(Editorial note: this is a report of the Seminar Group discussion at the jorkers' Control conference in Manchester on June 19th and 20th)
On Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning the conference divided into four seminar groups to discuss draft programmes. Our own group concerned ’ itself with incomes policy, and our first day's discussions never really got beyond the stage of generalities. Probably this is largely a reflection upon the incomes policy itself, which is lacking in any specific policy, except the blanket one of hoping to impose a 34% limit to annual increases. Several speakers stressed that this amounted to no more than a freezing of the present situation, and did nothing to bring about the redistribution of wealth, which lies at the root of the Clause IV demand that the workers should secure "the full fruit of their labour, and the most equitable distribution thereof,"
Harry Ratner of Derby, speaking of the Prices and Incomes Board, which would investigate certain industries, said our attitude should be, "Yes, we are in favour, but how is the Board going to proceed? We are in favour of such a Board, only if it has the power to call witnesses, and to go into the accounts of industries." We should also as ourselves, "‘Ihat is the composition of the Board, and how far are the workers to be represented?" One delegate thought that it was up to us to try and make the Incomes Policy work, so that the Government could get over the next two years and establish itself for further progress, but the general view was that no Incomes Policy could possibly be acceptable unless it was redistribution. It was, I think, Raymond Challinor who said that a really socialist incomes policy could be simply summed up as the "abolition of rent, interest and profits", and that the present policy did not even set out towards that goal.
This led into a discussion on the "Open the Books" theme, which, we realised, could not be made into a condition for accepting incomes policy, but which ought to be a necessary preliminary condition for considering one. Several delegates gave specific instances where examinations of accounts had revealed allowances being made for artificial depreciation. The lack of detail in companies' published balance sheets gave endless scope for manipulation. Pursuing this question of the publication of accounts, we concluded that no statutory move to enforce fuller accounting could possiblymeet our requirements. We differentiated sharply between actual access to the whole accounting process and the much more limited insight which even the most detailed final balance sheets could provide. The | National Coal Board was given as an example of an industry which publis ed a full national balance sheet, but we thought it highly significant that it was impossible to get to know the detailed accounts at pit or area level. It is at these levels alone that the information could have provided any basis for action, or any real understanding of the figures.
Unfortunately, having got so far, we were not too confident that agitation could be developed around slogans like "Open the Books" or "Workers! Control". One Nottingham delegate made the point that the behaviour of Labour Councillors, who were supposed to be workers' representatives, did not give much confidence in the idea of workers! control. But we realised that this, in fact, was no more than an example of the behaviour we can * Political Education Officer of the West Nottingham C.L.P. which is itself organising a conference on industrial democracy next month,
Incomes policy discussion continued/
expect, if we do not insist upon democratic control, and on exercising our
own existing rights. This led quite naturally into discussion of the
bureaucratic tendencies within the trade unions themselves. ‘Je recognised
that much of the pressure for the modernsiation and re-organisation of the
unions came from very dubious sources, and was concerned with limiting
workers! control within the workers! own movement. We should reorganise,
but it was vital that we should do this from within the union movement.
One delegate pointed out the difficulty of propagating workers! control
when the channels of communication were so largely in the hands of a hostile
press. Ken Coates spoke of the difference that would come about if we
could interest, say, 12 M.P.s to raise these issues in the House and thus
bring them into the realm of general debate throughout the country. Stan
Orme, who was one of the two M.P.s present the week end, and who took part
in our own seminar group, could not see how we were going to achieve a
viable incomes policy. He admitted that the incomes policy is already in
ribbons and not accepted by the workers in general. But he thought we were
missing the central point in pursuing slogans like "Open the Books" or
"Workers! Control", The central issue was Clause IV and steel nationalisa-
tion, and we now had to fight to get this on the statute books.