INDUSTRY IN BRITAIN

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26513, 30 August 1951, Page 7

INDUSTRY IN BRITAIN

More Control By State Urged LONDON, August 38. More nationalisation of private monopolies and State competition to fight those allowed to exist are advocated in a Labour Party discussion pamphlet issued to-day. The pamphlet was issued after a general policy statement released earlier for the party’s annual conference at Scarborough next month, containing a pledge to tackle the monopolies question. It makes three main charges against big business monopolies: (1) They possess power that can be tolerated only if democratically controlled; (2) they cause high prices; (3) they destroy incentive for greater efficiency. Stating that Labour will "remove the shackles,” it proposes the prohibition of resale price maintenance, collective boycott, and restrictions of entry. (Resale price maintenance is the barring by manufacturers of sales of their goods at prices below those they fix.) Where this is not enough it proposes public competition to challenge the mnnnnnlies.

monopolies. The pamphlet adds that when monoiolies become inevitable—because of the development of large-scale production technique, and because public interest is best served py centralisation and co-ordination— they should be transferred to public ownership and control. It states that the problem is to prevent the abuse of monopoly power while gaining the economic advantages of large-scale co-operation and that where private monopolies cannot be broken up or adequately controlled nationalisation is desirable. The statement is unusually brief—barely 4000 words—and its appearance has been greeted in the Conservative newspapers with disappointment because of the lack of concrete proposals to meet both International and local problems. . , . . .. ■ The statement s insistence on the priority of rearmament is welcomed, and although it does not refer by name to Mr Bevan or his views. It is taken for granted that the Scarborough debate will be regarded, in effect, as a motion of confidence in the Government's present policy, and a call to reject Mr Bevan’s thesis that rearmament on the scale the Government has proposed is unnecessary. Ainu of Party The policy statement entitled, “Our First Duty—Peace, says; (1) The time has come for a more rigorous application of price control. (2) Dividends must be limited by law. (3) Further taxation must be levied on unearned incomes from private fortunes. , , (4) The attack on monopoly will be intensified by an amendini act increasing the powers ana staff of the Monopolies Commission. (5) There should be Government bulk purchase of standardised home products. The statement says that the housing programme and rent controls will be maintained. There will be more investment ip education and continued production of utility goods will be assured to provide high quality at low cost. , •. The statement says; “The burden of rearmament, though heavy in its demnnH nn mw materials and mannower

mana on raw maienais ana niwipuwri can be carried by our economy without too great a strain. Many controls which were lifted in the days before Korea must be reimposed. There must be no considerations of private profit or of sectional interest. Now, more than ever, must the Government be firm in eliminating the inefficient and breaking up restrictive monopolies. It continues: “To Pay for rearmament some sacrifice must inevitably be made by everyone, but the greatest sacrifice must be asked from those who have large unearned incomes, and who enjoy a high standard of living without making any contributing to the nation’s effort. "In order to enforce fair shares in the distribution of the burden resulting from the rearmament programme, further taxation must be levied on .the small minority who draw large unearned incomes from nrivate fortunes Thev. after nil. have the least right to their excessive incomes, because they have not earned them, and the greatest abil'ty to pay because their wealth is far in excess of their fellows.” Speaking at a press conference, the of the Labour Party (Mr Morgan Phillips) said, that the statement was not an election manifesto. He added that the executive would prepare such a manifesto when an ele<?tinn was impending and not before. They did not know when there would be an election, nor what the issues would be.