asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the current situation regarding planning applications and appeals.

Although the number of appeals received by the end of September was almost equal to the total for 1972 it is likely that twice as many decisions will be issued this year as in 1972. The great majority of these decisions were made by inspectors on the basis of written representations and within the average of 33 weeks. Where inquiries are necessary the position is still not satisfactory; the effect of recruitment for the inspectorate and of other measures upon the increasing volume of work has not yet been fully felt.

Comprehensive information about the number of planning applications received by local planning authorities this year or average times taken is not yet available. I have asked Mr. George Dobry, Q.C. assisted by a strong advisory group, to make a review of the development control and appeal systems. Mr. Dobry expects to complete his review in six months and to make an interim report early in the New Year.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that information, which I shall study with interest. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is increasing concern among many applicants that some local planning authorities are not bothering to give a decision within the statutory two-months' period, knowing that the applicant will not be likely to go to appeal because he would have to wait a year for a decision? Will the Department of the Environment at least issue a circular reminding local planning authorities that they should give decisions within the two-months' period?

I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestions. I am aware of the difficulties to which he has referred. Often, it is the applicants themselves who wish to continue to negotiate.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the position is made much worse by a serious shortage of qualified planning staff, particularly among some of the smaller authorities? What action is he taking to help overcome this?

Training courses are being provided. This is a very serious problem, with the number of planning applications received by local planning authorities running at the rate of about 600,000 a year.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that if he could persuade or encourage local planning authorities to grant planning permission in a more lavish and generous way, especially in rural constituencies, he would achieve the twin objects of reducing the "constipation" of appeals and improving the availability of housing and housing land?

I have issued a circular about releasing land for housing. It is important that local planning authorities should not refuse permission merely so that there should be an appeal, and so that the Minister has to decide the matter. I am sending out a further circular which will give guidance to local planning authorities and potential applicants on how to process an application and how to avoid confrontation wherever possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has given to new local authorities in estimating their expenditure for 1974–75.

The main lines of estimates by the new authorities will evolve from the programmes they inherit from their predecessors. They have been advised of the need for restraint in the rate of growth of expenditure to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred on 21st May.

Is it not time that Parliament and the public had more information about the basis of negotiations which, presumably, are now taking place? Is it sufficient to publish a scrap of paper in September about the rate support grant? Is this open government?

The programme is one of negotiations with the local authority associations, which are taking place at present. The associations have been warned that the rates support grant will be fixed on the basis that the local authorities will heed my right hon. Friend's circular about restraint in spending. The present intention is to give local authorities provisional notice of their grant in January, subject to the approval of the House on the rate support grant order, and also on the basis of forthcoming legislation which the Government hope to present to the House early in the next Session.

Has my right hon. Friend taken steps to ensure that figures are available in reasonable detail to enable comparisons to be made of the numbers employed in local government after 1st April 1974 with those employed before that date?

I do not promise that I can give those details, but I will bear the matter in mind.

Is it not already clear that, no matter how restrained local authorities are, the new local government organisation which is being set up will be extremely expensive and will in many cases duplicate administration? Adding to that the tremendous inflationary cost to local government this year, what action do the Government intend to take now to protect the interests of the ratepayer, having regard to phase 3?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await our proposals, which will be contained in legislation, but we have that very much in mind. I do not think that the increased expenditure results from local government reorganisation. It comes from the desire for greater services in local government.

When the Minister issues instructions to local authorities on the grants available, will he take particular note of the problems of south-east Lancashire in relation to reports, not yet published but widely referred to in the national Press, about the "nine worst towns" in England? Some of us do not agree with the conclusions arrived at in this respect. Nevertheless, the report calls for a great deal of Government expenditure to raise the standard of these local authorities. When the Minister speaks in terms of the grant for next year will he take into account the needs of those local authorities in terms of public expenditure?

The Government are committed to giving particular consideration to older cities with problems of reviving their city centres.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the percentage increase in the average price of an acre of building land since June 1970.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) on 20th June 1973.—[Vol. 858, c. 679–80.] These relate to the latest published figures which refer to the second half of 1972. I hope the figures for the first half of 1973 will be published soon, and I will be in touch with the hon. Member.

I thought that the Minister might try to dodge the question, and I took the opportunity to look up the figures. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, on the basis of his previous replies, there has been an increase of 250 per cent. in land prices since the General Election? When will this Government realise that if we are to control the development of land we must also control its price?

We are all agreed that land prices have risen too rapidly. However, no one in his wildest dreams has suggested that the price of building land has risen by 250 per cent. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is totally without foundation.

Is my hon. Friend able to confirm my own information, which is that building land prices have dropped in the past few months? Is my hon. Friend able to comment on the figures which I have, showing that a recent price of £50 per acre for land for residential development has come down to less than £40?

The most recently published figures refer to the last half of 1972. There is a time lag of at least four months in the figures. In my view the figures are not satisfactory because they are so out of date. However, I think that my hon. Friend is right. I hear more and more reports that land prices are beginning to go down.

It was clear in June, from the hon. Gentleman's reply, to which reference has been made, that there had been an increase of 100 per cent, in the average price of building land in a period of 12 months. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that the allegation of a 250 per cent, increase in the past three years is totally without foundation? If he is, will he give us the figures on which he bases that assertion?

I shall be in touch with the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) as well—[ Interruption. ] Hon. Members are entitled to put down Questions and I shall answer them. When the figures are published, I shall be in touch with the hon. Member for Willesden, East.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies and the unsatisfactory nature of the statistics apparently underlying those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government are taking in consultation with the local authorities to deal with the situation arising from sewage effluent discharge into the River Mersey, as outlined in the Department of the Environment River Pollution Survey of England and Wales (SBN 11.750562/5); what financial aid is being made available to local authorities; and what further action is being taken to deal with all forms of pollution in the River Mersey.

Following my visit in 1971, the river authority, together with local authorities and industry, established a Steering Committee on the Pollution of the Mersey Estuary, with the assistance of my Department. This committee is preparing a plan which will be placed before the new North West Water Authority to improve the estuary so that gross physical pollution is cleared away and the river ceases to stink.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a reasonably satisfactory answer? Is he further aware that since the 1970 survey seven sewage effluent discharges have become unsatisfactory and that the discharge of crude sewage is still at a very high level? Has he seen the plan submitted by Councillor Michael Black from Liverpool, supported by a university group, suggesting a recycling plant on Merseyside? Has he examined that plan? Can he say what is the Government's attitude to it and whether the Government are prepared to make funds available? In view of the fact that the River Mersey is a health hazard, is it not clear that speedy action is required in order to safeguard people's health, and that the profits of employers must come second to the health of their employees?

That is a reasonably satisfactory suggestion. I shall consider any proposal of the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will accept that the Liverpool Corporation, as well as the other local authorities and the river board, has been very active in trying to improve the situation, which is one where we have all inherited the problems of many generations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a most urgent problem in the north-western area and that it is clear from documents published by the river authority that pollution of the River Mersey must be checked and cured?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It was with this in mind that I paid a visit to the Mersey for the purpose of getting a 10-year plan established in order to free the river of gross physical pollution and the odorous quality that it has at present.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied that the official total of dereliction coincides with the actual amount of dereliction in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Not entirely, and for that reason a new extended survey of derelict and despoiled land in England is to be undertaken next April. Dereliction in Scotland and Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

While I am pleased to hear that there is to be an extended survey, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us when he intends to publish the figures of the present survey? In view of the very urgent problems in our older industrial areas, will he assure us that land reclamation will not be held up by phase 3 of the Government's policy?

We shall publish the figures of the present survey as soon as possible. However, I am relying to a great extent on the new survey, which will start with the new local authorities on 1st April 1974. This time it will identify spoil heaps and excavations which are still in active use and also abandoned workings which are subject to town planning restoration.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that enough is being done to inquire into how much derelict land can be released for building? In our industrial areas especially there is a great deal of despoiled land which is an eyesore which could be readily made available for building land and which is not capable of reclamation for agricultural use.

Yes. The trouble frequently is subsidence and the restoration of land for building purposes. But in many cases, bearing in mind that we have had more than 5,000 acres reclaimed in the past year, great progress is being made and much of the land can be used for building.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give the latest figures for the average prices of newly-built and secondhand houses; and what the comparative prices were in June 1970.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give the latest available figures for the average prices of newly-built and secondhand houses.

The average prices of newly-built and secondhand houses in the second quarter of 1973 was £10,023 and £9,790 respectively. The comparable figures for the second quarter of 1970 were £5,082 and £4,778.

It looks as though the Minister has done the double. Is he aware that those figures show that property spivs and racketeers have had three golden years whilst young married couples have been collecting a mountain of misery and debt? Who is to blame for this lot? Is it the weather again?

The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is typical of so many that he asks. In fact, despite the obvious difficulties which both sides of the House recognise, in the first half of this year there were more first-time buyers of houses, and more young people and people earning less than national average earnings were able to buy houses than was the case in 1970.

My hon. Friend will recognise that at the same time as house prices have escalated so, too, have the fees of estate agents and solicitors. Since no extra work is involved, is not it time that my hon. Friend talked to them with a view to reducing the costs of conveyancing?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has already taken some action on that.

Is the Minister aware that the figures that he has quoted this afternoon are totally and disgracefully out of line with the kind of warnings that the Tory Party was giving during the last election? Will he tell the House, briefly, whether the Government now have any policy on house prices? Is he aware that Ministers have consistently said that the only way to bring down house prices is to build more houses, whereas in practice the figures for house building look like being the lowest for the last 10 years?

It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that, but in the first eight months of this year 155,000 private houses were started, compared with 108,000 when he had responsibility for housing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Sports Council and other organisations on ways of implementing the recommendations of the Wheatley Committee's Report on Crowd Safety at Football Matches; and if he will make a statement.

I have explained to the English and Welsh football authorities the scope of the Government's plans for safety control of sports grounds in the light of Lord Wheatley's report. As a separate issue I have also initiated talks with the Sports Council about the part it might play in the development of suitable grounds as multi-purpose sports centres.

What cost tag have the Government put on their plans?

Cost is not a matter for the Government. It is for those who invite people to watch sport in their grounds for profit to put in the necessary precautions for the safety of the public.

Will the Minister not be deterred by the argument that the big football clubs have no money? Is it not strange that some of them quite happily spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on very doubtful players and nothing at all upon vital necessities, such as crash barriers and toilets? As a classic example, may I suggest that the Minister looks closely at Master Clough's old stamping ground, Derby County, which has spent a vast sum of money and has a ground which is an absolute disgrace to the First Division?

It is not for me to comment on any particular ground, or manager or ex-manager. Any organisation which encourages the public to attend large spectator events must accept a measure of responsibility for the safety of those who go there.

Is the Minister really telling the House and the world of sport that he is imposing considerable financial obligations which arise from the Wheatley Report—which all of us want to see implemented—and that he and his colleagues have made no assessment of the cost? What will be the cost of implementing Wheatley? How much money do the Government anticipate raking in this year from football and sport through VAT? It will be a colossal amount, and much more than we thought when we debated the matter.

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the Bill that I hope will be introduced in the next Session. There is no proposal to license grounds with capacities of less than 10,000, so the vast majority of clubs are not affected at all.

Regarding the Chester Report, to which the hon. Gentleman frequently alludes, I have told the football authorities that I am willing to discuss with them any of the problems that they want to put before me and will lay them, as he did, before Treasury Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment by what percentage starts in council house building have changed since June 1970.

In the 12 months to June 1973 public sector starts in England and Wales were 26 per cent, fewer than in the 12 months to June 1970 but total housing starts were 13 per cent. more.

Are not those figures among the most disgraceful to have been put before the House? Does the Minister realise that private housing is no substitute whatsoever for municipal housing, especially at the prices which, it has been admitted, now have to be paid, which are well outside the means of young married couples and ordinary working people?

The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that the decline in the numbers of public sector houses began in 1967. The assessment of local needs is the responsibility of the local housing authority. The Government have made it clear that where there is a genuine need it is the job of the local authority to provide more houses to rent. 1 strongly support those who get on with the job.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many tenants of municipal accommodation have been able to buy their own council houses since this Government came to power? Will he also take heed of the example of Singapore, where the density of population is far higher than in most British cities and yet tenants of public sector property can purchase their homes through their rentals?

The number of council tenants buying their homes from local authorities last year was more than 40,000. That illustrates the strong desire to achieve home ownership which exists on council estates.

Does the Minister realise that millions of families on council house waiting lists or in the slums are losing all hope? Has he no plans to stop this calamitous fall in council house building? Will he remove none of the obstacles put in the way of local authorities through the cost yardstick and rapidly rising interest charges? That is what is stopping the housing programme.

The hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about housing matters, knows very well that the initiative in these cases must lie with the local authority, which is able to judge accurately local needs. The resources and incentive to do that job are supplied to local authorities under the Housing Finance Act, and we have provided great flexibility regarding the yardstick.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has sought and obtained from outside bodies on the viability of the Maplin seaport.

The National Ports Council will be consulted when the Port of London Authority puts forward detailed proposals for the seaport.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the growing disenchantment with the total project is not clouded by the lack of figures relating to the viability of the seaport project? Will he ensure that figures based on the views of the National Ports Council and some of the likely users of the viability of this seaport are forthcoming before this House debates the matter?

The hon. Gentleman is jumping the gun. The Port of London Authority has yet to put forward detailed proposals. When it does, the National Ports Council will have a look at them and will give me its advice.

Is not the seaport an integral part of the larger Maplin project, which involves the provision of an airport as well? That being so, when is Parliament to have an opportunity of discussing the case for the seaport?

I think that my hon. Friend is also a little in advance of events. The Port of London Authority has not yet put forward proposals so neither I nor the National Ports Council has had an opportunity to consider them.

Whatever the right hon. Gentleman thinks about the seaport, will he press ahead without delay with the construction of the airport?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's views.

Are the Government saying that they have not yet consulted the National Ports Council or any other outside body on the concept of having a port at Maplin without detailed plans being submitted? Did the Government bring before this House a detailed Bill establishing the Maplin Development Authority without first seeking any advice?

There are not yet any detailed proposals for either the National Ports Council or anyone else to consider. When the Port of London Authority is in a position to put forward proposals it will doubtless do so. Such proposals will then be fully considered by the National Ports Council and others.

So far from a growing disenchantment, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing alarm at any possibility that the construction of the airport, in particular, should not proceed with the utmost speed? Will he say something about the costs and consequences if the Government do not go ahead with Maplin?

No, I should very much dislike the idea of taking an opportunity this afternoon of saying any of the things that my hon. Friend would wish.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the working of the machinery for the assessment of fair rents; and if he will make a statement.

The machinery for assessing fair rents is working well in both the public and the private sector. In the public sector, rent scrutiny boards are considering the assessments made by some 1,200 local authorities and over 130 reports have already been issued.

Does the hon. Gentleman deny that the average increase accepted in the private sector is running at about 25 per cent, and that this figure is being agreed to before the machinery has access to the costs of the private landlords? Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that before these increases are granted the cost figures are available to the rent tribunals? Will the hon. Gentleman understand that trade unionists and ordinary working people will not accept phase 3 of the prices and incomes policy with this kind of practice going on?

If the hon. Gentleman is asking about the private sector in Scotland I must be careful because, as he knows, I do not deal with that. Rents in the private sector are a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland and not for me.

The method of assessment to be used by rent assessment committees and rent officers for dealing with the private sector in England is laid down in the system set out by the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman will recall that his Government did not give allowances to tenants in the private sector. I think that the present scheme is working fairly well.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the county borough of Bradford, which is fairly typical of most big industrial cities in the North, about 49.5 per cent. of municipal tenants will be eligible for generous rebates under the Housing Finance Act? We should therefore welcome this measure, which helps those most in need.

I have always believed that those who cannot afford to pay their rent, whether in the private or the public sector, should be helped, and the Government are providing extremely generous subsidies towards rents and rebates. I hear some hon Gentlemen opposite saying "Nonsense", but that is a fact. Those who cannot afford to pay a fair rent are helped by the Government proposals. Those who can afford to pay a fair rent should do so. That was the principle adopted with regard to the private sector by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in power, and I do not see why they should object to similar help being given to the public sector.

What action does the hon. Gentleman propose to take about the delay encountered by local authorities in their submissions to rent scrutiny boards? Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the situation in Manchester where 94,000 council house tenants have had increases of 50p a week imposed on their rents, when proposals from Manchester Corporation to the rent scrutiny board envisaged increases of an average of only 5p per week? When will the hon. Gentleman take action to assist the board to consider and make a decision on the corporation's proposals?

Rent scrutiny boards are independent, and it is not for me to try to speed up or slow down their work. They are independent, and I have no authority to do either one thing or the other. I am not making a comment on the Manchester situation. I should like to have notice and details of it, but one reason why there has been some delay is the late arrival of the submission of many local authorities.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a similar situation arises in London? Will he accept that these repeated increases in council rents under the Housing Finance Act work flatly against the stated aims of the Government's counter-inflation policy? Why should council tenants be singled out for extra inflationary pressure which is within the control of the Government?

I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that a man with three children—[ Interruption. ] I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like this, but the fact is that a man with three children and an income of £25 a week, living in a council dwelling and liable to an average rent of £3.65 is entitled to a rebate of £3.38, so that he pays a net rent of 27p. Is that what hon. Gentlemen opposite are complaining about?

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress made by local authorities in increasing land release, following his statement that there shall now be a general presumption, subject to certain conditions, that land will be released for housing.

The new planning guidelines issued on 1st October are a means of ensuring that planning permissions for housing will match the need for housing land in such a way as to safeguard the environment and preserve the principles of good planning.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, meanwhile, planning authorities are refusing to accept the bill, sometimes for reasons which verge on the frivolous, and that there is no remedy because, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, there is a delay of 33 weeks in the appeals system? Is my hon. Friend further aware that even when consent is given it is often after a delay of a year or more while local authorities, two or more, pass pieces of paper to and fro? The system—and it is the system—is at the point of breakdown, and the matter is urgent.

I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend said, but I should not go as far as he did. If my hon. Friend is referring to the system, I can tell him that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced this urgent review by Mr. George Dobry to consider it, and I shall send my hon. Friend a copy of the terms of reference.

Will the hon. Gentleman review one aspect of the circular, namely, the deliberate incitement to local planning authorities to relax controls on high densities? Is not the hon. Gentleman introducing another era of jerry building and overcrowded development outside those areas that have high concentrations or high hereditament standards?

The paragraph on densities refers to the circular issued by the former Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1969, which was when the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government.

What progress has been made in securing the release of railway land for housing, particularly in greater London?

If my hon. Friend wants to know the exact numbers of acres perhaps he would put down a Question on the subject. Substantial progress has been made here, and I should be delighted to give my hon. Friend details of it.

In view of the reluctance of Tory-controlled outer London local authorities to provide housing land to Labour-controlled inner London authorities, will the hon. Gentleman consider making a much bigger bite into the green belt, otherwise London's desperate housing problem will never be solved?

No, Sir. It would be wrong to go further than what my right hon. and learned Friend has announced, which is that the planning conference should be asked to look at 2,000 acres. Nearly everyone in the House—the hon. Gentleman is one exception—believes that as far as possible we should leave the green belt inviolate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average cost per caravan of gipsy sites since the coming into force of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

I regret that this information is not available.

That is a pity, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will do something to try to find it out, because the policy is not working very well. I recognise that it is not the fault of the gipsies that their way of life has become much more difficult. Nevertheless, the problem is large in the Midlands, and in particular in Bedfordshire.

I ask my right hon. Friend to consider three possibilities—first, of preventing unauthorised camps within a radius of a certain number of miles around a local authority site; secondly, of ensuring that there is a proper system of inspection and fines, or even eviction, if a proper standard of cleanliness is not maintained and, finally, of ensuring that an effort is made to see that these people, who are often pretty well off, pay taxes and television licence fees in the same way as others do, as that may go some way towards alleviating the worry felt by many who live near these sites?

I do not think that the setting up of an inquiry to discover the average cost of supplying sites would solve any of the problems mentioned by my hon. Friend. It would not be commensurate with the cost of collection to have an inquiry of that sort.

The prevention of unauthorised camps comes about by a designation order if the local authorities provide the required number of sites. My hon. Friend's second point is covered by the Public Health Act, while the third is a matter not for me but for my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Chairman of the Greater London Council Housing Committee.

I met the chairman of the council's housing development committee on 13 th June 1973 and the chairman of the housing management committee on 19th July.

Following those meetings, is the hon. Gentleman fully aware that the housing position in London is worsening month by month? What action does the hon. Gentleman intend to take to try to get some of the building land in outer London made available to meet the housing problems of inner London? When will we receive the report of the much-talked-of action committee about which the hon. Gentleman has spoken so often in the House? When will the hon. Gentleman force action to be taken with regard to the empty properties in London which are a national disgrace in view of the housing shortage?

On the question of empty property, I have made it clear time and again—and I think that the hon. Gentleman has heard me say so—that where people are keeping property empty scandalously, for no good reason, my right hon. and learned Friend is prepared to consider issuing a compulsory purchase order.

There is the time factor.

There is no other way, short of expropriation, and the hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do. I am aware of the serious situation in London and since 1970 I have been urging local authorities in both inner and outer London to concentrate as much as possible on building houses of all kinds. There is a shortage of both local authority and private housing in London. The hon. Gentleman must have been missing something, because the report of the action committee has been out for some time.

In 1965 the Milner Holland Report designated certain areas in London, including Islington, as areas of acute housing stress. In view of the investigation carried out by The Times, published on 26th September, into the practice of property speculators, including Laganvale Estate, which I believe is registered in Belfast, of winkling out sitting tenants, will my hon. Friend set up an inquiry into the actions of such companies, which are causing great distress?

I should prefer not to comment on individual cases. We announced in a White Paper earlier this year that we intend at an early date to bring forward legislation to deal with the problem of housing action areas.

In an earlier reply the Under-Secretary tried to give the impression that it was entirely within the power of local authorities to decide how much council house building took place. Now that the matter of London has been raised, will he correct that impression and tell the House what he knows to be the case, namely, that a great many local authorities throughout the country long to build more than they are building now but are prevented by factors which are totally outside their control, such as shortage of land, the cost yardstick, and the level of interest rates? In other words, will the Minister now accept that the volume of council house building in this country, which is grossly inadequate at present, is within the power of the Government to correct and not within the power of individual local authorities?

Primarily it is for each local authority to go ahead with its own housing programme. Local authorities have primary responsibility. When the positions were reversed in the House and hon. Members of the Labour Party were in power, they used to blame the "wicked Tory councils", as they called them, when the housing programme was falling behind. Now the boot is on the other foot. [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members are always trying to have it both ways. The Government have taken measures to try to stop some of the overheating in the construction industry, from which housing is exempt, and this may well have some effect in helping with local authority housing.

But surely the difference between the two periods is that in the previous period Tory councils were deliberately cutting down on the programmes which had been set by their Labour predecessors. Is not the present situation absolutely the reverse, when many Labour councils, having inherited a reducing council house building programme, wish to increase the building programme but are prevented by factors wholly outside their control?

The real difference in the situation is that members of the Labour Party are now in Opposition and wish to blame us.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received since 25th July over further increases in rents imposed under the Housing Finance Act.

One hundred and seventy-nine local authorities and eight development corporations sought directions to make lower average increases than 50p a week in October. Representations have also been made by some Members of Parliament, a few other authorities, tenants' associations and individual tenants.

Is the Minister aware that 180 local authorities, representing millions of families, consider that they have been tricked? Does the Minister admit that those authorities, having been told by the Secretary of State last October that they were justified in raising their rents by less than £1 a week, are now being compelled to raise those rents by a further 50p, quite unnecessarily?

No, Sir. I cannot accept that. This may arise from a genuine misunderstanding. The hon. Member knows as much about this as anyone because he has lived through this long period. In Section 62 of the Housing Finance Act, the hon. Member will see that the discretion given to the Secretary of State to give a direction this year is very limited. He has to be satisfied that 2 per cent. or more of the authority's qualifying dwellings would be substantially above the fair rents for those dwellings if a 50p increase were given. Last year there was no flexibility whatsoever.

Those authorities which increased their rents in October had to have £1 across the board. Accordingly, there is a much more flexible situation—[ Interruption. ] I am not denying that it is an Act of the present Government. I am merely saying that there is a difference in the two situations. I hope that there will be no misunderstanding that the situations are different.

Will my hon. Friend remind hon. Members of the Opposition of the number of tenants who have had their rents reduced through rebates?

There are many families—[HON. MEMBERS: "HOW many?"] If hon. Members want exact figures I advise them to table a Question; but they may not like the answer. There are many families who, with the increase in the needs allowance and in spite of rent increases, will be paying less than they paid previously. What hon. Members forget is that council rents rose, on average, by 70 per cent, during the previous Labour Government and 40 per cent. of local authorities gave no rebates.

Will the Government seek to discontinue the hidden increase in rents represented by the lodger charge imposed on many council house tenants despite the fact that in many cases the lodger has long since removed his residence alsewhere? Is it legal to charge for something which is no longer chargeable for?

Put like that. no, but I do not think that that is exactly the position. The hon. Member will recall the long hours which he and I spent in the debates on this issue. There should be no misunderstanding about this. It was explained clearly. I will write to the hon. Member, if he does not mind an English Minister replying to his point.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Portsmouth City Council concerning the proposals by the special working party established by his Department to site a strategic lorry park at Tipner in Portsmouth; and whether he will make a statement.

The council has made no representations; it has, however, decided against building the link road from which it had been planned to obtain access to the projected lorry park. Further consideration is now being given to the lorry park proposal.

In view of the total opposition of the local community and the firm opposition of an all-party majority on the city council, does not the Minister now appreciate that he could alleviate any unnecessary anxiety and distress by immediately making it absolutely plain that the Government have no intention of going ahead with this strategic lorry park on an already overcrowded Portsea Island unless the Ministry of Defence is prepared to release the Tipner firing range for this purpose?

The proposal is now under consideration. One of the difficulties about lorry parks is that although everyone wants them and thinks that in principle they are a good idea, when one fixes a particular site there are many objections.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent local authorities have implemented the recommendations of the Cullingworth Report.

This report was sent to local authorities and commended to them in a departmental circular. I understand that my hon. Friend may be particularly concerned about paragraphs 205–209. In these cases, we should expect local authorities to look at each case carefully in the light of individual circumstances and the local housing situation. If my hon. Friend has a particular case of difficulty in mind perhaps she will write to me.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the report referred to specific difficulties in the case of adult single children who had been caring for their elderly parents until the death of those parents and who were then evicted. It is now common for local authorities to keep them on, by automatically transferring the tenancy or offering suitable alternative accommodation, but it is not universal. Some local authorities are still evicting them. It is no longer the case with my local authority, but I know of a lady aged over 75 who was evicted in just these circumstances, who has never had a home of her own, who has slept on railway stations since then and is now sleeping on the floor of a friend's house.

This is Question Time.

I am extremely sorry to hear about the case to which my hon. Friend refers. Perhaps she will send me the details. This report was commended to local authorities in a departmental circular. I have no power to compel them to adopt it, but I hope that in cases such as that which my hon. Friend has described they will take a sensible view and follow the recommendations of the report.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek powers to provide swift redress for tenants whose private landlords fail to carry out urgently needed repairs.

Local authorities already have adequate powers to require owners to carry out repairs needed either to make a house fit where this can be done at reasonable expense, or otherwise to bring an already fit house up to a reasonable standard. The Government are, however, proposing to introduce new powers of compulsory improvement in areas of housing stress.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that neither current legislation nor, according to his White Paper, projected legislation is in any way adequate to provide sure redress for constituents of mine who are living in sub-human conditions and whose landlords callously refuse to take action, on grounds of pure meanness? Ought not the hon. Gentleman to lay down a code of conduct for private tenants and private landlords, to be supervised and enforced by local authorities, in order to end this scandal once and for all?

I understand very well that there are areas of serious housing problems in Manchester, but the present powers to compel repair, under the Housing Acts of 1957 and 1969, are recog- nised to be effective and can be supplemented by action under the Public Health Act 1936. Furthermore, the new compulsory powers for improvements, which will relate to housing stress areas—and will probably apply very much in areas the hon. Gentleman has in mind—will greatly strengthen the hand of local authorities in dealing with areas of really serious problems.

No doubt private landlords are sometimes dilatory and slow in carrying out urgent repairs, but is my hon. Friend aware that I sometimes get a file of correspondence in regard to the responsibilities of the corporation itself in doing exactly the same thing with council property?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that there are great difficulties in this matter. Indeed, they have existed for many years and conscientious local authorities and landlords strive to deal with the problems. But our new legislation will be of great assistance and will make grants available to landlords in carrying out necessary repairs and improvements of amenities.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many problems of great severity are arising now because of slum clearance schemes and the lengthening housing lists? Will he write to local authorities and tell them that they still have a statutory power—even though the schemes are subject to confirmed orders of slum clearance—to tell landlords to do the job so that people can live in reasonably humane circumstances? If landlords will not do that, local authorities should do what we do in Stoke-on-Trent—do the job themselves and send the landlords the bills.

Under the Acts that I have mentioned local authorities have power to carry out these repairs in precisely the way the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. Of course, if a house is going to be cleared within a very short period one has to apply reason in deciding whether money should be spent on repairs.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to hear the appeal concerning Messrs. Monomart Warehouses Limited relating to premises at Channons Hill, Fishponds, Bristol.

A local inquiry into this appeal has been arranged for 21st November.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Bristol City Council will be grateful that in this instance the normal long delay in hearing an appeal will be reduced? Is he aware—without discussing individual circumstances—of the concern caused by lengthy delays, because this enables people totally to thwart the wishes of the local authorities? Will he consider some amendment to the law, so that where a local authority puts on an enforcement order to prevent someone thwarting a planning decision the status quo is maintained not in favour of the person who seeks to challenge the planning application but in favour of the local authority?

In this case the appeal against the enforcement order was made on 25th April last, and my hon. Friend was right on the ball in writing to me on 14th May. The period between April and November is an expedition of the normal period and I am glad that we were able to do it in this case. My hon. Friend's proposals would involve changes in planning law, because there are no planning powers to stop current use continuing while an appeal is under consideration. It is only by expediting this appeal that we will solve this problem as the law stands.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on railway policy.

Yes, Sir, shortly.

In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend say whether the cuts in Government spending which have been announced apply in any way to railway investment, and in particular when the advanced passenger train link between Scotland and England will be completed? When can we hope to have that service, and what time saving will be involved?

On my hon. Friend's first point, I had better not try to anticipate the statement that I hope to make next month. I hope that he will put down a Question on the other points that he raised.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a matter of great public concern? Is he aware that his continued failure to make a decision has created grave uncertainty throughout the railway industry and a restriction on the management both to recruit and retain essential staff? Would he care to reveal to the House the degree of staff shortage that exists on British Railways and the manner in which this is affecting the level of services? Does he not accept that only a positive decision to expand the railway services will reverse this disastrous trend? Will he get a move on and make a decision?

One thing I am clear about is that I do not have to follow too slavishly the Opposition's policy on the railways. If there is widespread uncertainty in the ranks of British Railways, much of it has been caused, and wantonly caused, by unnecessary remarks by hon. Members opposite.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that British Railways' policy of closing regional offices and moving the staff—those who will go—to London is in exact contrast to the policy laid before the House yesterday by the Government?

That is entirely a matter for the management of British Railways. No doubt the chairman of the board will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Bearing in mind that Wales is already starved of adequate rail services, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that there will be no further closures in Wales until the Graham Rees study of public transport in Wales is completed? Would it not be nonsensical to allow any more closures to take place until this Government-sponsored study reports?

I could not give an undertaking like that, but I can refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that under this Government about 200 miles of railway network have been closed, whereas 10 times that amount were closed by the Labour Government. There is nothing precipitate in this matter as far as we are concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to fulfil the Prime Minister's undertaking of 1st January 1972 to get rid of slums.

The returns we have received from local authorities in response to Department of the Environment Circular No. 50/72 show that their existing slums can, with very few exceptions, be cleared by the early 1980s. Our proposals for the next phase in our attack on the problem of older houses are set out in the recent White Paper—" Better Homes: The Next Priorities" [Cmnd. 5339].

Is not the case that the Prime Minister said on 1st January 1972 that his Government would do more than ever before to get rid of slums? Is it not the case that the Government have in fact done less than ever before? Fewer slums have been cleared under this regime and fewer people have been moved than ever before. If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, I will ask the OFFICIAL REPORT to include in the reply the facts which I have here.

What the hon. Gentleman overlooks is that one can deal with slums not only by demolition but also by improvement. As has been made clear in the house conditions survey, in each of the preceding five years 110,000 unfit houses were made fit in addition to those which were cleared. In the 12 months up to July, the clearance rate was up compared with the preceding period.

Has the hon. Gentleman given close attention to the evidence of the winkling out of tenants in older properties, as brought out in articles in The Times recently on the Chalk and Gwynne-Jones property empire? In particular, is he aware that money from the Crown Agents for Overseas Governments, who are appointed by the British Government, has gone, to the tune of many millions of pounds, into that property empire? Will he consult the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary about it?

That is an entirely different question. In fact, there are penalties, on indictment, of an unlimited fine and also imprisonment for those who indulge in harassment or illegal eviction. I urge local authorities, as I have done time and again, to go forward with prosecution in cases of this kind, so that wicked people can be punished in the way they deserve.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action he is taking to improve the supply of building materials in North Worcestershire.

We are maintaining close touch with manufacturers and their associations in order to ensure that all possible steps are taken to overcome present difficulties in the overall supply of certain building materials. A gradual improvement in the supply position of the main building materials is expected and I am not aware of any problems peculiar to North Worcestershire.

Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that in July he said that manufacturers were arranging for an increase in productive capacity and that the benefit would be seen in the autumn? Is he aware that there is an acute shortage, for example, of plasterboard? One builder in the West Midlands has 300 homes awaiting completion and cannot complete them because he is waiting for plasterboard. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the high world demand has no effect on plasterboard? Has he talked to British Gypsum, which has a virtual monopoly?

As I explained, there were difficulties in catering for demand over the holiday period, but they are easing as we move into the autumn. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's special point on gypsum plaster and plasterboard, I am glad to say that British Gypsum has recently brought into operation a new plant for the production of these materials, and this should shortly lead to a considerable improvement in the supply position.

Before I call the Prime Minister to move the Motion relating to the Price and Pay Code for Stage 3, I wish to inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. Friends, to leave out from ' House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: 'noting the failure of the counter-inflation policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government over the last twelve months, which has proved both unfair and unworkable, declines to imply approval either of their record over the past year or their plans for the next year by taking note of Command Paper No. 5444; and calls for the adoption of policies that will protect living standards of ordinary families above all by controlling prices and rents, house prices and mortgage interest rates, and safeguard their future prosperity'.

3.30 p.m.

I beg to move, That this House takes note of the Consultative Document on the Price and Pay Code for Stage 3 (Command Paper No. 5444). I have on previous occasions told the House about the consultations which were going on between the Government, the CBI, the TUC and other organisations in the course of the summer and during stage 2 about the development of stage 3. These discussions were carried on within the same framework which we had agreed last year, the framework of three objectives, that is, the maintenance of economic expansion, the protection and improvement of the position of the low paid and pensioners, and the containment of inflation.

We were, therefore, in agreement about our objectives. It was the means to these ends which we have been discussing. To a certain extent, there was agreement between us about the means which we should pursue. In other fields, we were not agreed. But my colleagues and I have considered very carefully all the points which were put to us, and it is on this basis that we have published the proposals on which we are seeking the views of the House today.

This is a consultative document. We are carrying on consultations with organisations outside the House, but this is meant as a consultative debate today in which we shall listen with the utmost care to the points and proposals put forward by hon. Members on both sides.

It is apparent that the codes provided in the Green Paper, the consultative document, remain in statutory form. Perhaps the first question which should be asked is whether this is necessary. The Government's answer is that in present circumstances it is. It is necessary because it has not been possible in the course of the discussions to reach agreement about how the three objectives I have mentioned could be attained through a purely voluntary agreement. It is true—it is only fair to say it—that the employers would like to see no controls on prices but controls maintained on wages and incomes, and it is fair also to the TUC to say that it would like to see no controls on wages and incomes but full controls on prices.

However, the discussions which we have had about these matters have led to a considerable measure of understanding about how we should operate within the framework of the Act at present and the codes which have now been published.

When one talks only about free negotiation, one has to accept—I think that all have to accept—that problems exist even in a state of voluntary bargaining. Indeed, in some aspects of incomes and wages—this is touched on in one proposal put forward by the Liberal Party in its amendment—there is the use of the law to achieve the purposes we wanted. I suppose that the two major examples which at the moment exist under what has previously been a system of voluntary negotiation are the wages councils, in an endeavour to help the lower paid, and the movement towards equal pay for women, both of which have been provided for by statutory means. It is, therefore, an extreme position to say that in no circumstances could there be legal intervention in relation to collective bargaining.

As regards the framework which I have mentioned, one point in the discussions was urged on us more than any other by both unions and employers, namely, the need for greater flexibility—flexibility in dealing with the wide variety of circumstances and problems which arise in determining individual pay and conditions of employment, and flexibility, on the other hand, to encourage investment and improve efficiency. This theme ran through all our discussions, and as the Government we have accepted it. In other words, what was being urged upon us within the framework was a greater area of freedom. We have accepted this because we want to make orderly progress in both incomes and investment for industry.

I believe that there is an important psychological point in this connection as well. As people see that we can make orderly and steady progress, even though it may not immediately be as fast as they would like, they can then take a longer-term view of their own prospects and the prospects of industry instead of feeling that they have to take a short-term view because of the danger of the economy being brought to a stop once again.

In moving forward in orderly fashion to give greater freedom within this framework, we have a wider point in mind also. My colleagues and I have never disguised the fact that we were reluctant last year to introduce statutory controls. We did so because we came to the conclusion last November that there was no other way of containing inflation. Essentially that remains the position today. The consequences of abandoning controls entirely would at this moment, I believe, be disastrous. Those who challenge this view—whether for the abolition of controls on prices, as some advocate, or for the abolition of all controls over incomes, as others do—should, I suggest, in a debate of this kind take it as incumbent upon them to put forward positive proposals as to how they would achieve our three objectives of economic expansion, containing inflation and helping the lower paid and pensioners. They should at the same time indicate clearly what the other consequences of their own proposals would be, in particular what the consequences would be for the level of production and output in this country and also the consequences for the level of employment. If there are to be alternatives, let us have clear proposals put forward, and let us have the specific consequences of those proposals explained to the House and to the country.

We were determined in the discussions to extend the area of freedom as widely as possible, and this was agreed between us. The question was how we could provide this greater flexibility while preventing a resurgence of wage inflation and maintaining the fairness of the arrangements at which we aimed in stage 2.

In other words, in the standstill we had a fixed position. It was a freeze, and there was no room for negotiation. We then moved into stage 2, in which there was greater flexibility. It was not a freeze, and it is entirely false to describe it as such. There was deliberate room for negotiation because of the form of the framework, the £1 plus 4 per cent. It was not a fixed amount. It was an upper limit. It put a specific emphasis on helping the lower paid, and within the limit, taking the negotiating group as a whole, the amount and the distribution could be negotiated.

In the Opposition amendment there is talk of these arrangements being unworkable.

Absolutely.

How can they be said to be absolutely unworkable when, in fact, 5,806 arrangements negotiated have been approved, covering 13.7 million workers? That is what has happened under stage 2. There has been this vast number of settlements, and very few difficulties have been encountered in it. I pay tribute at once both to employers and to unions for the success which has been achieved under stage 2 of the policy.

It was then put to us that other situations had to be dealt with in stage 3, and we have tried to deal with these. I shall mention them specifically. Both the unions and the employers stressed the need not to hold up schemes for improving efficiency. Both said that such schemes had to be genuine, schemes for genuine improvement, and not just a bogus cover for excessive wage settlements. It has been mentioned that this had been one of the major causes of the breakdown of the last Government's policy in this field. The employers wanted them to be genuine schemes, and so did the trade union leaders because they did not want a union to have the opportunity of an unfair deal on a bogus arrangement. So we have put forward proposals as to how that can be done.

We can discuss and we shall be discussing with the TUC next Monday, as we did with the employers on Monday last, the actual arrangements so that schemes are attractive but at the same time cannot be abused. There is room for judgment here as to how the schemes should be organised and how they should be introduced and monitored, and that is something which can certainly be discussed in detail in the talks.

Both sides stressed the need to provide flexibility for dealing with special situations where anomalies have to be dealt with or pay scales re-structured or where there are special problems of hours or other conditions of employment. That we have done through the flexibility margin. I believe it has been welcomed.

On the question of the flexibility allowance, may we take it that it was in this area that Sir John Stratton moved himself? Will the Prime Minister tell us whether that malpractice took place under phase 1 or phase 2 or both and if, as Sir John Stratton now suggests, it took place before, whether the continuing practice of increasing his money as a result of so-called productivity was an abuse of both phase 1 and phase 2? What action will the Prime Minister take about it in view of this enormous flexibility?

It was obviously not taken under the flexibility margin because that has still to be introduced under phase 3. I shall deal in detail with this a little later in my speech.

Since the Pay Board has recognised that the Civil Service pay situation is a glaring anomaly, does the Prime Minister accept that if it is to be corrected under phase 3 and not perpetuated it will be necessary to back-date Civil Service pay increases at least to the beginning of phase 2, and if not, why not?

I was dealing with the flexibility margin and mentioning anomalies under it but they are separate from the specific anomalies dealt with by the Pay Board as a result of the standstill and stage 2. I am coming to the point with which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John Grant) is concerned, namely, anomalies caused by the standstill. We have always intended to give special consideration to them under stage 3 and we have accepted the basis recommended in the Pay Board's report. That will not give the hon. Member everything he seeks. In the discussions with the Staff Side of the Civil Service which I hold as Minister for the Civil Service, I have listened to all the points put. We are obviously considering them all but we accept the basis recommended in the Pay Board's report.

Of course, in all the wage settlements after the introduction of the new policy, there had to be some measure of restraint, but the principles recommended by the Pay Board in its report seemed to us to provide a fair balance for dealing with those cases where an identifiable pay link was broken by the standstill. That includes the Civil Service on which it made a specific recommendation. The board has to report on relativities before the end of the year under the special remit given to it earlier.

By the amendments we are proposing to the Pay Code we provided for all the special circumstances where we felt we could do so within our agreed aims. At the same time we have maintained the provision for improving the position of the low paid which has been one of the principles of our approach throughout.

I emphasise the different ways in which that is being done under stage 3. First, it is being done through the form of the pay limit which gives a choice to negotiators of either £2.25 or 7 per cent., plus what is allowable under the additional arrangements outside that specific limit. The sum of £2.25 for everybody below £33 per week gives a higher percentage than 7 per cent. and therefore those who are thought of in normal terms as the lower paid will stand to benefit, proportionately, substantially more than those who are working with the 7 per cent. arrangement. The figure of £33 per week is the dividing line between £2.25 and the 7 per cent. arrangement though they can be in combined negotiating groups if the negotiators desire.

Secondly, the lower paid are helped by the continued and extended provisions for equal pay and improvements in hours and holidays because the lower paid are usually below standard in these respects. The arrangements for thresholds particularly benefit the lower paid because by having a standard payment, if the threshold is reached, the lower paid will be receiving proportionately more than those with higher incomes. Lastly they are helped through the comprehensive proposals we have now put to the TUC and the CBI for the creation of machinery to improve industry's capacity to pay higher wages through increased efficiency. The only effective way to deal with the lower paid is for industry, by increased capital investment, new techniques and other means, to improve its efficiency which will then enable it to start its workers at higher rates of pay.

At this point I shall deal with the proposal in the Liberal Party amendment for a minimum earnings level. We have considered the suggestion carefully during our talks. We found that to require earnings of all full-time employees to be brought up to two-thirds of the average for male manual workers—which will be about £25 a week, the figure suggested by the TUC—would directly cost in the region of £2,000 million a year. That would be nearly 50 per cent. of the total increase in wages and incomes allowed for in the year under stage 3. It is most important that it is realised what would be involved in going for a minimum incomes level at this stage.

That is why it is there.

The right hon. Gentleman the Liberal Leader says that is why he put it there, but he must ask himself whether he believes that the rest of the working population would be prepared to see the proposals we have put forward cut by half, with all that means for differentials and so on, in order to allow a change of this kind.

We must also look at the analysis of those who would benefit from this kind of arrangement. Sixty per cent. of those benefiting would be women who would get increases averaging around 15 per cent., which would be about 10 times what is needed for full equal pay. We have arranged to achieve equal pay in two equal parts by the end of 1975, which is what the law requires. But the minimum earnings proposal would require 10 times that amount. Also, 10 per cent. of those who would benefit would be men under the age of 21. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the rest of the 23 million working population would agree to half the amount available going to these categories of low-paid workers?

The scheme would increase the wage bill of the clothing industry by 15 per cent. and of the distribution industries by over 10 per cent. with consequent increases in the price of food and clothing. I put these hard facts before the House because we have all from time to time said it would be desirable to have or consider a minimum earnings level of some kind. We are trying to move upwards at a reasonable rate and faster than others in our attempt to help the lower paid. But to go through with this proposal would have the consequences I have outlined for the remaining working population.

The Prime Minister asked whether we realised what a guaranteed minimum wage would cost immediately. The answer is that we are well aware of the cost and it is for that reason that it is not practicable to introduce it immediately. Has he worked out the cost over a four-year period? We have worked out that figure and it is 3½ per cent. per annum on the wage bill, which I am sure he agrees could be absorbed. Has the Prime Minister studied the experience of European countries who have introduced minimum guaranteed earnings? Is he aware that the last people who will help the lower paid in this country are other employers and other workers and that that is why the Government have to act?

We have studied the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. It is doubtful whether one could take 3½ per cent. on the wage bill purely in this respect in any given year. I am not arguing about the desirability of improving the position of the lower paid. That has been one of our objectives throughout the talks. What I am discussing is the best way of achieving it in a way which will be acceptable to the community as a whole—both employers and trade unions, as the right hon. Gentleman says—and at the same time will not have such an impact on prices as to affect the rest of the policy or such an impact on employment as to affect the future of those who are paid in those industries.

I know there are some who judge that the proposal of £2.25, if accepted, may very well have an impact on employment for some of the lower paid. I hope it will not. I believe that our other proposal, affording the opportunity to examine ways in which industry can support a higher wage for these workers, is valuable. I am glad that the TUC and the employers are urgently considering it, and will discuss with us the best way in which it can be established.

I should like to say something else on the point raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The pay code under stage 2 contains several provisions relating to pre-standstill commitments and obligations affecting employees at all levels which could be honoured in stage 2. These included increases in pay under settlements reached before the standstill and schemes for payment by results in operation before 26th November 1972. This provision was put in as a result of our previous discussions with all those concerned, for obvious reasons. There were a considerable number of agreements between the unions and the employers which they urged ought to be left intact. We made that arrangement. The Pay Board is inquiring into the case the hon. Gentleman mentioned to see whether there has been any infringement of the pay code. We are reviewing urgently the provisions of the code that we have put forward in stage 3 as part of the general review, which is subject to consultations, to see whether any modification to those provisions is necessary.

I have seen it suggested that because of the extra flexibility we propose in stage 3 earnings will rise a great deal more than we have calculated. We do not believe that there is any reason why this should be so. The code certainly affords more freedom for negotiators. That is its purpose. But this is contained within a framework which provides safeguards against abuse. The fresh provisions are tightly drawn. For example, where payments flow from new efficiency schemes they will all be subject to Pay Board scrutiny to ensure that gains in efficiency are achieved and more than offset the extra payments, so that these schemes can make a real contribution to the reduction of costs and thus help the consumer.

Before the right hon. Gentleman moves from the question of an excessive wage increase for a particular individual, may I ask whether he is saying that he is going to take no definite action on this indecent incident? Has he investigated whether there is more than one case of this kind, whether there are not substantial numbers of similar cases?

I have told the House that the Pay Board is now examining this case. It is the Pay Board's responsibility to examine cases where it believes that the code has not been observed or where there may be reason to believe that it has not been observed. I have told the House also that we are therefore reviewing this provision in stage 3. That is specific action being taken.

I turn to prices—

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I cannot give way again.

On prices, the information given in the consultative document and in the report of the Price Commission, published yesterday, demonstrates the success that we have had in keeping the effect of rising world prices to a minimum. Between November 1972 and August 1973 import prices rose by 24 per cent. The wholesale prices of manufactured products sold on the home market rose by 4.7 per cent. Raw material costs of manufactured foods rose by 28 per cent.; wholesale prices rose by 11 per cent.; and retail prices rose by 3½ per cent.

Taking stage 2 alone, in the period April to August 1973, prices of materials and fuel bought by manufacturing industry rose by 15 per cent. The increase in wholesale prices was 4 per cent. That shows the extent to which price increases have been absorbed by industry, by its increasing efficiency and increased turnover as a result of an expanding economy. There are also increases resulting from import prices, of which we have heard another instance today, which may still be in the pipepline. But industry has played its part, and so has the Price Commission.

The increases notified between April and August were scaled down by nearly a third following the Commission's scrutiny. Far from being unworkable, as the Opposition amendment suggests, the policy has had a major impact in controlling prices and in coping with the increased prices as a result of world conditions.

A good deal has been said about what the Price Commission has done in rejecting applications for increases. Has the Prime Minister calculated what savings to the housewife would have been made if this machinery had been introduced two years earlier?

The right hon. Gentleman might ask himself what would have happened if his own Government had introduced that machinery. What we were trying to get was a voluntary arrangement. We had from the CBI a voluntary agreement covering a large area of prices which was very effective.

We have looked carefully at the prices code—[ Interruption. ]—I know hon.

Members do not like the facts, but they will get them. We have looked at the prices code to see whether it needs to be tightened up and we have taken action in that respect. We have included a thousand new companies—the category 2 companies with turnovers between £5 million and £50 million—which will now have to notify and justify price increases to the commisison. In addition, we have dealt with the splitting of industries for profit reference purposes and are giving the Price Commission greater powers under paragraph 72 concerning retailers' margins.

At the same time, we have made important amendments in the interests of investment. These will enable the Price Commission to apply the controls so that firms can get ahead with the investment which the economy needs. An increase of 15 per cent. in manufacturing industry is forecast from 1973 to 1974, which is welcome.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the proposals put forward by the managing director of the Spar-Vivo group that the Government might invite the managing directors of 10 leading food supermarket groups to meet to see whether they would agree to Mr. Reynolds's proposals to hold for six months the basic prices of 10 or even 20 types of foodstuffs?

This proposal has been discussed with the retailers. It is one which they have examined. I think that if they came to the conclusion that it was practicable the retailers themselves would wish to put forward a combined scheme rather than the one mentioned by my hon. Friend.

This is a consultative document and it is incumbent upon the Opposition to say specifically what sort of price code they want. They apparently wish to have price control. Let them be quite specific and say in this debate what sort or price code they wish to have instituted. Let them tell us specifically where they think it ought to be improved or tightened in addition to the places where we have already done that. Let them tell us that they are prepared to allow for the increases in imported materials and to accept the increase in prices which comes from that. Let them say whether they are prepared to allow for the increased wage costs which come about under stage 3 as a result of our proposals, and to allow for the increased costs from that.

Let them also say how the sort of code they wish will be consistent with obtaining the investment which they say is essential for British industry if we are to continue expansion. If it is to provide for that investment, let them acknowledge that it can come only from the profitability of industry—sufficient profitability to cover the investment and to provide inducement for further investment. Dividends are still strictly limited under the code. It is incumbent upon the Opposition to point out what sort of price control they will have which will enable these points to be met.

I am sometimes told by employers, if I may now turn to the wages side, that they are worried about the restrictions which the wages policy imposes on their ability to get the labour they need. It is sometimes said that controls are evaded by the movement of labour to other firms at higher rates of pay. These fears are sometimes exaggerated and certainly in the examination which we have made of movements ion. If it is to provide for that investment, let them acknowledge that it can come only from the profitability of industry of labour there has not been much justification for them. A situation which exists in some places is that a firm which has been paying higher wages—because it may have more modern equipment or for any other reason—than a nearby firm, finds in the expanding economy that it can take on more people and does so at its wage level. People go there because they are paid better wages than in another firm.

This is understandable and is what is going on in some parts of the country. Even so, it can be exaggerated.

Will the Prime Minister explain to the House what is happening now in the building industry where there has been this great development and expansion of labour-only subcontracting—"the lump"—which is growing the whole time and being aggravated as a result of the Government's pay policy? This is one escape route for the workers and it is causing a great deal of trouble among organised workers in the industry who are tied down by the pay policy.

I shall be talking about the construction industry in a moment. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is one of the most difficult problems. It is one which the TUC is considering. It has also been discussed in Neddy, and the Pay Board has set up its construction panel to look specifically at this point. Two recommendations have been made so far, which have been accepted.

I turn to the wider problem, of which I was speaking earlier. I must tell the House that competitive bidding up is not the answer to the genuine problem which exists in some places. It is by this that wage inflation has so often been caused.

If we are to keep hold of wage inflation at the same time as running the economy at a reasonably high level, then employers must find an alternative way of dealing with the problem instead of just bidding up wage rates. The alternative can only be taking up the remaining slack which still exists in the economy by making better use of their existing labour. It is the new provisions in the code for investment and efficiency schemes which we believe will help in that direction.

The Prime Minister has not dealt with the point raised yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) who spoke of an area where a high wage industry such as the oil industry comes in and existing traditional industries there are unable to compete for labour and there is no slack to take up and there are no houses available for any incoming workers. This is a problem in many areas.

This is a particular problem on the East Coast of Scotland, which I do not think exists to quite the same extent elsewhere. I have seen it for myself and that is why the Secretary of State for Scotland has put particular emphasis upon getting the houses built, so that people can move to these areas to meet the needs of the industry. It is a comparatively recent development. When I was there a year ago all the employees needed were available, and more. Things have now developed at a rate which has created that problem. Many in Scotland who have not got jobs will be able to get themselves trained and earn good wages on the East Coast. The problem at the moment is primarily one of housing these people. I fully accept that.

These are the alternative ways in which we can deal with the problem. Yesterday the TUC said that we had not responded to all their proposals. I shall be meeting them next Monday and naturally I do not want now to discuss the individual points which they make. But I do want to say that we recognise the value of collective bargaining. I have explained that we have tried to expand the scope for it. I believe that we have substantially expanded the scope in the proposals we have put forward.

The agreed objectives of the whole exercise cannot be achieved unless there is some effective guarantee of restraint by those groups in strong bargaining positions. I have always said that I would be content, indeed I would prefer, that this restraint should be self-restraint. A voluntary agreement has always been open and remains open. But the restraint, whether statutory or voluntary, must impose some effective safeguard against some of the effects of freedom in collective bargaining which we have seen in the past.

I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will make his own position clear on this. Does he accept the logic of this argument? As I understand it, his position is that he wishes to maintain controls on prices but does not wish for any on wages and incomes. That is a recipe for disaster. Does he accept that any agreement which has to deal effectively with inflation must impose a limit on the bargaining position of the big unions? Does he still believe that one man's pay increase is another man's price increase? He should make plain his position, not only about what he requires on prices, but also on how he believes that this restraint can be achieved through the whole of the wage bargaining system.

There are always conflicting demands on our national income and it is out of these demands that the problems arise. We are trying to deal with them in an orderly way under our proposals for stage 3. It is, for the moment, the only way in which a responsible Government and Parliament can hope to make progress. What we have to do as a Govern- ment is to concentrate the help which we can give in this situation upon those who most need it.

We have discussed this with all who were parties to our discussions. This is what we have done with rents. We have made the resources available, whether in local authority housing or in private rented housing, to those who most need help. I have never understood just what justification there could be for freezing the rent, in this situation, of those with incomes of over £40 a week, of those who can now claim an increase of 7 per cent. plus the additional arrangements for which we have provided, and at the same time saying that their rents should be subsidised by others, including the lower paid and the pensioners who are getting less than they are. I cannot see any intellectual or social justification for that approach whatever.

The Opposition amendment also says that there is to be complete control of house prices. Most people would like to know how this is to be achieved.

Start with land.

How will that control the selling price of a house which is already built? Anyone can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the machinery required to control the selling price of every house in this country is impossible to create. Anything in the amendment or the debate which is put forward about controlling the price of housing in this country is entirely bogus.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also explain how he will control interest rates, which he never at any time proposed to do under his own restraint. When he published his White Paper the right hon. Gentleman did not know that world interest rates would remain stable, but he said clearly that he would not control interest rates, for obvious reasons. A financial centre such as London cannot have its interest rates controlled when it is in competition with every other financial centre in the world. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to control mortgage rates, let him tell the House to what level and how much subsidy he will provide for controlling them.

Mr. Skinner rose—

No, not again. I come to food subsidies, which we have also discussed. I have told the House that we are not dogmatically against subsidies.

Mr. Skinner rose—

I have given way to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) several times, and I have given way many times to other hon. Members. I have shown the utmost courtesy. A large number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate and I ask the hon. Member for Bolsover to show the same restraint and courtesy.

Tell us about the Australian system.

We have been subsidising and will continue to subsidise milk. It is nice to know the source of the Leader of the Opposition's information—I see the hon. Member for Bolsover whispering in his ear.

We have used food subsidies in certain circumstances where the demand is fairly inelastic and where the supply is under our control. This we are doing with milk and we have done it with potatoes. The cost is considerable, but we are continuing to do it.

We are also keeping down nationalised industry prices, for which we are greatly criticised by the nationalised industries themselves. We are doing this as part of the counter-inflationary policy at a cost of about £200 million. This is the amount by which the prices are being kept down but the cost is about £400 million when the Government's contributions to all the nationalised industries together are taken into account.

Will the Prime Minister say something about pay policy in the nationalised industries? Outwardly they are treated as industrial undertakings, yet all the time behind the scenes Ministers are interfering-with the pay and price policies of the nationalised industries.

Under stage 3, as under stage 2, nationalised industries are governed by the code. Under stage 3, as proposed, a Minister has the power to say that the full price permitted by the Price Commission will not be allowed by the Government. That is done openly in the interests of the counter-inflationary policy if the Government so decide. But in the first instance the nationalised industry can put forward to the Price Commission its own proposals which are considered under the code. I hope that that answer satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

To subsidise foodstuffs generally would be enormously expensive and I think that the Leader of the Opposition must acknowledge that. The cost of subsidies to put the price of foodstuffs generally at the level of a year ago is £1,400 million. Even if the Leader of the Opposition took every penny of income over £5,000 a year, that would yield him less than an extra £400 million. In other words, the taxation involved has to go down into everybody's pay packet and that should be made absolutely clear to everyone.

So much of our food is imported and the price is outside our control. The impact of a subsidy today—quite different from during wartime—is to remove any incentive on the overseas suppliers to contain their price and to remove the incentive of our own importers to use their bargaining power to get the price reduced. That is an important factor when considering major items which are largely imported from overseas.

Let us look at the question of grain prices, which enter not only into bread but into many other staple foodstuffs and also into animal feed. The price of wheat on world markets today is about there times what it was this time last year. Membership of the Community is of positive benefit. We can now buy French wheat at £20 a ton less than we should be able to do if we were outside the Community. But we are having to pay £90 or £100 a ton for some of the hard wheat coming largely from Canada that we need for our bread. That is bound to affect the costs of our bread producers in the future.

What would be the effect if we were to peg the price by a large subsidy? We have a large harvest in this country and the reports from the Soviet Union and North America have shown a great improvement. It may be that prices are stabilising, although it will be some time before the grain to which the stabilised prices relate will be delivered. It would be extraordinary if at this time we were to intervene in the market with a substantial subsidy and so reduce both the pressure on those who are selling grain in the world markets to reduce their price and also the incentives to our buyers to exploit their skill in getting the lowest prices.

For these and other reasons we have come to the conclusion that the best way of handling this difficult problem is by the approach which we set out in stage 3, with a reasonable—indeed some commentators have said a generous—limit for pay arrangements and a cost-of-living safeguard for the wage earner. We have, of course, taken action to protect those with the special problems such as the lower paid, the pensioners and those who are buying their houses on mortgage. That is the approach which we have adopted and which we believe is the right one in these circumstances to deal with a very difficult problem.

I sum up by saying that we want to achieve our purpose of maintaining expansion, taking advantage of our competitiveness in world markets. For the reason I have given, I do not accept the recipe which the Leader of the Opposition produced when he came back from holiday of higher taxation—involving massive taxation, with substantial food subsidies. His recipe also involved freezing rents, which means that the better off who can afford to pay do not and those who have rebates have them taken away. That is not a policy which I can accept from the right hon. Gentleman, nor do I believe it makes sense.

What we must do is maintain our expanding economy and, with a position of competitiveness throughout the world that has been unequalled since 1945, exploit the opportunities now open to us. It means devoting more of our output to balance of payments and investments, and the Government have accepted that in relation to Government spending. After the increase in expenditure which was deliberately planned to take up unemployment and increase production, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now taken steps to restrain its growth. As the House knows, he announced in May of this year a reduction in public expenditure programmes for 1974–75 amounting to £500 million to make the necessary room for investment and exports next year. Our present proposals to help pensioners have been offset in such a way that they will not add to the level of demand, and public expenditure from now on will be growing more slowly than our national income. This, surely, is the right way to proceed.

If we come up against areas of the economy where there is excessive demand we can deal with those problems as they occur without bringing the whole economy to a stop. That is what we have done with the construction industry. It is part of the public sector where excessive load has been inflating costs and delaying production. We are now phasing forward contracts which might be placed in the latter part of this year.

The projects will go ahead. Some were being held up anyway by a shortage of capacity. We are giving the construction industry time to increase its capacity by additional training and by obtaining additional resources and at the same time we are giving it the opportunity of steadying its prices.

I do not believe that in general unemployment is too low—if that is the view of the Opposition, let them say so—but there can be difficulties in specific areas. The real problem facing this country is that we still have more than half a million unemployed, but they are in the wrong places from the point of view of the work and they do not have the right skills from the point of view of the employment for which they are required. That is the problem with which we have to deal. It cannot be dealt with by creating more unemployment. That would undermine the confidence of industry when it is now prepared to invest, and undermine the confidence of those who are being trained and retrained and who would not think it worth while to do so if there were to be increased unemployment.

The Prime Minister has now completed, almost word for word, a repetition of what he said at the Press Conference. Will he now take the matter a little further in the House of Commons and tell the House on what precise points his negotiations with the Trades Union Congress have broken down? He failed to do that before introducing phase 1. It is his duty to tell the House now, not to hide behind further negotiations. We have a right to know why he did not reach a voluntary agreement with the Trades Union Congress. On what point did the negotiations break down?

The negotiations with the trade union movement have not broken down. They are coming to see me next Monday to have further talks with my colleagues and myself. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has a complete misunderstanding of the attitude of the TUC.

I have said that we have to have a labour force which is meeting our requirements. In the past year, the number of people moving with Government help has more than doubled, and we have now introduced a new scheme to help people with the cost of looking for jobs in areas where work is more plentiful. In 1971, we trained 15,000 people; last year, under the Training Opportunities Scheme, we trained nearly twice that number; and in the first nine months of this year we have already passed the total which we achieved last year. The Employment Service is being reorganised so as to make a more effective contribution in bringing together people and jobs.

But in the last resort these problems will be solved by the ingenuity of individuals up and down the country, together with the help and co-operation of both employers and trade unions, both of whom have told us that they will do everything possible to help. So I believe there is no reason why, if we pursue these practical policies, our economy should not grow at a rate more nearly like that of our overseas competitors—not just for a year or two, but over a sustained period. We made it clear to all the organisations with whom we have had discussions at No. 10 and at Chequers that, in the end, it was the views of this House which would prevail. We wished to reach agreement with them so far as we possibly could—

Why did you not?

—and they all understood this. I have already explained to the House and to the hon. Gentleman, that the reason why we do not have a voluntary arrangement is that neither the employers nor the trade unions could convince us that they would be able to contain inflation if there were to be no control of any kind at this stage of the economy. That is a very simple statement of fact.

Everybody in the discussions understood that this was something for Parliament finally to decide. There is something here which is more than a constitutional point, because inflation affects not just the members of these organisations but every citizen and every family in the country. And it is this House and Parliament alone which represent the interests of all the citizens of this country, and it is therefore on this House that the responsibility for decisions must fall.

I know that the House will wish to consider carefully the proposals put forward in this consultative document. I have asked that the House should comment in detail, and I hope constructively, on all the proposals which we have put forward. We shall listen to all of these comments with care and we shall take them into account. We shall also take into account views which are given to us by those who feel themselves affected, whether as organisations or as individuals. Then will be the time for the substantive codes to be published.

But I hope that all the time the House and the organisations are doing this, they will remember that our purpose is to contain inflation and to enable us to sustain in the long term the growing prosperity on which the future of this country depends.

4.24 p.m.

I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: 'noting the failure of the counter-inflation policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government over the last twelve months, which has proved both unfair and unworkable, declines to imply approval either of their record over the past year or their plans for the next year by taking note of Command Paper No. 5444; and calls for the adoption of policies that will protect living standards of ordinary families above all by controlling prices and rents, house prices and mortgage interest rates, and safeguard their future prosperity'. I begin by apologising to the right hon. Gentleman, because I missed the first half-minute or so of his speech. As he will know, there are several hundred Scottish ladies in the Grand Committee Room who have come to demonstrate against high prices. It was fixed up many weeks ago before we knew that we were to debate the subject. I think that the Prime Minister refused to meet them, but I have just been to meet them and I hope that hon. Members opposite will take the opportunity of discussing these problems with them. The most fitting commentary, not only on the right hon. Gentleman's speech but on the whole style of his Government, was provided by a headline on the first page of the Daily Telegraph yesterday.

Heath to curb price-rise publicity —not price rises, but publicity about price rises. It is, of course, now clear that 6 million housewives entirely misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman in 1970—that flowing eloquent language about prices in the manifesto; everything he was going to do. He never meant them, we now know, to get the idea that he was going to deal with prices at a stroke or in any other way. He was going to deal with publicity about them. And now they are going to see decisive action at last.

The second commentary is that yesterday the Government admitted that the pound of June 1970, which was then worth 20s. or 100p, is now worth 77½p and that figure is already two months out of date.

Before I come to the content of the right hon. Gentleman's Command Paper on stage 3, I must once again register the utter condemnation of all of us that the Prime Minister saw fit to announce these proposals not to Parliament but with the Americanised razmataz of a televised Press conference. This House was, in fact, due to meet just eight days later but, as in the January announcement of stage 2 when Parliament's reassembly was only six day away, he preferred to ignore this House. There was no urgency about anouncing it last week—if one excludes disreputable calculations about the Conservative Conference which was about to assemble. I read in all the Conservative Press that he did so specifically to set the stage for that conference.

But the right hon. Gentleman achieved his object. He was able to announce his proposals. Unlike January—I hope I have got this right—it was a Green Paper and not a White Paper. But he was able to announce his proposals and put his own slant on them, without having to meet the discipline either of Opposition comment or of parliamentary questioning. This is one more example of the right hon. Gentleman's total contempt for our parliamentary institutions. It was the same attitude which led him to take vast areas of industrial relations outside the control of this House and put them into the control of a politically created creature court. It was the same high-handed attitude which considered—and there is the man responsible—that Parliament should not be free to debate the essential issues in Britain's entry into the Common Market, and to ensure—so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned for ever—that Parliament loses virtually all control over vast areas of our national life.

His unconstitutional action—I am surprised that he has not apologised to the House or said why he felt he had to do it—is made all the worse by the fact that he took the occasion of his Press conference to introduce a mini-autumn Budget. There was the decision to increase by 9p—nearly two old shillings—the employers' insurance contribution. This should have been announced in this House. His spending plans, including his throwaway announcement of a cutback in school and hospital building, on which he made the most perfunctory comments this afternoon, should have been made—whether by himself or by the Chancellor—in this House, and should have been subject to parliamentary questioning. I might put it to the right hon. Gentleman that journalists are not necessarily better at this role of questioning than hon. Members of this House. In any case, they have not been elected by the people for the job.

I shall come in a moment to our reason for rejecting the proposals set out in Command Paper No. 5444. Fundamentally, we reject them as unfair and unworkable, for the same reasons which led us to oppose stages 1 and 2; and our warnings on stages 1 and 2 were justified by the outcome. We opposed stage 1 and stage 2, as we now reject stage 3, because all of them, 1, 2 and 3, fail to deal with the rising cost of living of the average family in this country.

The right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers seem so insulated from the problems of ordinary families, so unconcerned and uncaring, that they fail to recognise that the two most important factors in the household budget of an ordinary family and food and housing. These latest proposals involve no more an attempt to deal with food and housing than did stages 1 and 2. Stages 1 and 2, as we warned at the time, entirely failed to curb rising prices, for the same reason that stage 3 will fail.

It is not necessary to remind the House of all the details of the prodigious increase in food prices, rents and mortgage interest rates during a period fraudulently put forward as one of absolute freeze and total standstill. Everyone recalls what happened. They recall, too, that during this freeze the price of an average house rose by £60 a week, and that young couples who bought a house at that time, making the most difficult and intolerable domestic budgetary arrangements to pay for their house, are now facing the 11 per cent. mortgage interest rates.

These young people remember stage 2, and the patronising compliments of Ministers about the gallant little housewife who stopped beef prices rising further because she stopped buying it. Because she stopped buying it her family did not get beef. They wanted beef, so she shopped around. I do not know how much shopping the Prime Minister has done in the last few months, but she found that the price of every other kind of meat and fish followed the upward price of beef—lamb, pork, chicken, bacon, tinned meats and all the principal varieties of fish.

Each week The Times publishes an up-to-the-minute guide to food prices currently ruling in the shops. Last Friday, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was stepping out the light fantastic on a Blackpool dance floor, The Times summarised the situation in the shops and in the supermarkets with this heading: Pheasants for some, but stews are dear. That is what a Conservative Prime Minister has done. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that it was a former Conservative Prime Minister who subtitled his greatest book "The Two Nations".

I should like the Prime Minister to tell us of a single staple protein food which is not very much dearer now than it was a year ago. These are the things that the Prime Minister should have been talking about for 50 minutes—not the repetitive speech which we have heard so often. Daily we are warned that many prices of food will rise still further. Can he give a guarantee that they will not? Bacon and eggs have already disappeared from countless breakfast tables. Can he tell us that the prices have now reached their peak?