New Society slams part four

The latest issue of New Society had this to say about the Government's decision to bring in Part Four of the Prices and Incomes Act: "If the government has made up its mind about Tart Four, it is the most retrograde step that they could ever take." The words were Dan MacGarvey's, the left-wing leader of the Boilermakers' Union, but they will be on many lips in the coming weeks, of the govennment's friends as well as its enemies, The danger and tragedy of Tart Four of the Prices and Incomes Act lies in the instruments of government it creates. ‘The political question = whether or not the current economic crisis justifies the use of legal sanctions - is of passing significance. ‘So too are the arguments about the transitional provisions of the Act, ill drafted as they are. It is a truism that a government, every time it interferes with existing contracts in any sphere, draws heavily on its credits of public confidence at home and abroad, and must be satisfied that the risk is worthwhile. But it is nonsense to say that the sanctity of contracts must always be upheld, More important, and of lasting significance, is the cumbersome system of rrices and wages control that Part Four introduces. It is a system which cannot be justified by any acceptable arguments of political expediency. Dan MacGarvey dislikes it because of the straitjacket it imposes on union bargaining; but equally important are the breaches with the British tradition of constitutional government, It is absolutely wrong, for instance, that the rower to impose a prices freeze at the level of 20 July 1966 should be exercisable without any reference whatsoever to parliament. All other powers under the Act are to be exercised "by order", which means that in each case there must be a statutory instrument laid before parliament in the usual manner. In the single isolated case of a retrospective prices standstill (one of the most controversial measures), the misister may proceed "by direction," which bypasses parliament; the corresponding wages standstill must be introduced "by order." This exclusion of parliament is wrong. It is also absolutely wrong that the misister should be enabled, in drafting his restrictive orders, "to include or exclude named undertakings or named persons." The democratic tradition that a government should proceed by laying down certain general rules and allow its subjects to arrange their affairs within the framework of those rules, is sound - it is, in part, what "the rule of law" means. A government which descends to the level of exchanging blows with named individuals and organisations, as if it merely represented a sectional interest in society, is pursuing a profoundly wrong course.s....se"