of the rank of colonel in the

    Army, of an assistant secretary in the Civil Service, of a county court judge, or of the chairman of a medium-sized company? These are all suggestions that I have heard canvassed.

    The present position is that we are not paid amounts approximating to any of those suggested rates. We are paid very much less-50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of those amounts.

    Should we be paid the same as is received by a skilled artisan working, for example, on a newspaper? Let anyone pick up the reports and accounts of a newspaper company and see the money which such skilled persons are paid. Let anyone calculate what is received by people on the shop floor, throwing in additions for unsocial hours and the rest, and see what the figures would be. We are not paid even according to those levels. Yet I firmly argue that the responsibility that Members of Parliament carry—particularly those who accept special duties in this place—is very much greater and always will be than that which is carried in any of those categories.

    Let us compare our situation with membership of other Parliaments. I gave some of the figures and comparisons in a speech on 21st June, and I shall not repeat them. Suffice it to say that the British Member of Parliament is paid, on average, a half or one-third, or perhaps even a quarter, of the rate that other Members of Parliament in democratic Parliaments are paid. Next June, we shall be having elections to the European Parliament. So far as I can see, our present remuneration is likely to be between one-third and a quarter of what Members of that august Assembly will receive.

    The file of cuttings kept in our excellent Library shows that there is not one serious newspaper which does not acknowledge how unsatisfactory the present position is. I cite just one example, a newspaper that suggested that we are just about the worst paid in the western world.

    It is not only of today that it is appropriate to speak. Without doubt, the good will of former Members of the House is being exploited. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) remarked, in a telling speech to which the Leader of the House listened, there are 270 potential pensioners of the House who do not draw a pension at all, just as there are, as the Minister hinted, a large number of Members in the present House who do not draw and may not be drawing the full amount that we see in the list on the Order Paper this morning.

    A number of Ministers in the House of Lords are paid less than their equivalents in the House of Commons are paid. In respect of present office holders, the list of anomalies is legion. Let us take the position of the Prime Minister. I rejoice that it is proposed that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom should be given an increase in his remuneration, but at £22,000 he will be drawing a salary approximately one-third of the remuneration of chairmen of some of the largest companies in the United Kingdom, and perhaps an even smaller proportion than that. The same is true of the Lord Chancellor of England. It is true also of a Cabinet Minister, whose salary, at £14,300—is vastly less than the remuneration given to the chairmen of nationalised industries. Junior Ministers, at £6,000, will be drawing less than is received by advertising account executives.

    All this shows two things, does it not? It shows that once one starts having pay freezes, and the like, a number of distortions arise. Second, it shows, by comparison with the real world outside the ​ House, how eccentric is our pay and how out of line it is with that real world.

    In an endeavour to establish the rate for the job, as the Minister said, the Top Salaries Review Body was established. I think it appropriate as a general point here that we should pay tribute to Lord Boyle and his colleagues for the work that they do for the national economy. The Review Body reported in 1975 that the right rate for the responsibility of being a Member of Parliament was £8,000 a year. A lesser figure was decreed by the Government and agreed by the House.

    It is never the right time, is it, to do the right thing in regard to Members’ remuneration and conditions? For that past foolishness—I call it by no stronger term—we have to run all the harder now in order to catch up.

    One can revise the figure recommended by that distinguished and disinterested group of persons after subjecting the whole matter to the most careful inquiry, and update it in two ways. One can use either the retail price index or the index of average earnings. Updating £8,000 according to the rise in the retail price index between June 1975 and June 1978, one arrives at £11,500. That is the figure that appears in the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Anglesey and myself. Using the index of average earnings, for which the figures I have are not quite as recent as those for the retail price index, one comes to a slightly higher figure—£11,678.

    The purpose of tabling the amendment, therefore, is to illustrate the scale of sacrifice that Members of Parliament have made in the national interest. It is not true, as was said on the radio this morning and as, I dare say, a number of careless people may assume, that what the right hon. Gentleman and I are arguing for is a 100 per cent. increase in Members’ remuneration.

    The truth—I want to bring this out clearly—is that Members of Parliament are drawing only about 60 per cent. of the amount which an impartial investigating group of persons stated as the proper sum.

    Moreover, as the Minister indicated and as I remarked earlier, the figure that appears on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the House is not the ​ amount that many Members of Parliament receive. More than 100 Members of Parliament draw a smaller amount. It would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what their position is now. Are they entitled to draw their full amount or not?

    I come now to the Minister’s statement on the reconstitution of Boyle. I say at once that that is much appreciated. It was something for which the right hon. Member for Anglesey and I, together with our colleages, representatives of the 1922 Committee and the Parliamentary Labour Party, argued strongly, and we are glad that the Government propose to agree to it. I think that it is a wise decision and is the right decision.

    Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely)

    Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that as the TSRB has given a decision, if the case goes back to it and it gives a different and advantageous decision, it may lead to every person who has been awarded anything by the body going back again?

    Mr. du Cann

    I shall come to that in a moment. I am sure that the decision to refer the whole matter to the Boyle Committee again is entirely wise, but there are some matters that I should like to raise in relation to that reference.

    First, I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that the reference should be comprehensive. There are many matters to be considered. It is not only the question of what is the absolute rate for the job, which bears on the intervention of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) but it is necessary, once and for all, to settle whether it would be appropriate to have a sort of running comparative yardstick. I think not, but I recognise that many hon. Members argue for that. I think that it is for us to make decisions and not to hide behind the skirts of another profession.

    The reference should also include pensions. It was impossible not to be moved by the discussion in the House the night before last, especially by the telling speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North who spoke about the 270 of our colleagues who do not have pensions. As the Minister said in that debate, we need to reconstitute that pension scheme in order to have more flexible rules. That is obviously a ​ wise way to operate and it would be helpful to have the Boyle Committee’s views and recommendations on that aspect.

    Clearly we must also look at the scale of allowances and the comparative position of Ministers in another place, just as we must consider the position of Ministers in general. Last, but by no means least, we must consider the remuneration of the small group of our most senior public servants, including the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and yourself, Mr. Speaker, and especially your pension provisions.

    It is clear that the position of hon. Members has slipped through our carelessness, indifference and cowardice. It is urgent that the matter should be thoroughly investigated and it is fine that this is to be done. But that is not enough. There must be a commitment by the Government and the Opposition. What is the point of having an inquiry, with all the work that goes into it, if we do not know whether its results will be accepted?

    I speak only for myself—I cannot commit my colleagues or Labour Members—but I should be willing to abide by the recommendations of the Boyle Committee, good, bad or indifferent. If we ask distinguished people to do a great deal of work and to make a thorough survey, we should say that we shall accept their conclusions. The Government and the Opposition should both say that. It should be an understood commitment so that we can remove this matter from politics altogether and say to the British people that we are conscious that we have not got this right in the past, but we are now determined to do so and, whatever party forms the Government and whatever allowances may be due in future, we are determined to see that this business is put into proper order. I hope that the Leader of the House will state that on behalf of the Government, plainly and forthrightly, and that the Shadow Leader of the House will echo that commitment.

    We have been fooled once, because the Boyle Committee made a recommendation that was casually tossed on one side. That is not the way to do things. I hope that there will be a general consensus that that precedent will not be ​ followed in future, and that by setting up the Boyle Committee and agreeing to implement its recommendations, even if we have to phase them, we shall ensure that this matter is handled with better sense and dignity than in the past.

  • William Price – 1978 Speech on MP Salaries

    Below is the text of the speech made by William Price, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office, in the House of Commons on 28 July 1978.

    The purpose of these motions is to give effect to the appropriate increases in parliamentary pay, Members’ secretarial allowance and the salaries of Ministers and office holders in accordance with current stage 3 pay guidelines. Under the guidelines, Members are eligible for an increase of 10 per cent. in their parliamentary pay. The first motion therefore increases the figure from £6,270 to £6,897, with effect from 13th June. Corresponding increases are given in the abated parliamentary salaries payable to Ministers and office holders.

    No doubt some of hon. Members will say that 10 per cent. is not the right figure, although I hope that many will argue that it is too high. Some may want an increase based on a figure more appropriately reflecting the salary that a Member should be receiving, and the last Top Salaries Review Body report may be called in evidence.

    We have carefully considered that argument, as well as all the others put to us. Although we fully appreciate the strong feelings held in many parts of the House, we are convinced that the proposals on the Order Paper represent the only defensible course in terms of pay policy. Certainly it is not part of my case that the present situation is anything like satisfactory and I should like to say something about future prospects a little later. However, I hope that it will be accepted that Members of Parliament should be seen to accept no more than their constituents in the current pay round.

    It will be argued—I have a good deal of sympathy for the point of view—that it will never be the right time to correct the serious defects of the past. We recognise that argument, but we say that we could not pick a more difficult time. I do not need the House to remind me that I have been standing here each year since 1975 saying almost exactly the same thing. That is true, and I may as well admit it.

    Some hon. Members are concerned about the disclaimers of the stage 1 increase of £6 which many signed. They believe that the time has now come to withdraw that. That, of course, is a matter for the individuals concerned, but no other TSRB group has received that £6 and for Members to do so now would, I believe, be seen as a conflict with pay policy.
    Although Members will have reservations about the proposals on salary scales, I hope that there will be general approval of the Government’s recommendations on pensionable pay. Last year’s £208 pay increase was added to the £8,000 pensionable rate. The stage 1 £312 increase remained unincorporated, and in last year’s debate the Government recognised the force of the argument that it should be included but could not at that stage support the proposal. My right hon. Friend has re-examined the issue in the light of current circumstances and we are therefore proposing that it should now be done.

    The figure of £9,372 given in paragraph (2) of the first motion thus comprises £8,208 plus £312 plus 10 per cent. The table in paragraph (3) prescribes the supplements payable to cover the 5 per cent. pension contribution on the difference between actual and pensionable pay for the various new rates of parliamentary salary. The rate of contribution to the scheme will increase to 6 per cent. with the passage of the Parliamentary Pensions Bill and the rates shown in the third column of the table are in anticipation of that increase.

    The second motion increases the reimbursement limit for secretarial allowance from £3,687 to £4,200. That will not only allow Members to increase their secretaries’ pay by the amount under the guidelines; it will allow the increased costs of employers’ national insurance contribution to be met, and that is a move which I know many hon. Members welcome.

    To some extent, the increases in national insurance costs were anticipated in the Review Body’s 1975 recommendation on the secretarial allowance. However, I am proposing an additional element of almost £150 within the proposed new limit to cover increases which have arisen since then.

    The third and final motion seeks approval of a draft Order in Council to implement a salary increase of 10 per cent. for all Ministers and office holders. The maximum salaries for these appointments are laid down in the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, and the rates may be amended by order in council, subject to a draft being approved by resolution in each House.

    There is one point that I should make in connection with the order. Throughout, the order quotes maximum salaries which are not necessarily the actual salaries being paid. Appointments held by Ministers in another place attract higher rates of pay than the corresponding appointments in the House of Commons because of the addition of the rounds 1 and 2 increases which were available to Commons Ministers through their parliamentary pay. Since the 1975 Act gives no power to differentiate the rate laid down if an appointment is held by a member of one House rather than another, the higher rate has necessarily been given, but the Act permits a lesser amount to be paid than that authorised for any post.

    Now I come to the question in the future, which is a matter of considerable interest to Members and one which inevitably will lead to some controversy. It is not an easy matter but it is not, in our view, one that we can ignore. During the past 12 months, Members have put to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council by means of letters, Questions and through deputations, a multiplicity of views concerning the course that we should adopt for the future, and we of course are aware both of the amendments that were tabled to these motions and of Early-Day Motion No. 502.

    I want at this stage to record on behalf of my right hon. Friend the value that he places on the constructive and helpful discussions that he has had with ​ a group of Members led by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). We have said many times that we accept the argument that here are real problems of Members’ pay, but there is no magic formula available to us which will suddenly put right the injustices of the past, particularly at a time of continuing pay restraint for the rest of the country. We can see little benefit in breaking away from the procedures already established for determining Members’ pay, and my right hon. Friend, with the approval of the House, therefore intends to recommend to the Prime Minister that the TSRB should be asked to undertake a further review of parliamentary pay and certain related issues.

    So long as we can keep the scope of the reference fairly limited, there is every reason to expect a quick report, and one issue in particular that we should like it to look at again is the question of a salary link—an attractive proposition to many Members.

    Obviously, we shall be asked whether we can give an assurance that the Government will fully implement the resulting recommendations. My right hon. Friend has some sympathy for that view and has seriously considered whether a forward commitment would be appropriate. The Government believe, however, that there are grave difficulties in giving a blind commitment to accept immediately whatever the Review Body recommends.

    Nevertheless, I assure the House that the Government recognise that they have a strong obligation to Members on the matter of their pay, and I remind the House that they have said that there would have to be clear and compelling reasons for the TSRB recommendations not to be accepted.

    I believe that a further powerful argument in this respect is a move towards a bipartisan approach on pay, led by the right hon. Members for Taunton and Anglesey. This development has meant that for some time there has been a substantial common approach between the parties on the problem of how Members’ pay should be tackled, and we are hopeful that there will also be a common approach to the acceptability of the report.

    This is a matter on which the time will never be right; neither will the amounts recommended meet with universal approval. There are very powerful views on this matter in all parts of the House, and they are by no means unanimous. What I do say is that the proposals before the House today are the most—and, in my view the least, as well—done in the circumstances. I hope that they will meet with general approval.

  • Michael Meacher – 1978 Speech on Tourism

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Meacher, the then Under-Secretary of State for Trade, in the House of Commons on 26 July 1978.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) has made a speech which befits his position as chairman of the all-party committee on tourism and which I think was witty, detailed and very well informed, as one would expect, and closely argued. He raised a large number of points, and I shall try to deal briefly with each of them.

    My right hon Friend’s theme was that of spreading the blessings of tourism not only seasonally but also geographically. He will know that the Government’s policy on this matter has been quite clear since 1974, in particular in the guidelines on the application of section 4 expenditures to the development areas and special development areas, where we emphasised the need to make fuller use of the scenic and other touristic assets in those parts of the country which would benefit from the development of tourism.

    We asked the tourist boards to emphasise this in the course of their work. The aim, as my right hon. Friend knows, was not to divert existing trade from established resorts to new areas but to tap the growth in visitors, including overseas visitors in particular, but not only them, and to encourage them to leave the beaten track and to try new areas in Britain.

    For British people, the emphasis has been more on extending the season and on exploring the less familiar parts of Britain instead of taking a package tour abroad. I think it is fair to say that the tourist boards’ response to this initiative has been excellent. The attractions of the rest of Britain besides London and the traditional resorts, which my right hon. Friend praised so highly and so rightly, are now featured prominently in their literature. New heritage routes and trails have been developed to encourage people to visit particular localities. Joint marketing ventures have contributed to the retention and growth of Continental traffic through northern and western ports. Off-season and weekend promotions have brought valuable extra business to hostels in all parts of the country at their less busy times, and plans are afoot to encourage the increasing numbers of overseas motorists to undertake more adventurous and wide-ranging itineraries.

    My right hon. Friend asked for the Government’s view of Amsterdam referring to itself as London’s third airport. I think it is not for me to comment on the way in which a foreign airport chooses to market its services, but I will say that Schiphol is not one of the options which the Government will consider for handling the longer-term demand for air transport in the London area.

    My right hon. Friend made reference to the London visitor survey. He quoted the statistics about the 10 per cent. of complaints. The response to questions about the problems encountered by visitors to London certainly varies from year to year. Last year fewer visitors found overcrowding a problem. The strengthening of the pound inevitably made prices less attractive, in terms of foreign currency, in comparison with the previous year. I should also add that a broader survey of all overseas visitors indicated that last year over 50 per cent. found ​ prices less expensive than in their own countries. That, after all, is a very relevant comparison.

    Mention was also made of bureaux de change charges. As a result of complaints, the Bank of England recently carried out a survey of one-third of the bureaux operating in the London area. In the Bank’s view, the charges displayed were not unreasonable. The higher commission rates may, of course, reflect the cost of providing a service outside normal banking hours and at the weekend. One would expect there to be a certain higher charge for that service. But, if my right hon. Friend has evidence of unreasonable rates of commission being charged, certainly we can ask the Price Commission to investigate.

    My right hon. Friend also asked about what was happening in the tourism growth areas such as the North Pennines, Scarborough and Devon and Cornwall. After a lot of hard work by all concerned in the region, I approved the first of these schemes in outline a few weeks ago. I am pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the local authorities, the Government agencies and other interests, including those from the private sector, in getting together to stimulate tourism in a wide area of the North Pennines while at the same time—this is very important, because it is an issue which has arisen in some of these areas—doing everything possible to safeguard the essential environmental character of the area.

    My right hon. Friend also inquired specifically about progress at Scarborough. I am afraid that I cannot give him any special news about the Manor of Northstead or about the gardens of Scarborough, but I can tell him that I am still awaiting substantive proposals from the working party concerned. I know that the Scarborough scheme was delayed because the initial proposals for the alterations to the Spa Hall failed to secure listed building consent after a public inquiry. I understand, however, that revised proposals, taking account of the inspector’s report, are being energetically pursued, and I hope to receive a submission soon.

    I was then asked whether we were doing enough in respect of the catering ​ industry. My right hon. Friend mentioned a number of mouth-watering English foods. I hope that that message is conveyed in the right quarters. The problems of the catering industry are being studied by the hotel and catering economic development council and is sub-groups. In particular, I should mention the now completed work of the catering industry study group, which produced “Trends in Catering”, a booklet incorporating a large amount of data on the catering industry which had previously not been made available. This was intended as a benchmark to assist the industry in its future development and in its investment decisions. On the recommendations of the EDC, the catering supplies steering group is at present investigating the feasibility of establishing a body to represent the interests of the catering industry as a whole. As my right hon. Friend will know, the industry is at present represented by numerous trade associations.

    In the same context, my right hon. Friend asked about standards and whether they were being maintained by British waiters and cooks in the light of the drastic reduction in foreign staff in hotels over the last three years. With regard to foreign workers, although the annual quotas for work permits for the industry have been reduced drastically, a significant number of those issued with permits since January 1973 have remained here, as, indeed, one would have expected, with the approval of the Home Office. Many have remained in hotel and catering work. There is no reason to believe that the reduction in the annual quotas has affected standards generally.

    It must be remembered also that training for the industry with the training opportunities scheme continues to expand throughout the country, and last year the number of people successfully completing courses was no less than 50 per cent. up on the previous year.

    On the question of overseas conferences—my right hon. Friend mentioned one in particular which chose July-August, with all the inconvenience and congestion that that causes—the Government have very little control over the timing of such conferences. Very few take place in the main holiday season. In fixing the dates, ​ organisers have to take account of the programme of the international organisation involved or of the wishes of the delegate countries.

    However, if my right hon. Friend is referring to Government hospitality which is provided in conferences not organised by the Government, that hospitality is in fact confined to a single evening reception whenever the conference is held. There is really no scope for variation in that.

    My right hon. Friend mentioned complacency in terms of what he described as the decline in the number of visitors in the first quarter of this year. He said that this had been a jolt for the industry and he suggested that this might have been an antidote for the complacency which he previously feared.

    On numbers, I think that my right hon. Friend may perhaps be going a little too far. What we have experienced is a slowing down in the rate of increase rather than an absolute decline. In fact, the BTA is now forecasting about 4 per cent. growth in overseas visitors this year. I hope and believe that my right hon. Friend is right about a lessened risk of complacency. There could be nothing more destructive of standards, above all in a service industry, than the belief—which is inevitably wrong in the long term—that the customers will keep on coming anyway.

    I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said about the BTA and the Government in their role towards the tourist industry. I agree also that the BTA has done a very good job. It would not be right to forget the ETB and the other national tourist boards, and the non-statutory regional boards, all of whom contribute to the success of the industry and the extension of its benefits throughout the country.

    Let me conclude by briefly summing up the Government’s main strategy for the tourism industry. First, there are the newly-announced initial allowances for hotel construction. I am grateful for the reference by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) to the point about the Budget. I do not know whether it was the first time this had ever been mentioned in a Budget, but these allowances demonstrate convincingly the importance that the Government attach to tourism, which is now our second largest earner of foreign currency—a remarkable achievement.

    This is a most convincing demonstration of the importance which the Government attach to tourism. The allowances will stimulate new investment through the country, at an estimated cost in a full year of £15 million. This is additional to the value of the existing allowances for plant and machinery.

    Secondly, I have already mentioned the selective financial help available to stimulate tourism investment in many of the more beautiful and remote parts of Britain, including most of Wales and almost the whole of Scotland. Thirdly, the industry benefits from the grants-in-aid given to the statutory tourist boards, currently almost £19 million a year, most of which is used to promote visits to and within Britain and to spread the benefits of tourism more evenly throughout the country. We take my right hon. Friend’s message to heart tonight. No doubt this could be done more thoroughly and more fully.

    The industry has served Britain well in the last few years. With these incentives and help, I have every confidence that it will go on doing so in the future.

  • Geoffrey de Freitas – 1978 Speech on Tourism

    Below is the text of the speech made by Geoffrey de Freitas, the then Labour MP for Kettering, in the House of Commons on 26 July 1978.

    I hardly need remind the House that tourism is a very big business and that a lot of the credit for the size of it must go to the 1969 Act and to the British Tourist Authority. That does not mean that I am forgetting the industry.

    The 12 million visitors we shall have this year will spend about £3,000 million in Britain and in fares to British air and sea carriers. That means that every day of the calendar year they will spend on average £9 million. That represents 6 per cent. of our total exports, invisible and visible. This is more than the exports of aircraft, ships, cars and beverages combined.

    Those of us who meet in the all-party parliamentary tourism committee know of the BTA’s great success, but we also know something of the problems. One of the greatest of them, for Londoners anyway, is the attraction of London. It is not only a problem. It is an opportunity. That we must recognise, since, if the tourists are concentrated in London, that gives the BTA and the regional and national organisations the opportunity to persuade them to go out into the country.

    The load must be spread. In spite of all that has been done, even more must be done to ensure that foreign tourists spend more time outside London. I want them to spend it in this country. I was alarmed to read that Amsterdam was saying that its airport is now the third London airport. I should be interested in the Minister’s comment on that.

    I do not suggest that fewer people should come to London, but I do not want more to come. The tourist organisations have been successful in that 60 per cent. of the overseas tourists currently in this country will not be sleeping in London tonight. But we must spread this load further to places which are not traditional tourist areas. I think particularly of the north-east and the area around by constituency in Northamptonshire, which is the heart of the Midlands and is true English countryside.

    It has fine churches. At least two of them—Lincoln Cathedral and Brixworth Church—are paid-up commercial members of the East Midlands Tourist Board. Everyone knows about Lincoln Cathedral, but Brixworth Church is less well known. It is Saxon and is probably the oldest church north of the Alps to have been in continuous use for Christian worship. In 1980 I shall no longer be able to say that it is on the edge of my constituency, but I shall be able to take part in its thirteen hundredth anniversary celebrations.

    I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether we have anything to learn from other countries in spreading the load from the capital. I read of the BTA’s director-general attending a European travel commission seminar in Zurich. Was this problem discussed? Have the Council of Europe and the European Parliament taken an interest in this problem?

    There is something totally different that concerns me. The BTA’s annual London visitors survey last year showed that 90 per cent. of the people who came to London had no complaints about the hotels or restaurants. That is fine. But, if one reads it the other way round, it means that 10 per cent. of the visitors did have a complaint. That is not good enough, especially as the complaints were twice as many last year as the year before. These are real complaints, not imagined complaints.

    A month or two ago there was correspondence in the Financial Times about the bureaux de change charging excessive percentages for changing foreign money into sterling. I was able to write to the Financial Times and point out that I had asked a Question in the House and had found that the Department had never had any complaint at all about this. But we shall have to watch the matter very carefully.

    A charge of 1 per cent. must be the standard rate. Thomas Cook has used that rate for 100 years. But, of course, one ‘has to charge more if a bureau is open all night, or late at night or over the weekend. We accept that. But any increased rate must be justified.

    Last July my hon. Friend referred to Government financial help being channelled in the future to selective assistance projects in development areas—the Pennines, North Cornwall and Scarborough. What has happened about this? I am particularly interested in Scarborough because for a short time in 1961—I am the only Member of the House who can say so—when I was on my way to serve in Africa, I held the office of Steward of Her Majesty’s Manor of Northstead, which, I was informed at the time, included the public gardens of Scarborough. How far has this development scheme gone? How far has it been a success? Are we to do more about it? Will it be expanded?

    I think that we have got over the stage when we think at all of people coming to this country because of our weather. No one comes here to bask on our beaches, or to listen to the rustle of grass skirts or the tinkle of ice cubes in a long glass. They come for the other things. What have we got? We have plenty.

    Sometimes we forget that we have got food, which is sometimes unusual but very good. We have cock-a-leekie, kedgeree, haggis, and devilled kidneys. I shall not refer to mustard, because I remember one of the Marx brothers saying that he liked mustard but he prefer red to have a little bit of beef to go with it. We have summer pudding, a characteristic English dish. On a summer’s day, to warm people up, we could have a little plum pudding.

    Catering and serving, like cooking, must be regarded as a craft and treated as such in apprenticeships and in technical colleges. What inducements, financial and otherwise, are the Government giving to developing such training? I know that in the last three years the number of foreigners working in our hotels has declined from 9,000 to 1,500. But has the standard been maintained by trained British workers?

    I refer to the other attractions that there are to coming to this country. Our language and history, of course, are important. Our theatre in London is as good as any in the world, and it is kept alive by tourists. In this way everyone benefits—tourists, Londoners and people in Britain generally. The next big stage must be to promote better theatre in the provinces.

    I have referred to a sense of history and, indeed, of obligation because of our history. For example, the United States ​ has inherited from us our English common law. What could be more appropriate than that every few years the American Bar Association comes here and meets in Westminster Hall, where our courts sat for many hundreds of years? It is part of their history just as it is of ours.

    But the American Bar Association comes in July, when London is overcrowded. I am told that the last time it came there were over 10,000 people including wives, secretaries and so on. I think that the Government should use their powers of hospitality to discourage such large organisations from coming in July and August and encourage them to come, as far as they can, later in the year—for example, October, which is more appropriate because that is when our courts happen to be sitting and when Parliament is seldom in session, at least at the beginning of the month, so that there would be much less overcrowding.

    Apart from the United States, there are Australia, Canada and New Zealand which have close connections with this country in history and language, while India alone of the Asian countries has preserved the rule of law and parliamentary democracy. There is no season in Britain for observing our democratic and legal institutions, and people can come at any time of the year. There is no need to crowd into the summer.

    Last year, I was worried about complacency creeping into the British tourist industry. Today, after a year in which I have met many of those concerned with the large-scale organisation and operation of tourism, I can report that there is no sign of complacency. The fact that there was a 3 per cent. decline in the number of people coming to this country in the first quarter of the year has been a big enough jolt to the industry.

    All those in the industry recognise that there is a challenge to be faced, and with the encouragement and help of the Government—and they have been of help which I acknowledge, in schemes like the industrial building allowances—they are confident that they can maintain tourism as one of our leading industries.

    I summarise. Spreading the load is important, and it must be spread not only around the country but around the months ​ of the year. The visitors survey shows that complaints in London were twice as high last year as the year before. There have as yet been no complaints about the money-changing, but we must watch that position very carefully. What has happened about north Cornwall, the Pennines, and Scarborough? What has happened about British catering and food? What about the standard of our training of people who have taken the place of the foreigners who served us so well in the hotels?

    I can no longer say that there is any danger of complacency. We are generally agreed that there is not. I am grateful for what the Government have done. Our history—and we must remember that our weather is not what attracts people—can help us to sell ourselves because we can be ourselves; we are a former imperial Power; we are accustomed to look out on the world and to meeting foreigners; we are accustomed to dealing with foreigners.

    We have the unusual advantage of having four different peoples—English, Scots, Welsh and Irish—living in our comparatively small country. Our experience and our history of tolerance, with its spirit of live and let live, make Britain a very pleasant place to visit.

  • Jim Prior – 1978 Speech on the Dock Labour Scheme

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Prior, the then Conservative MP for Lowestoft, in the House of Commons on 24 July 1978.

    It is a cause for some regret that the Secretary of State ended his speech as he did. I am delighted that he quoted what I said, because it has been the wish of every Opposition Member and, I suspect, of every Government supporter that a new dock labour scheme should be drawn up which could meet with the unanimous approval of all sections of the industry.

    But I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, if he did not know it already, that this scheme does no such thing. He is quite wrong and quite misplaced in saying that this scheme has the backing of ​ the employers, because patently it does not have the backing of the employers, and that must be made clear from the start. It is a matter of regret not only that the right hon. Gentleman ended his speech in such a way but that the House cannot give approval to a scheme that has taken a long while to present to the House.

    It must be said that since the original draft was prepared there has been little change. It would have been more appropriate if the Government had listened rather more carefully to those who have to deal with these matters prior to putting forward a scheme before the House. It is strange that we are now told that it is vital that the scheme should come forward while in the 9 o’clock news there was some question whether the Government were even to lay the scheme before the House tonight. It seems extraordinary that what at 9 o’clock was doubtful is now vital. I do not know where the story came from, but it must have come from someone now sitting on the Government Front Bench.

    The draft scheme follows the Act as laid down by section 4. It is the trigger point for a number and series of matters. It brings in ports that are not already included. It also brings in parts of some industries that are not already included. It brings in nothing like as much as the Government wished for until amendments were forced through with the help of two Government Members. However, some extra warehousing and cold storage is brought in while the position remains the same for small ports.

    We bitterly opposed the Act. We thought that it would affect confidence. We thought that were there was no agreement among the many interested parties. Let us face it: there was a clash between not only employers, or management, and the unions; there was considerable differences of view expressed by unions such as USDAW and the General and Municipal Workers’ Union. Even within the Transport and General Workers’ Union very mixed views were expressed.

    Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)

    Influenced by your distortion.

    Mr. Prior

    If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I have the power to stir up parts of the Transport and General Workers’ Union against other parts, I am ​ delighted that he should so credit me. The fact is that the Act and the scheme have always seemed to us to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

    The classification may not have been ideal, but nor is the classification within the measure before us. We have spent all day debating unemployment and we have seen the lack of confidence to invest in dockland that the scheme has resulted in over the past three years. That being so, it is not hard to understand why the Government are in such a muddle on unemployment.

    The Government have never listened to the views put forward by unions, employers and the Opposition as well as quite a few Labour Members. We are dealing with a situation that has changed dramatically since the introduction of the old scheme about 10 years ago. Decasualisation has gone and there has been a substantial reduction in the number of employers. At some ports the port authority is the only employer. There have been the consequences of Devlin stage 2, whereby each registered dockworker is allocated to a named employer. All that has changed since the introduction of the original scheme.

    We judge the draft scheme against the criteria of the changes that have come about in the past 10 years. Does the new scheme strengthen the dock labour scheme? The answer is that it does not. Does it lead to more efficient and effective management? Again, the answer must be “No”.

    Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

    Justify those statements.

    Mr. Prior

    I shall do so. The changes in dockland over the past 10 years are combined with the changed nature of the cargo, containers and roll-on roll-off that has taken the place of mixed cargo.

    Mr. Loyden

    That is irrelevant.

    Mr. Prior

    On the contrary, it is extremely relevant. There has been a shift in trade from the west coast to the east coast, and there has been a reduction in manpower.

    The Opposition recognise that this has been a considerable and painful period of adjustment, particularly in London, where the pain is not yet over. I believe that we should concentrate far more on the ​ need for retraining and for new industries in the port of London area rather than on trying to take into the scheme warehouses, cold stores and other establishments that have nothing to do with the dock industry.

    The picture is not entirely gloomy. I should tell the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) that in the past few years, despite all the difficulties, Merseyside has improved enormously in its industrial relations. It is important to get a better relationship between employer and dock worker. I do not believe that the dock labour scheme in its present form will do that, first, because of the disciplinary procedures.

    The new scheme seriously weakens the disciplinary procedures. It will place the dock workers’ representatives on the local boards in a invidious position. Trade unionists will find themselves having to consider disciplinary action against their own members when that is not the union’s job. They will have to do that under the new scheme, whereas they did not do so under the old scheme. That is one reason why we dislike the new scheme and do not think that the House should approve it tonight.

    Our second objection is the removal of the power of the National Dock Labour Board to employ registered dock workers. It is vital for the National Dock Labour Board to be able to employ registered dock workers in any transitional period. We understand the feeling about the temporary unattached register. But, in fairness, the temporary unattached register has not been used in recent years until the last few weeks. It has had to be used in the last few weeks because, when Wallis went broke, there was no way in which the additional workers could be put out to other employers.

    Therefore, for a time, at any rate, the dockers had to come back on to an unattached register.

    Mr. Booth

    Under the existing scheme.

    Mr. Prior

    Yes, under the existing scheme. The new scheme is doing away with that. It is doing away with something without putting anything in its place. There will have to be some form of transitional period, some form of register, to enable workers who are thrown out of a job, as happened with Wallis—

    Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Prior

    When I have finished this point. There will have to be some form of register—we can call it something different if we like—to take the place of the temporary unattached register.

    Mr. Spearing

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Wallis situation occurred when T. Wallis (Royal Docks) went into liquidation overnight and 300 men turned up on a Thursday morning to find that they had no work? Is he advocating that that kind of situation should continue? Does he envisage collapses of that kind? If so, does it not reflect on his view about dock work in general?

    Mr. Prior

    I am saying that in cases of that nature there has to be a transitional register whilst arrangements are being made to place those dockers with other employers. There is no getting away from that. They cannot turn up for work the next morning and be placed with other employers who have no need for them. Therefore, there will have to be some transitional arrangement, and I should think that a transitional register or something of that nature would be more satisfactory. That is another objection to the scheme.

    A third objection concerns the use of supplementary workers. The port employers are worried by the narrow definition of “supplementary workers”. They believe that an amendment is required to clear matters up.

    Some dock workers do other work at times when dock work is not available. They do other jobs around the docks to be kept fully employed. These issues should have been cleared up. I believe that they could have been cleared up. With pressure from the Government on both sides, those matters could have been dealt with. Then the scheme could have gone through. It is true that we have never liked the Act and that we have no particular brief for the scheme.

    I turn to the question of membership of the local boards. There is disagreement among the employers on this issue. Some employers, such as the coal storage companies, wish to have independent membership of the local boards. The National Association of Port Employers and the ​ unions believe that independent membership is unnecessary. There is real disagreement. But the matter should have been thrashed out before the scheme was put to the House. It would have been possible to have independent chairmen for the local boards.

    Mr. Robert Hughes

    What type of person would be regarded as independent?

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

    Lord Aldington.

    Mr. Prior

    It is not for me to define such a person. But there are a number of people who are independent and who could become chairmen of dock labour boards at local and national level. I see no difficulty in finding independent chairmen.

    For a number of reasons the Act is bad and the scheme is bad. It is a pity, for future peace in dockland, that a scheme has not been introduced which we could agree upon tonight. I have been in the House long enough to recognise nervous laughter. I know how nervous the Government supporters are because the scheme is likely to be defeated.
    I say to the industry that I believe that there is a basis for an agreed scheme. Certainly, a Conservative Government would seek once more to obtain an agreed scheme. The present Government have not made the necessary effort and do not carry the necessary majority to carry it through.

  • Albert Booth – 1978 Statement on the Dock Labour Scheme

    Below is the text of the statement made by Albert Booth, the then Secretary of State for Employment, in the House of Commons on 24 July 1978.

    I beg to move,

    That the draft Dock Labour Scheme 1978, which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.

    A new dock labour scheme is clearly needed in order that the National Dock Labour Board can carry out the duties and the functions which the House decided were appropriate for such a board when it carried the Dock Work Regulation Act in November 1976. The scheme which I have laid before the House embodies some of the broad principles contained in the 1967 scheme, but the changes—the aspects which I take it will interest the House and which it will want to debate tonight—reflect both the experience that we have gained in the operation of the 1967 scheme and the judgment about how far that scheme should be altered in order to take into account the changes in cargo-handling methods brought about in the docks since that time and the changing pattern of trade in many of our docks.

    One of the changes is the abolition of the temporary unattached register. This will bring to an end the process of decasualisation in the industry which was initiated by the Devlin report in 1965. The scheme also contains detailed changes in relation to the powers of the National Dock Labour Board, including its powers to deal with disciplinary matters in the courts.

    I believe that the new scheme makes a provision for safeguarding those employees whose work is classified as dock-work. Such a safeguard has been long needed, and it is certainly not provided by the existing scheme. Therefore, one of the reasons why I believe it highly desirable that the House should pass this scheme is that it will ensure that at any time in the future anyone working in a job which becomes classified as dock-work has the essential protections of his job in his representation by his union on the local dock labour board, protections which are necessary in order to have a secure and stable labour force in an industry which, by its very nature, is dynamic and one in which the pattern of work will inevitably change.

    There is a provision in the new scheme for independent chairmen of local appeal tribunals. There is a requirement upon the National Dock Labour Board to appoint the chairman of these tribunals in every case. When the draft order was laid originally, one of the suggestions was that I should embody provision for independent members to be appointed to local dock labour boards. I have rejected this suggestion, not because I dispute that there are many groups, including warehouse owners, cold storage employers, shippers and road haulage firms, which clearly have an interest in the way in which the scheme is administered, but because I believe that it is a very different matter to say that such an interest should entitle someone with no direct experience of the industry, with no financial stake in it, to have an individual say in the running of the local management of labour within a port.

    That is a very different function indeed from that of the docks consultative committees, and certainly very different from that carried out by the port authorities themselves, with their specific responsibility for the main corporate proposals as to how the docks should be run. The local boards are purely concerned with dock labour matters, and therefore I believe it necessary that that narrow and specific function should be subject to the direction of the National Dock Labour Board.

    The National Dock Labour Board has been reconstituted by decision of this House to bring in a third element of decision as to national policy and to give directions to local boards. It is a body which contains not only representatives of port employers and the unions but of people appointed to help employers and workers on a much wider basis.

    Mr. Giles Shaw (Pudsey)

    Inasmuch as the new scheme—and, indeed, the operation of the Act—is to extend what has been traditional dock work into new fields, how can the Secretary of State say that the operation of the local dock labour board is concerned purely with port or dock matters? Surely it requires representation from outside, independent interests in order to make is effective?

    Mr. Booth

    I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who usually studies these matters more carefully, should imagine ​ that the local dock labour board has any ultimate responsibility for the extension of the scheme. If he examines the Act, he will be perfectly well aware that, although proposals may be made by local dock boards, it is only the National Dock Labour Board in the first instance and the National Dock Labour Board in the last instance which can make representations to the Secretary of State for any extension of the scheme.

    I believe that it is essential to an understanding of both the scheme and the Act that it should be seen that anyone who is affected by a proposal for an extension of the scheme should have a right to make representations as to his interests, and that any representations he makes to a local board must be notified by the board to the National Dock Labour Board. Only the National Dock Labour Board, which has the three clear elements within its membership, should be able to put to the Secretary of State a proposal which can subsequently be put before this House.

    That is a clear line of responsibility for any extension of the scheme, and I suggest that anyone who is thinking tonight of rejecting this scheme—which means, by definition, that he is requiring us to retain the existing scheme—should look very carefully at the existing scheme to see just how far he is rejecting the proposition that there should be that clear line of control and accountability for any extensions of the scheme and any further classification of work.

    There is no question whatsoever but that under the Act coupled with this scheme outside interests are guaranteed a hearing on any matters affecting them and relating to the operation of the scheme. Those employers whose activities can be brought within the scheme will have an equal right of representation on the local boards as existing port employers. Before the work can be classified for the purposes of the new scheme, the National Dock Labour Board is required to carry out extensive consultations with everyone concerned, but the decisions about classification are to be made by the Secretary of State and are subject to parliamentary endorsement. In view of all the sensitivity which exists in dock work areas and all the concern expressed in this House about the proposal to bring ​ in the scheme, I believe that it is right that that line of accountability should exist.

    The kind of work which can be classified as dock work under the scheme is now clearly defined within the Act. I believe that if the scheme is passed it will rid us of the very serious difficulty which exists in operating the present scheme, which arises from the doubt whether work can be classified. Work done in some ports is classified. The same work done in other ports is not classified. It is possible, under the existing scheme, for the challenge to take place whether work should be made dock work. While we were debating the Bill in Committee, such a challenge took place in Merseyside and was examined at great length by the Committee, but no one suggested then that the existing procedure for classification of dock work was ideal.

    Broadly, the work concerned in this scheme must be cargo handling and where the work is mainly concerned with an owner’s own goods, even his cargo handling, it cannot be classified. It must be regarded as “own account” work. The handling of any goods not at any stage loaded as cargo in a ship cannot be brought within the scheme, either. Manufacturing work is outside its scope. But the main point, which I think will be appreciated by the House, is that in this scheme, coupled with this Act, the definition of what can be classified and what must not be classified is quite clearly laid down in schedule 4 of the Act.

    This is a very short debate. However, before sitting down I should like to remind the House of what the right hon Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said in this House after the Government accepted the Lords amendment which restricted the area to which the scheme applied. He said:

    “We hope that the Act, as it will become, will result in a period of peace and stability in dockland and that the dockers and other unions and workers involved will settle down so that we can achieve what we need to achieve in dockland…. The fact that the cargo-handling zone and the five-mile corridor have been removed from the Bill will enable confidence to return to the area so that warehouses may be built and the industry can settle down.”—[Official Report, 18th November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 1597–98.]

    It is hard to imagine that anyone who took that view of a decision on a Lords amendment would ever suggest that the ​ scheme and the Act which resulted from those remarks should be rejected. But I understand that such is to be the position tonight.

    This scheme not only has the backing of the employers and the unions in the industry; it has the backing of people who have knowledge and experience of operating a dock work labour scheme. It has their backing, and it accords fully with the spirit and intention of the Act.

    I believe that our dock workers will be understandably bitter if, more than 18 months after the Act was passed, when the scheme has been examined carefully in draft, it is put before the House and rejected. They will rightly have to call upon us to operate an existing scheme—it is their statutory right to do so—a scheme which is outdated, a scheme which carries with it great difficulties and threats for those whose work is classified under the scheme anew.

    Therefore, I believe that the House should give approval to the scheme. If we fail to do so, we cannot put it right by bringing back a revised scheme at short notice—that must be made clear. The whole of the statutory consultation procedure will have to be gone through again, and therefore a very substantial delay will be inevitable.

    I believe that the scheme is a very substantial improvement on the existing one. It is an improvement for those whose interests may be affected. It is an improvement for workers whose jobs may be classified. It is an improvement for a House which wishes to take a responsibility in the area of determining the allocation of dock work. As such, I commend it to the House.

  • Bob Cryer – 1978 Speech on the Sheffield Cutlery Industry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Bob Cryer, the then Under-Secretary of State for Industry, in the House of Commons on 24 July 1978.

    May I first say how pleased I am that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has drawn attention to the difficulties facing the cutlery industry at present? I very much appreciate the way he dealt with the subject. May I also point out that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), whose constituency is very much concerned with this industry, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) have displayed their interest, without participating in the debate and repeating the very clear statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough, by being here throughout the debate tonight. There has been a drop of 9 per cent. in employment in Sheffield alone in the three years from 1973 to 1976, and this is a matter of serious concern to us all.

    Before embarking on my reply, perhaps I should briefly say that the term “cutlery” which we are using refers to implements such as knives, forks and spoons and the like, known in the trade as “flatware”. This is the section which we are now discussing. We are not at present concerned with razors and razor blades or with knives for machines.

    Although they are regarded for some purposes as cutlery, they are entirely separate sectors and are not beset by the problems which my hon. Friend has described.

    My hon. Friend has been assiduous in drawing attention to the difficulties of the industry, and the industry itself has made representations to successive Governments on a number of occasions about the adverse effects of increasing competition from imports. Together with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Meacher), I met a deputation from ​ Sheffield on 9th January this year to discuss the matters which have been raised tonight. In addition to my hon. Friends the Members for Hillsborough and Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), and our much lamented late hon. Friend as Member for Penistone, Mr. Mendelson, the deputation included representatives of the cutlery manufacturers, the trade unions, Sheffield city council and South Yorkshire county council.

    We are to meet them again next Thursday, and this is an indication of the great willingness on the Government’s part to discuss this serious matter. I think it important that the Government should keep in touch with the important areas which are expressing concern, and this is why we are happy to see a deputation so soon after the first one in January this year.

    Our meeting with the Sheffield delegation earlier this year not only underlined the concern but left us in no doubt as to its members’ views on the need for early action. The industry agreed in 1976 to undertake a study in depth of its problems to see what answers could be found, including the possibility of import restrictions. I shall deal with this study more fully later.

    As a consequence of the discussions in January of this year to which I have referred, and because of the continuing pressure of imports, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade arranged for the possibility of temporary import restrictions to be discussed with officials of the EEC Commission. The Commission indicated that it was not prepared to support at that stage an application for the imposition of import controls by the United Kingdom. Among its reasons for that were the fact that a number of British cutlery manufacturers were themselves significant importers. It cannot, surely, strengthen the case for import controls if the very people who are complaining are themselves the main culprits.

    Second, the Commission said that because imports of stainless steel table cutlery had become so high, it seemed unlikely that home producers could provide fully for the cheap end of the market. My hon. Friend has made suggestions to cope with that, and those suggestions will be taken into account.

    However, the Commission did agree to the introduction of surveillance licensing for all imports of cutlery into the United Kingdom from outside the Community. This came into effect on 10th April, but at present it is too soon to draw any positive conclusions from the information so far collected. But we hope that it will be of value in further consideration of the industry’s problems. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is too soon to draw any substantial conclusions, but certainly the information gathered so far indicates that the surveillance is of very great importance.

    I must emphasise, as my hon. Friend did, that we are now members of the EEC and it would be very difficult to act unilaterally. There has been a shift of emphasis, of course, and the Government must take this into account. The Commission is involved. I well recall that my hon. Friend and I warned of the consequences of this position before the 1975 referendum. However, the fact is that the referendum decided in favour of our continued membership of the Common Market. The modification of the Government’s position regarding unilateral action, because of membership of the EEC, is today a reality that we must face.

    In this context, it is important not to overlook the steps which the industry itself has taken to secure a limitation of imports from two of the three principal sources. I understand the point that my hon. Friend has made about the limitations of voluntary agreements, but it is important to point out that voluntary restraints have been exercised by Japan for many years, and that restraints have recently been volunteered by Korean manufacturers following talks with their British counterparts. Voluntary restraint arrangements impose much less pressure on the international trading system than do formal import controls, as is recognised in other sectors.

    Therefore, it is important to urge the industry to seize whatever opportunities it can to extend these voluntary arrangements. I know that there are criticisms —my hon. Friend has mentioned them—such as that full reliance cannot be placed upon them, but I certainly believe that every possibility needs to be exploited, and the industry should certainly explore that sort of possibility.

    ​I now turn to the study of the industry that is going ahead. First, I must emphasise that the study is being done primarily by the industry itself, by staff from its research association. The suggestion that the industry should look for a solution to its problems other than by import controls is not a new one. Positive proposals for a study were put by my Department to the industry as long ago as 1974. In 1974, these proposals included the proposed terms of reference and an offer of a contribution to the cost of the study. We do not have and nor does the trade association, frankly, have sufficient information on past or future investment capacity, profitability and other factors on the industry to enable us to make informed judgments about the whole position.

    The study which the industry has now agreed to undertake has the following terms of reference, but I would point out that we have lost those two years due to the inability, at the time, of the industry to make a decision about embarking upon this important study. The terms of reference are:

    “To consider the major factors affecting the efficiency and competitiveness of the UK cutlery and flatware industry in both home and overseas markets; and in what ways its performance might be improved, including whether temporary restrictions on imports might help to achieve this.”

    Therefore, restrictions on imports are included in the terms of reference, and they are being studied.

    My Department has agreed to pay half the cost of the study, and to make an economist available to help with the commercial and economic aspects. After a slow start, because of delay in obtaining a sufficient response to the questionnaire sent to firms, I am glad to say that the study is progressing satisfactorily. The information contained in the study will enable us to present a complete case to the Commission. It is certainly our view that simply a decrease in the amount of employment in the industry would not of itself convince the Commission that import controls should be imposed.

    It is necessary, therefore, to explore, every avenue, and that involves presenting the strongest possible case that the Department can do to the Commission when the study has been completed.

    Mr. John H. Osborn (Sheffield, Hallam)

    I probed Commissioner Davignon on this matter only two weeks ago, and he indicated that no positive approach had been made to him and that he was waiting for that approach from the industry and the British Government. After these remarks, will the Minister clarify the matter?

    Mr. Cryer

    Certainly. I am not responsible for Commissioner Davignon. It sometimes happens that what a Commissioner says is not entirely in accord with what has transpired. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that an approach has been made to the Commission about import controls, and that as I said earlier —I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present at the time—the Commission was approached about import surveillance and has agreed to it. There is no question but that representations have been made to the Commission.

    It was our understanding from the Commission that, for the reasons I outlined, import controls could not at that stage be applied. A full and proper case must be presented to the Commission. We have been urging the industry for some time to compile a study in order to ensure that we have the fullest information so that any questions that arise can be satisfactorily resolved.

    The industry hopes that a report on the fact-finding phase of the study will be available by the end of August. The intention is that the report will then be considered by a working group consisting of representatives of both sides of the industry and of my Department to consider and recommend appropriate courses of action to achieve the objectives of the study. No doubt that will involve a consideration of import controls as a way of improving the position.

    I cannot forecast what recommendations will be made, but the industry and my Department have a target completion date for the work, the end of 1978. I can only say that we shall give all the help we can towards a successful conclusion. I know that the Sheffield city council and the South Yorkshire county council are also anxious to help in any way they can.

    The study is not the only way in which my Department is helping the industry. Officials have had discussions with some companies about financial assistance under ​ the Industry Act, and I am glad to say that interest is being shown. We help the industry to benefit from collective research and development carried out by the Cutlery and Allied Trades Research Association in two ways. First, the Department undertakes the collection of a statutory research levy from manufacturers of stainless steel cutlery and flatware. Secondly, it contributes towards individual research and development projects on a significant scale.

    I believe that in the face of the massive competition from imports it is of vital importance that British cutlery manufacturers should exploit every opportunity offered by advances in technology. Apart from the contribution which my Department makes to collective research and development, it is always ready to consider applications by individual manufacturers for assistance under the product and process development scheme.

    The pressure of imports for some types of cutlery, serious though it is, can, if we are not careful, give a somewhat distorted view of the achievements of the industry. The traffic is not all one way by any means. The British cutlery industry—as I defined it at the beginning of my speech —exports successfully to many parts of the world, mainly in the better quality and more expensive sectors of the market. In fact, in 1977 our exports of cutlery were greater in value than our imports, and the figures to date point to our again enjoying a favourable balance of trade in 1978. This represents a gradual improvement on earlier years, and it not, therefore, a flash in the pan.

    However, we should be wary about assuming that because we are exporting well in the expensive end of the market this is the end of the matter. We have always bobbing over our shoulders the example of the British motor cycle industry, which opted out of the cheaper end of the market and gradually the expensive end was taken over as well. But the industry should be congratulated on its export achievements. Certainly it is a hopeful sign for the future.

    My hon. Friend raised an important question about marking, which included the question of imported blanks, which are silver plated in this country and then sold with a description which suggests. ​ or might be taken by some to mean, that they are of British origin. Whether this is a breach of the Trade Descriptions Act depends on whether the silver plating constitutes a substantial change in the product. This is solely for the courts to decide, and I cannot express an opinion. If anyone feels that an offence has been committed he should draw the matter to the attention of the appropriate local authority consumer protection department, which has responsibility for enforcing the Acts. That is the legal position, and I must make that quite clear. But I would add that practices of the kind described would be regarded as not in the best long-term interests of the British cutlery industry.

    I would strongly urge anybody who feels that there is a case to make the appropriate report so that action can be taken and a legal decision arrived at. That might be of enormous benefit and importance to the industry. I shall bring this debate to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, so that he is kept fully abreast of the representations and feelings on the matter.

    There is no general requirement for origin marking of goods in this country. Moreover, the use of the order-making powers under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to impose such a requirement can be used only when origin marking is in the interest of the consumer. The cutlery industry has not so far convinced my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection that there is a good case for a marking order on consumer protection grounds. The legislation does not allow for origin marking for the purpose of protecting trade.

    But my hon. Friend is bringing a delegation on Thursday and I can assure him that there will be a representative from the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection so that this matter can be gone into in some detail, because it is an important matter which is of concern not only on cutlery but on many other items of manufacture.

    My hon. Friend pointed out the disparity in working conditions. There was a recent film on television about working conditions in Korea which clearly showed that Korean employees have not got trade ​ union rights, they have no health and safety at work legislation, and no employment protection Act, so if any factory inspectors were called in they could be sacked at a moment’s notice. It is hardly fair competition for British workers, who have had this element of protection introduced by the Labour Government, when people in such countries as Korea and Hong Kong are grossly exploited, although that would not be true. for example, of Japan.

    But it may be necessary, in considering any import restrictions or quotas, during the negotiations for, for example, a social clause to he considered, which may well be of assistance to the working class of Korea in improving their working conditions, so as to end the long hours and extreme tiredness demonstrated in the film by the girls falling asleep during their ​ luncheon break, when a photographer crept inside, apparently against the wishes, which is hardly surprising, of the factory owners and took pictures of them asleep.

    This must be a matter for any future negotiations. But if we are to have international competition it must be fair, without the sort of massive exploitation I have described. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend and the delegation on Thursday, when we can go into these matters in detail. I thank him for his expression of concern tonight. I hope that I have answered some of his questions and assured him that this is a continual process of investigation.