asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what representations he has received about trade practices on the sale of caravans.

I have received a number of complaints about undesirable practices connected with the sale of caravans. These particularly involved the sale of holiday caravans by certain site operators.

In view of the fact that there is a growing volume of these complaints, when does the Minister propose to introduce a code of practice, if only to govern certain practices by caravan site operators? Has there been a change of heart on the part of the Trellis Scott company about its practices in Wales?

On the latter point I have heard from Mr. Dunstan, managing director of Trellis Scott, this morning. He asked if he could come to see me, and I shall gladly see him. On the code of practice, I shall discuss a proposal with the National Federation of Site Operators, and the Director General of Fair Trading if necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when he will next be meeting the Chairman of the Price Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the Price Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when he next proposes to meet the Chairman of the Price Commission.

The Chairman of the Price Commission and I meet frequently. No firm date has been set for our next meeting.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman, will he raise the matter of the propriety of the range and depth of questions being asked? What will happen to the Commission's data bank of information? Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the chairman that, as he said in his report he cannot operate without the good will of British industry and it seems that that good will is being eroded rapidly?

That is only the result of unsubstantiated stories in the newspapers. No good purpose would be served by my directing the Chairman of the Price Commission—I do not know whether it would even be within my power—about whether questions were proper or not.

The information requirement was discussed in great detail with the CBI when it was first prepared, and now a working party of the CBI and the Commission is considering further provision. Anything they agree to, I shall support. That is the right way to go about matters.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many workers whose wages are frozen are absolutely flabbergasted by some of the price increases that the Commission allows? For example, why should the Distillers Company be allowed to slap another 50p on the price of a bottle of whisky when last year that company made a profit of £91 million and the managing director earned £50,000, yet the average wage of its workers is less than £52 a week?

The application of the Distillers Company was examined and treated by the Price Commission according to the rules established by the House. The Commission will continue to adhere to those rules. My hon. Friend must recall that not all whisky prices went up by the amount that he has quoted because of the intervention of the Price Commission.

Does the Secretary of State recall a letter than I wrote to him recently about the Eastern Electricity Board? It has applied to the Price Commission for a further rise in electricity prices. Why is he so coy about having words with the Price Commission over this matter?

The Act of Parliament governing the Price Commission, which the hon. Member voted against, binds me as it binds him to seeing that the Com- mission operates with a degree of independence. This was the will of the House and I subscribe to it.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Chairman of the Price Commission, will he make the point that the Whisky Distillers' argument that it needs price rises to protect export earnings is unacceptable in view of the fact that lower export prices tend to increase consumption and increase earnings? Will he further say that the action of the Price Commission in not investigating the Distillers Company disturbs those of us who gave authority for such investigations to be carried out?

I have no doubt that the Price Commission and the wider public will take note of what my hon. Friend has said. However, it would be improper and undesirable if I constantly suggested to the Price Commission what it should or should not investigate. The Act provides that specific decisions of this sort should be taken by the Price Commission itself, and that must remain the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when he next expects the Price Commission to make a general report on its activities to him.

The Price Commission is due to report to me during February on the performance of its functions during the three months ending 31st January 1978.

Does the Secretary of State recall the undertaking given in Standing Committee that the Price Commission's powers would not be used to secure planning agreements in industry? Has that held true to date, and will it in future?

The law does not allow the Price Commission to use its powers in that way. I thought that I had convinced the hon. Gentleman of that during the Committee stage of the Bill.

Will my right hon. Friend ask the Commission to report on the inflationary effect on food prices of last week's parliamentary auction sale when the SNP tried to outbid the Tories and the Liberals by proposing a green pound devaluation of 20 per cent. per annum in a cheap bid to buy the farmers' votes?

One of the Price Commission's objectives is to explain the reasons for price increases, but in this case I think that the country understands that perfectly well.

What is the cost to the taxpayer of each of the reports of the Price Commission, and what is the cost to the firms which have had to undergo investigation?

Questions about individual costs are for the Price Commission, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in these cases the costs are rather like his supplementary question—trivial.

In view of some criticism of the Price Commission's techniques and its reports, is my right hon. Friend convinced that it has sufficient resources and personnel to carry out these important inquiries?

Yes, I am. I told the House a month ago that the Price Commission wanted to employ consultants to ensure that the correct quantity and quality of manpower was available. It is doing that, and I have no reason to believe that it is operating other than efficiently. Certainly the chairman of the Commission would tell me if he feared a lack of efficiency, but he has not done so.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he will refer to the Price Commission the price margins in the sale of table wine.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that taxation represents more than 40 per cent. of the retail price of ordinary table wine—"plonk", in ordinary terms? Is he also aware that since the Labour Government came to power the taxation on "plonk" has increased by 333 per cent? That is the Treasury figure. What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do about it?

Questions about the level of duty are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what steps he is taking to simplify and moderate the provision of information requirements under the Price Commission Act 1977, in the case of price pre-notification and quarterly reporting on profit margins.

I am keeping the information requirements under review, but it is much too early to say whether modifications may be required.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although there is supposed to be a degree of simplification under the new arrangements, many industrialists are finding the new forms a good deal more complicated than their predecessors?

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman because I think I anticipated his question in a previous comment. I can only repeat what I said before. The information requirement as it stands is largely the result of work jointly done by the Price Commission and the CBI. They are now talking about modifications and if they are mutually agreeable I shall not stand in their way. Some of the wilder claims about information requirements are not supported or subscribed to by industry as a whole.

In order to avoid any wild claims, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny—and if he can do neither will he write to me—that each individual inquisition by the Commission costs about £60,000?

Individual questions on individual costs must, under the statute, be a matter for the Commission. While the hon. Gentleman is talking about wild claims, he might like to consider wild language and the use of words such as "inquisition" which make the people who use them appear ridiculous.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the reported questions of the Price Commission about the militancy of company trade unions? What business is it of the Commission whether trade unions are militant or not?

There has been a good deal of comment about that question and claims that it appears in a questionnaire. I have talked to the Chairman of the Price Commission about that. No such question ever appeared in a questionnaire—

Yes, it did. I saw it.

A firm of independent, private and highly reputable consultants working on behalf of the Commission included such a question in some individual letters. The chairman of the Commission has told the consultants that he does not regard that as a sensible question, and I agree with him.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he will seek powers to require that goods displayed as "Xp off" show the price from which the reduction is claimed.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he will seek to regulate flash offers.

Flash offers and similar practices undoubtedly tend to confuse consumers. I am considering introducing a requirement that when a price reduction is shown both the net price and the price from which the reduction is made should also be marked. The Office of Fair Trading has been examining the general question of bargain offers and is expected to submit recommendations shortly. When we have these, we shall decide on the action that is needed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that offers that do not show the price from which the deduction has been made are widely regarded as a con trick by many in the retailing trade? Can he give an indication of when the regulations to which he has referred are likely to be introduced?

I agree that price information of that sort is extremely misleading. I hope to be able to move rapidly on this matter and I am waiting for indications from the Office of Fair Trading of how it thinks it would be most sensible to proceed.

Will my hon. Friend take urgent action because the situation in supermarkets and shops is a jungle and people often have no real idea of what they should be paying? Is he aware that often the small print on 5p or 10p off offers shows that the customer has to send to the manufacturers to get the refund?

Shoppers often do not realise that the flash offers indicating so many pence off are indicative not of the retail price but of the manufacturer's recommended price, which may bear little relationship to the price that would normally be paid.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that prices have been going up so frequently in the last two years that any shop or supermarket would have quite a choice of original prices when marking the price of goods?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the evidence that the rate of inflation is, as the Government forecast, moderating rapidly.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what was the annual rate of increase in the retail price index at the latest available date.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what are the latest figures available for changes in the retail price index.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the latest increase in the retail price index.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the increase in the retail price index since February 1974.

The retail price index rose by 0·5 per cent. in December 1977. This brings the annual rate of increase down to 12·1 per cent. The increase since February 1974 is 85·3 per cent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer is, if anything, an improvement on the forecasts that he has made since he took office and that this is welcome? Does he agree that statements by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) that Government forecasts in these matters are always wrong are not only inaccurate but mischievous and that she has joined her Front Bench colleagues in seeking to promote among working people the desire to break the Government's pay policy? Is not that her real motive rather than the search for truth?

Most people understand how price increases have moderated. The monthly index of prices, which shows that in the last six months the increase has never been more than ½p in the pound, is real evidence of what is happening. If there has been an inaccuracy in my predictions, I apologise, but it is that I have been over-pessimistic about the date on which single figure inflation would be reached. It may be earlier than I had anticipated.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people are very appreciative of the enormous fall in the rate of inflation which has been achieved jointly by the trade union movement and the Government? Does he agree that, in view of some of the statements from the Opposition Front Bench, there may be a case not only for a Tory Party index showing the effect of its policies on prices but for a special Gloucester index to show how high the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) would wish prices to be?

The difficulty about a Gloucester index is that it would be published only in the Daily Telegraph. However, my hon. Friend makes a serious and important point. The achievements of the last two years, which we sometimes talk about loosely as our achievements—as though they were the Government's—are a result of the activities of the trade union leadership and the sacrifices of the British people. As the year wears on and real standards of living improve because inflation is under control, that achievement and the material benefits which it will bring will be clear and perhaps even the Opposition will acknowledge the debt owed to the trade union movement for two years of wage restraint.

I hesitate to interrupt the mutual admiration society on the Government Benches, but can the right hon. Gentlement tell us when he intends to take action to ensure that food price increases are at least reflected evenly throughout the country? Is he aware of the remarks of the chairwoman of the Scottish Consumers Council who said that because there is a higher proportion of people in Scotland dependent on local facilities for their food purchases they are suffering more than anyone else?

In some areas—and this applies not just to Scotland, but to the South-West and parts of Wales—there are problems that result from the high cost of transport and the low turnover of supplies. I told the hon. Lady in the Standing Committee that considered the Price Commission Bill that this is a matter that we do not take frivolously or lightly. There is economic difficulty in smoothing these things out, and perhaps the Price Commission could look at this matter in one of its sectoral inquiries.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we will accept our responsibility for the price rises of one-sixth of 1 per cent. as a result of the increased devaluation of the green pound if he will accept the Government's responsibility for the 85·3 per cent. increase in prices since they came to office?

The hon. Gentleman is a month late. It was last month's campaign to pretend that inflation began with the election of this Government in 1974. I have given the House figures that prove conclusively that the great increase in inflation started in the last six months of the Administration of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) with a 5 per cent. increase in prices then compared with 3·6 per cent. increase in the last six months of 1977. That Administration's printing of money, deficit financing and indexing were all calculated to get inflation going.

What contribution has the Price Commission made to the reduction in the rate of inflation? Of the 664 price increases notified between 1st August and 31st October 1977, only 50 were withdrawn or modified. Does that not show that the Commission is hardly the monster that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) believes it to be?

I have never promised the House a monster. I have always promised the House that the Price Commission would have a significant effect on some specific prices and would have a generally favourable effect on prices as a whole. Its existence deters many companies from applying for price increases which they would certainly make if it did not exist. If the speech that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) made 15 days ago has any substance, the point that she was struggling to make was that the Price Commission was deterring people from applying for price increases.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Gloucester price index shows the highest rise in prices under the present Government that has ever taken place in this country? Is he further aware that the consumers are not so worried about the devaluation of the green pound as they are about the devaluation of the red pound, which is now worth only 54p compared to when the Government came into power? Will he explain to the House why Labour Members are so indignant about an increase of one-sixth of 1 per cent. in the retail price index produced by the devaluation of the green pound when they acquiesced without any protest to an increase of double that amount by this Government when they put a tax on food prices?

Our indignation about what happened last Monday night stems from a simple cause. Nobody has suggested, least of all myself, that the green pound should remain at its old level for ever. It was important that farmers, and certainly some groups of farmers, should receive adequate reward. What happened last Monday night was that a gratuitous and unnecessary addition was made to that increase. The hon. Lady voted for it, no doubt because her Gloucester constituency contains many farmers.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he will use the Price Commission Act to stop the use of artificially inflated makers' recommended prices.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend shortly proposes to direct the Price Commission to examine recommended retail prices in bedding. Further directions relating to the practice in other sectors may be issued subsequently. The decision to take action on a sectoral basis does not preclude legislation or other steps at a later stage to prohibit the practice completely.

Is not the Minister aware that housewives are confronted in the shops with two sets of prices, one of them "phoney" and the other a statistic which is either an absolute sum of money or a percentage showing the alleged reduction from one of these phantom prices? This greatly confuses the mechanism of consumer choice, and it makes life difficult for the housewife. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that situation, housewives through out the country would welcome the banning of the use of the recommended retail price system because it is now a ramp?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the recommended retail price system gives rise to confusion of the sort to which he has referred. It was with that in mind that the House took powers in the Price Commission Act to enable the Price Commission to examine cases in which it was particularly confusing and to make recommendations for its removal. We are proceeding entirely in line with the provisions in the Act and will be looking at a number of other sectors. That is not the end of the story. It will be possible for us to proceed across the board if it is appropriate to do so.

Would it not be possible to avoid the artificially inflated maker's recommended prices by asking the Price Commission to ensure that people refer only to prices which are charged in other shops, which would then be the opposite to "We are never knowingly undersold"?

That matter will fall to be considered by the Director General in his review of bargain offers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the pernicious system of so-called double pricing is a trap not only for the housewife but for the honest retailer who has to introduce it so that he can keep up with his dishonest competitor? Will he ensure not merely that his very welcome announcement results in a recommendation being made but that action is taken swiftly?

It was because of our general concern about the problem that the matter was referred to the old Price Commission, and its general report on the subject was made available to us. I can give the undertaking that my hon. and learned Friend has asked for, that any recommendation from the Price Commission for action to be taken will be acted upon most speedily.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the discussion on the Price Commission Bill he pointed out—and the Conservative Party agreed with him—that the powers did not include powers to ban the practice altogether? We accept that reform may be necessary. Will the Minister confirm the Government's position?

It is possible to proceed other than by the arrangements under the Price Commission Bill to which I have referred.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether he will forecast the rate of price inflation at the end of 1978.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is his present estimate of the likely trend in retail prices over the next 12 months.

I expect the annual rate of inflation to fall to single figures by the spring. The size of further reductions is crucially dependent upon the general level of wage settlements remaining within the Government's guidelines.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that other members of his Government and other Government forecasters agree with him? Will he inform the House of any other forecasters who do?

There is no reputable forecast that does not show that we will reach that level and remain at that figure for the rest of the year. There is no doubt of that.

When the Minister announces the figures, will he be fair to the House and point out that the increase is an 85 per cent. increase over the figures on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer based his famous 8·4 per cent. Even a single-figure inflation rate today is equal to more than 17 per cent. on the basic pound.

No. The practice in this country is to calculate the retail price index as the way of judging the level of inflation at any one time. I know that when the three-monthly annualised average painted a more gloomy picture Opposition Members chose that as their indicator. Now that it paints an advantageous picture they no longer use it. I propose to do what I have done for the last 18 months, which is to use the commonly accepted and most reputable indication of price increases. I refer to the RPI. On that basis my figures are absolutely correct.

Will the Secretary of State comment on the equally reputable and splendid figures given by the Prime Minister in his new year BBC broadcast in respect of 1979 in which he said that price inflation would be at 5 per cent. provided that wage inflation likewise was only 5 per cent? Does he endorse that?

The Prime Minister pointed out—and we must all continue to point it out—that the level of prices next year, which I believe has to be an improvement on that for this year, has an arithmetical relationship to wage increases over the same period. It seems to be no more than right that the Prime Minister and other members of the Government should make that simple fact known.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he expects the Price Commission to report on its consultations with the TUC.

The Price Commission referred to certain discussion with the TUC in its quarterly report for August-October 1977. The extent to which it reports on any consultations is a matter for the Commission.

If the Secretary of State is right, as I believe he is, in saying that the rate of inflation of 1974–75 arose primarily out of the monetary policies of 1972–73, would it not be more honest to the House and to the country to say that the reduction in the rate of inflation is due primarily to the more stringent monetary policies which have been followed since the Government came to office rather than to the TUC and to the sacrifices of the British people?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's first point, which he makes with great objectivity, and I am sure that the House appreciates it. On his second point, I cannot agree. Every answer that I have given on previous Mondays has pointed out that a number of factors have enabled inflation to be brought under control, and certainly monetary restraint is one. I do not minimise its importance. It has a part to play. It is one of the factors, but over the last two years another major factor has been wage restraint.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the main factor has been the wage restraint of the trade unionists? Does he further agree that wage restraint cannot go on for ever? Trade unionists' earnings must keep up with the cost of living. At the same time, will he indicate to the Opposition that the Price Commission is doing a reasonable job and that it is not a monster but that it could improve its position?

As my hon. Friend knows, the idea of the Price Commission behaving in a tyrannical way is regarded by both myself and most of industry as ludicrous. There are ways in which the Price Commission can improve its techniques, and perhaps some improvements are possible in the rules by which it operates.

The most important part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question was the reference to wage restraint. I agree that there cannot be a further period in which working people in this country are required to accept a fall in their standards of living. From now on we must make sure that wage increases and increases in the inflation rates are so related that the standard of living improves. If there is a 10 per cent. earnings increase between now and 1st August, and if there is single-figure inflation in a month or two, that will add to the net result which will bring about an improvement in the standard of living.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is not a third but rather a second period coming up now, in that the first period, which is looked upon as a period of wage restraint, the £6 a week increase was the largest increase that many workers had ever had, and that far from restraining inflation it added fuel to the fire?

Phase 1 provided for some lower-paid workers increases greater than they would otherwise have had. Those of us who wanted a phase 3 and regretted that that was not possible in a formal sense regretted it in part because it meant that we could not make proper and special allowance for the lower paid. But to suggest that phase 1 was in itself inflationary is wrong. In phase 1 prices rose faster than wages and there was a net fall in the standard of living, and workers were making a contribution to bringing down inflation.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what was the cumulative increase in prices between February 1974 and the latest date in West Germany, the United States of America, Japan, France and the United Kingdom.

The cumulative increases in prices between February 1974 and November 1977—the latest date for which comparative figures are available—were West Germany 17¾ per cent., United States of America 31 per cent., Japan 41¼ per cent., France 46½ per cent., and the United Kingdom 84¼ per cent.

Although we welcome the recent drop in price increases, the increases given by the Minister show that the United Kingdom has suffered two to three times the rate of increase of our major competitors, and that is particularly affecting small businesses. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that simply to catch up we must secure half the inflation rate of our major competitors over the next four years? Has the Minister any projections for the rate at the end of this year or next year, or can be in any way give an indication of how the damage can be rectified?

The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the importance not only of bringing down our rates of inflation to those of our competitors but of maintaining them at those competitive rates. I am sure that he will be glad that in the last six months, on the comparative information available—that is to November—inflation in this country has been below the OECD average. It was 3·1 per cent. in Britain compared with 3·5 per cent. in the OECD as a whole. I think that that shows that we are getting to the sort of target that we must sustain.

What has been the effect on the cumulative increase in this period of the CAP food policy, and do the Government need to alter that policy to secure the sort of prices we need? Does my right hon. Friend realise that, while tea and coffee have risen and fallen in price, Common Market food prices have gone up and up?

The Government are seeking important changes in the CAP, and it remains a part of our policy to ensure that the common prices of food products which are in structural surplus do not go up substantially.

Is the Minister aware that the figures he gave in his original answer to this Question show that prices have risen in this country during the period in question five times faster than they did in Germany, three times faster than in the United States, and twice as fast as in France and Japan? Since all these countries were subject to the oil price crisis, and since at least some of them were subject to the CAP, is it not clear that the reason for the disparity is that those countries had the good fortune not to have this Government?

If the hon. Lady reflects upon my original answer, she will realise that it referred to the rate of price increases which were started when her party was in office. They can be largely attributed to three factors. The first was the threshold arrangements which she entered into. The second was the hidden subsidisation of nationalised industry prices, which we have had the considerable problem of phasing out. The third was the Barber printing boom, which almost every Conservative is prepared to acknowledge made a major contribution to the rate of inflation that we have had to reduce.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what, in annualised terms, was the increase in the retail price index since 1st August 1977 up to the latest available month; and what were the corresponding figures for the retail prices of potatoes, potato crisps and frozen chips, respectively.

Between 16th August and 13th December 1977 the retail price index rose by 2 per cent., equivalent to 6·1 per cent. on an annualised basis. Short-term fluctuations may, however, make annualised figures misleading, particularly for individual products. Since August the prices of raw potatoes and of potato products have fallen by 15 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively.

I commend the Secretary of State and the Department for holding down price increases as they have done. I know that it has been a hard and serious struggle for them. The Secretary of State ought to write a book about it. Is my hon. Friend sure that the Price Commission has the power that it should have? Is he aware that the prices of potato crisps and frozen chips have increased far beyond the price of raw potatoes? Does he realise that even fish shop owners, who are usually glad when frozen chips go up in price because it means less competition for them, are complaining that too much profit is being made from frozen chips?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his general commendation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The price of potato products did not rise as sharply as the price of raw potatoes, and therefore the subsequent decline has not been quite as sharp. On potato crisps, following the intervention of the Price Commission in the summer, the packet and its contents were enlarged to take account of the fall in price. On chips, there is a certain amount of cross-subsidisation to offset other increases, particularly in the price of fish. The competition provided for chip manufacturers by fresh potato producers' prices will, I believe, help to hold down chip manufacturers' costs.

Does the Minister accept that farmers in the Isle of Ely will be disappointed at the figure of 15 per cent., because one year ago potatoes were fetching £350 a tonne and farmers are now having a job getting more than £30 a tonne?

The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the wild fluctuations that have taken place in the price of potatoes. That is an inevitable feature of the farming industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he will request the Price Commission to examine the costs proposed to be charged for electricity in the North Western Electricity Board's area.

The Price Commission has responsibility for initiating investigations under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act to investigate the price increases, prices or margins of individual undertakings. My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to direct the Price Commission to examine these charges under Section 10 of the Price Commission Act 1977.

Would the Minister change his mind about ordering an examination if he knew that the electricity board was proposing a 20 per cent. increase on the quarterly standing charge, which will fall most harshly upon those who use little electricity—for example, old-age pensioners, the disabled and the unemployed? If the Minister will not protect these people, to whom can they look for assistance?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will naturally consider carefully what my hon. Friend has said. It appears that a sectoral examination initiated by him would not normally be appropriate for the charges by one area board. Such an examination can be carried out under Sections 4 and 5 of the Price Commission Act, and that is a matter for the initiative of the Price Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether he is satisfied with the distribution of central Government expenditure as between consumer advice centres and citizens' advice bureaux.

Whilst my Department keeps all its expenditure under regular review, I am satisfied that the present distribution of Government expenditure gives a proper level of assistance to both these services.

Does the Minister agree that citizens' advice bureaux cover a much wider range of subjects, including consumer affairs, than consumer advice centres and that they perform a particularly valuable service in county areas where often there are few other sources of advice available? As about 50 per cent. of their inquiries are now central Government oriented, will he consider again whether, out of the resources available, more should be concentrated on citizens' advice bureaux and rather less on consumer advice centres?

I pay full tribute to the services provided by citizens' advice bureaux. Indeed, I regret that some local authorities should have cut back on assistance to them. But £1·4 million a year is provided from central Government funds with a good deal of assistance from local authorities, which is 61 per cent. grant-aided. I keep the level of assistance to these bodies under review.

Do not questions such as that of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) throw a smokescreen over the wilful disregard of the value of consumer advice centres shown by Conservative-controlled local authorities, such as the one in Derbyshire, which has axed them against the advice of the Department? Will my hon. Friend condemn that practice?

I have condemned and deplored that practice. It does not save the ratepayers any money. It is an act of political vandalism. Indeed, some local authorities have practised the same economy upon CABs.

Is the Minister aware that citizens' advice bureaux carry out a traditional first-class service over a wide area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) pointed out, and that consumer advice centres are a waste of money? The BBC has a weekly "Food basket" which is extremely useful. Therefore, it is unecessary to set up consumer advice centres throughout the country.

The citizens' advice bureaux service deeply regrets the cutback on the CACs.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what steps he is taking to increase the ability of companies to compete effectively for custom by reducing executive time spent unprofitably in form-filling and interviews with officials.

To ensure that essential requirements place the minimum burden on companies, the need for completion of forms and for particular information is continuously reviewed.

Is the Minister aware—if not, he should be from today's Question Time—that there is a great deal of discontent on both sides of the House about the activities of the Price Commission? Its activities may be splendid for accountants and management consultants, but is there not something wrong when companies are frightened to discuss openly with Members of Parliament or journalists the activities of that organisation? Is it not about time that the powers of the Price Commission and of its snoopers and form-filling officials were curbed in the interests of promoting genuine competition?

The hon. Gentleman's serious charge that companies are afraid to discuss these matters is completely unsubstantiated and cannot be substantiated. Notification and form-filling are matters now being discussed between the CBI and the Price Commission.

I wholly rebut the hon. Gentleman's wider suggestion that we would assist competition by abandoning the Price Commission Act. A major purpose in setting up the Price Commission was to ensure that competition was reinforced and that absence of competition, which is widespread in British industry, should not lead to unjustifiable price increases.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the only dissatisfaction felt by Labour Members about the Price Commission is that it frequently does not have enough teeth to keep prices down? Will he inform the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), if he is not already aware of it, that much of the existing machinery for form-filling was drawn up by agreement between the Department and the CBI and that there is no general dissatisfaction with it within industry?

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend has said. I have received only one complaint from hon. Members on the subject of form-filling and the Price Commission.

Has the Minister forgotten the reprimand by the Chairman of the Price Commission to a company for making a public statement about an application to the Price Commission? What has happened to open government? Why should not these issues be discussed openly?

During the passage of the Price Commission Bill, Opposition Front Bench spokesmen many times said that it was undesirable that companies' affairs should be publicly debated and discussed. It was no doubt with that consideration in mind that the Chairman of the Price Commission said what he did.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if, in order to prevent profiteering, particularly at the expense of tourists visiting London, he will seek legislation to require street traders to display prices.

The Government intend to make an order requiring price display for retail sales of food and drink and we are currently consulting interested parties on our proposals. I am considering whether to include street traders in that order as a means of dealing with most of the undoubted abuses that take place.

Is the Minister aware of the large number of complaints about street traders in central London last summer? Does he recall that I gave an example of a street trader charging £2 for a tin of "Coke"? Will he get a grip on the situation? Does he accept that this is a minimum requirement these days?

I accept that there has been gross profiteering of the kind described by the hon. Gentleman. I have discussed this matter with the responsible local authorities, which have been helpful, and with the London Tourist Board, which is trying to ensure that sufficient information, advice and warning is given to tourists. I believe that the proposed order on price display for food and drink should cover the most outstanding abuses. It is particularly in connection with soft drinks and ice cream prices that the worst abuses take place.

Will my hon. Friend take steps to introduce legislation against the pernicious custom of flash offers?

My hon. Friend may not be aware that I have already indicated that we intend to move in this area.

Does the Minister accept that the major trouble is bound to come from street traders, many of whom are unlicensed? Does he further accept from hon. Members on both sides of the House who have had local government experience that the present legislation to control unlicensed street traders does not work because neither local authorities nor the police have the staff to control them? Before introducing further legislation, will he ensure that it can be policed effectively rather than simply put it on the statute book?

The hon. Gentleman is right. Enforcement is a major problem, and it presented real difficulties last summer. In framing our proposals for dealing with this matter we shall bear that aspect very much in mind.

Referring to profiteering at the expense of tourists, will my hon. Friend investigate reports that tour operators are already charging £1 to people booking air travel holidays for later this year in anticipation of the passing of the Civil Aviation Bill, whereas the Government have stated that the security charge will be only 80p? Where will the other 20p go?

I shall investigate what my hon. Friend has said, as will no doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

The proposed subject for today's debate was "Unemployment", but such is the embarrassment of the Leader of the House and the Labour Party that it appears on the Order Paper as "Employment". That is of some significance in assessing the Government's attitude to the problem of unemployment.

In August 1975 unemployment passed 1 million for the first time in the lifetime of this Government. In 1978 it was supposed to get back to 3 per cent. of the employed population. That was the target the Government set themselves with the Trades Union Congress in the social contract. The fact is that unemployment is running at over 6 per cent.—double the target set for this year—and in Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) will point out to the House if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, the figure has more than doubled over the past four years and now stands at about 200,000.

A former Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—said that if unemployment in Scotland reached 100,000 he would resign from his job. He did not actually carry out that threat, but we shall expect to hear far more convincing reasons during his speech today why the present Secretary of State should not resign.

Last summer a very poignant advertisement appeared in a colour supplement to one of the Sunday newspapers. It was put in by Colt, the air conditioning people. It occupied just two pages. One page said:

"With unemployment at over 800,000, why bother to improve working condtions?"

That advertisement was a repeat of one the organisation had put in on 4th May 1971. On the opposite page is just one finger pointing, with the caption underneath:

"Six years later only the figures have changed."

The figures have changed by a startling amount. Since the Labour Government took office in March 1974, unemployment has risen by nearly 900,000—from 590,000 to 1,484,000, an increase of 152 per cent. There are 28 times as many school leavers unemployed as there were then—2,000 in March 1974, 57,400 in January 1978. There were six times as many young people under 20 unemployed in July 1977 as in July 1973–70,000 in July 1973, 456,000 in July 1977. The number out of work over eight weeks has doubled from 491,000 to 1,043,000. The number of vacancies has been halved from 352,000 in March 1973 to 174,000 in January 1978. The numbers in employment have fallen by nearly 200,000 from 22,297,000 in June 1974 to 22,106,000 in June 1977.

Production in manufacturing industry has fallen by 3·5 per cent. and in all industries by 1·2 per cent. Prices have risen by 85 per cent. The pound has lost one-fifth of its international exchange value. The number of company liquidations has more than doubled, from 2,575 in 1973 to 5,939 in 1976 and 4,200 in the first three quarters of 1977.

That is the Government's record. I find it a little surprising that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) should have said that he thought that the present Government would be likely to fight the next election on their record.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a considerable proportion of the number of unemployed has arisen because of cuts in public expenditure and that those cuts were carried out under pressure from the Opposition and against the wishes of Labour Back Benchers? Had those cuts been even more severe, the unemployment level would have been even worse than it is at present.

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures he will see that, despite some of the cuts made in public expenditure, the number of unemployed in the public sector has increased very little indeed and that nearly the whole burden of unemployment has been in the private sector. But I shall be dealing with that a little later in my speech.

During the past few years, the Government have made much of the argument that this is an international problem, that other countries have fared as badly as, or worse than, we have. But it was interesting to read the Answers to be found in Hansard for 11th January which compared the rates of unemployment among various countries in 1977, seasonally adjusted and adjusted to United States concepts. The figures show that Great Britain had 7·2 per cent. unemployment in the fourth quarter of 1977, France had 5·2 per cent., West Germany had 3·5 per cent., Italy had 3·3 per cent. and the United States had 6·8 per cent.

Thus, not only have we had a dramatic increase in unemployment but we have had a dramatic increase in comparison with our major competitors, although we started from a far better situation than they did. By international comparisons, therefore, our record is bad.

Two years ago, almost to the day, we had a debate on unemployment, and I shall quote one passage from it which, I think, is relevant to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has been saying. I then said:

"Unemployment will be higher and will last longer as a result of what has happened in the last two years."—[Official Report, 29th January 1976; Vol. 904, c. 794.]

That was said two years ago, and it is abundantly clear now that that is precisely what has happened.

Had the Government taken our advice earlier both to cut public expenditure, because they could not sustain it, and to take the necessary action to avoid the pay explosion of 1974–75, and if they had not taken the legislative action which they took in certain significant measures, our position today, I believe, would have been considerably better.

In part of his commentary in The Guardian about a week ago, Peter Jenkins had this to say:

"Unemployment has been an instrument of policy under Labour. If it remains so Labour will have no business to hawk its social conscience round the country at election time."

That was a comment made by someone for whom I have considerable regard but who, even in my wildest dreams, I never thought would vote Conservative.

We can now see the situation into which the present Government have put themselves and the country. We have had four wasted years, accompanied by a dangerous narrowing of our industrial base, and there are growing doubts about our competitive position at a time when—one hopes and prays—we are pulling out of some of our problems.

I quote now from another source, not necessarily a source which would corn-mend itself to all my right hon. and hon. Friends. In a recent speech Sir Charles Villiers said:

"In the last few years we have been deindustrialising. Steel is down from 28 million tons per annum in 1970 to 20·6 million tons per annum now, passenger cars from 1·8 million per annum 10 years ago to 1·3 million per annum now, energy usage has been static during this decade, with coal production, of course, well down. Inevitably, this results in less wealth, illustrated by our wage level being about half our competitors'. The overall standard of living has plateaued out at the 1973 level."

One of the great problems which we face as a nation now is that, at a time when we are considering—indeed, I think, demanding—stimulation of demand by tax cuts, there is grave doubt about whether this will merely suck in imports instead of broadening Britain's industrial base.

In price, in design and in delivery we have a lot of work to do if we are to ensure that our exports flourish and our imports are not greater than they ought to be, so that we get the benefit of the increase in demand for our own economy and we do not just help other people's economies.

We should all do well to recognise not only the gravity but the long-term nature of the difficulties which the country faces. No one—positively no one, not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer—should promise any easy or early way out of our problems. The remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Glasgow on Friday did no credit to him and no credit to politics. It is irresponsible to go about talking of an increase of 1 million in jobs within two years when he bases that merely on the notion that if certain industries improve their productivity and their production, this could lead to an improvement in the balance of payments of £2½ billion which could then be used to create other jobs in other industries.

I do not suppose that there has been a time in the past 30 years when that same prediction and those same figures could not have been used. It is utterly irresponsible, and I thought that the matter was well summed up by The Times on Saturday morning in these terms:

"… the figures now gaining political currency are in fact very tentative and are surrounded by so many caveats as to make them almost meaningless."

There are over 1 million people in this country who desperately want a job, and it is totally wrong, at a time when we all should recognise that there are great difficulties ahead in unemployment, for anyone, especially someone in so responsible a position as that held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make a statement of that kind.

That statement by the right hon. Gentleman was similar to the one which he made at Budget time in 1976, when he suggested that we could get unemployment down to 3 per cent. by 1979. He had already moved on a year from 1978 to 1979. The Expenditure Committee, reporting on that matter in its Fourth Report for the Session 1975–76 had some pretty strong words to say. I quote from paragraph 9:

"We wish to point out that the achievement of the Government's objectives stated above"

—that was 3 per cent. unemployment—

"presupposes a substantial improvement in the performance of the economy—indeed, by United Kingdom standards, almost an economic miracle. For example, to reduce unemployment to 700,000 in 1979 would require an increase in manufacturing output of 8½ per cent. per annum from 1976 to 1979."

In fact, manufacturing output, far from rising at 8½ per cent. a year over the past three years, has fallen by 3½ per cent. during that period. It is, therefore, disgraceful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make such statements, and I believe that that view is held more widely than just on these Opposition Benches.

I turn for a moment to structural unemployment. We have an additional problem in that there are more young people coming on to the labour market and there are more women wishing to return to the labour market than there were in years gone by. We shall, therefore, have additional problems and responsibilities in that regard. But we ought not to get the structural problems of unemployment out of context or out of proportion.

In his book "Full Employment in a Free Society" Beveridge said that an increase in the supply of labour tends to create additional demand—

"With every pair of hands God sends a mouth."

We ought to accept that, if we get our economy right again, there are advantages for us in having extra people coming on to the labour market. At any rate, this is a challenge that we must meet and face up to.

In the last debate on unemployment, which took place on the Queen's Speech opening this Session of Parliament, I put forward a number of suggestions which I thought would be of assistance to us in trying to help to get over some of the problems. I dare say that many of those same suggestions, and others, will be forthcoming in this debate.

I say, in parentheses, that I took the trouble to re-read carefully the debate that followed the announcement of the unemployment figures in January 1972. Hon. Members opposite will remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) came to the House that afternoon to take Prime Minister's Questions and the House had to be suspended in uproar because we had reached the figure of 1 million unemployed. That was followed by a censure debate four days later.

That was one of the worst debates that I have heard. I think that the way in which we are conducting our affairs on unemployment in 1978 reflects a good deal more credit on the House than 1972 did. I only wish that one could have some faith that, when it is their turn to go into opposition after the next election, Labour Members will take the same sort of responsible attitude to this very difficult problem as we are taking now. I think that there is perhaps a lesson for them to learn as well as lessons for us all.

Perhaps there is a lesson for the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends to learn in approaching the great duties of Opposition on this problem. Does he recall that, when some of us put down a motion, supported by 112 hon. Members, demanding changes in economic policy in order to produce more employment, rather than put down some motion on behalf of the Opposition which would have forced a vote, the Leader of the Opposition, taking part in the debate, said that she agreed with the Chancellor's economic strategy. That was the contribution of the Opposition to fighting unemployment.

It is an extraordinary response by the hon. Gentleman to say that the Opposition should have joined in a motion signed by him and his supporters which we believed in the comparatively short run, let along the long run, would have caused much more unemployment than it would have solved.

Let us look briefly at the schemes for employing more young people. The important point is that they should be schemes involving work experience and training, because we know from the figures becoming available that the more these young people are given a job which includes some training, the more likely they are to get a job when that training is finished.

We should also look very carefully at what we are doing for the disabled, for we are not doing enough. I think that the jobs themselves need subsidising. It is much better to subsidise the jobs than to subsidise people to sit at home and do nothing.

We have to put more emphasis on technical training. The last report of the Manpower Services Commission showed that the training agency was training very few people in technical education but far more people for jobs which were not of technical importance. We have to have a review of regional aid—a point that I mentioned last time. We have to give much more encouragement to small businesses.

When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was answering Questions this afternoon, he was asked about the Employment Protection Act, and I was interested to note that he just managed to stay in line with his colleagues, but only just. Someone on the Back Benches opposite interrupted to say "but the workers are very much in favour of the Act." That was when my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) had said that small business men were saying that the Act was preventing them from taking on employees.

The point is that the workers in favour of the Act are those in work. What we have to look at is those who are not in work, and if there are many people who could be in work but are not in work as a result of fears of the Act and its effect, it may be that we should seriously as a House be considering whether we should not make changes in the Act which would take away from small employers some of the fears they now have. One understands that major firms do not have the same worries or fears about the Act that the small firms have, but it is of very considerable concern to small firms. I do not believe that we have got the Act right at the moment, and I think that it will need amending.

Do we gather, from the direction of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that he is of the view that neither the Government's economic policy nor the economic policy of the Opposition, nor any alternative policy, can provide these additional I million jobs that are needed? Is he saying that we have to resign ourselves to deal with the small change of unemployment?

I have not said that. The hon. Gentleman says an awful lot from a seated position but never much when on his feet. I shall be coming to what I regard as the alternative strategy. I am certainly not saying that there is a counsel of despair. What I am saying is that we do ourselves no service in this House if we think that it is comparatively easy to solve unemployment. I do not believe that it is, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman thinks so either.

The right hon. Gentleman has slipped in an extremely important statement that I feel needs some clarification. He said that he believes it right that we should subsidise jobs. Is he saying that the official position of the Conservative Party is that it is in favour of retaining the temporary employment subsidy? Will he oppose any attempt by the EEC Commission to rid this country of it?