GOVERNMENT

Meddlers' itch

JOCK BRUCE-GARDYNE

Have Mrs B. Castle and Mr A. Jones got us all punch-drunk? The question is prompted by the soporific reaction to the publication of the Commission for Industry and Man- power Bill which had its second reading on Wednesday. For here we have what will surely be noted by historians as a remarkably pure clinical specimen of the bacillus bar- hare/la, known in the vernacular as the Greater Meddlers' Itch. It is surely worth a moment's scrutiny.

The first point to note is that the breathless suspense about the future employment of Mr Jones himself is shortly to be resolved. His main reason for hesitation has evidently been the suspicion that an incoming Tory govern- ment might not rate his unusual talents at their true worth. But now that his promised seat on the board of the IPC has disappeared and his salary as chairman of the cm looks like being upgraded by 161 per cent, sacrifice and self-interest can be handsomely com- bined.

Indeed Barbara has taken good care to see that none of the members of the cim will have to suffer too harshly for their dedication to the public service. There will be between ten and twenty of them, part-time and full- time, plus five to vet newspaper mergers and fi% e to vet the pay of MPS. The chairman looks like getting £17,500 (unless, presumably, he feels he's now worth more than this); so the deputy chairman, a job for whom the services of a 'top-ranking trade unionist' are being sought, should get £12,500 at least, and the other full-time members between £7,500 and £10.000, with the part-timers drawing £2,500- £5,000 (plus of course such fringe benefits as the ability to block or promote any mergers which might inconvenience or advantage their own firms or unions). They will also be entitled to draw pensions, and if their con- tracts are terminated—for instance by an incoming Tory government—they will draw generous compensation from the tax- payer.

Who, then, will we have for deputy chair- man? Frank Cousins is surely the right choice. His notion Of economic processes is as muddled as that of Mrs Castle, and in the same direction; and he has a passionate faith in the need to slash prices and profits while boosting wages and preventing indus- trial rationalisation which reflects to perfec- tion the philosophy of Mrs Castle's Bill. Moreover he could bring in the Community Relations Council with him. This body has merely caused embarrassment to a lot of good trade unionists, and the absence of a mandate to investigate cases of racial dis- crimination is a glaring lacuna in the cm. Besides, the absorption of the Community Relations Council would fully justify an- other salary rise all round for the members of the cm.

As to the rank and file members, a place Will obviously have to be found for Mr Villiers of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. Otherwise we might have un- seemly confusion between the two great instruments of 'purposeful intervention'. Then presumably we shall have that indes- tructible character the headmistress of the Kid brook Comprehensive School once more. A bishop would add a touch of mor- ality: Stockwood, of course (or has he not

yet been forgiven for opposing the Gerry- mander Bill? If so, what about Lord Soper or Lord MacLeod of Fuinary?). Add one or two telly-businessmen of the Stokes-Kearton genre, and the team is pretty well complete: after all it will be desirable to keep a few places on ice for Labour MPS such as George Brown who are going to lose their Parlia- mentary seats.

Now let us look at what this band of warriors will be up to. It will have to cast a

jaundiced eye over mergers and monopolies.

Then there will be the reference of any price or wage increases involving companies with

assets of over £10m; and finally the 'general references on efficiency'—those 'studies' which, in the words of Mrs Castle's green paper, can 'make a contribution to manage- ment [my italics] and to the work of Minis- ters responsible for policy in this field.' That should keep them all as happy as sand- flies.

But we must remember that this is a piece of permissive legislation. Everything about

it is permissive, in fact. Mrs C doesn't have to refer anything to it at all. If she were to get bored with it, as she evidently has with the cni, the members would be drawing their tens of thousands a year for twiddling their thumbs. In practice, however, it seems certain to be the apple of her eye.

So Merchant bankers and other advisers of companies who have, in recent years, brought the art of attack and defence in a takeover situation to such high sophistica- tion will now have to learn a new skill: the art of averting (or securing, as the case may be) a reference to the ctm. Close study of the actual performance of the Monopolies Com- mission and the PIB in recent years should offer some useful clues.

Mr Jones has operated on a ran- dom sample basis. From limbfitters to lighthouse-keepers, from laundries to Wigan busmen, there has really been no pattern at all. Usually it has simply been a matter of whatever happens to have caught Mrs Castle's eye, on television or in the press. So the safest rule will be, if you want a refer- ence of your latest wage award or your competitor's price increase, get your em- ployees to stage a lightning strike (ideally so arranged that Mrs Castle misses her hair appointment) or otherwise get the chairman of the Housewives' League to protest on telly.

Guidelines for the advisers of companies involved in merger situations can be more specific. Technique No 1, obviously, will be to have a member of the ctm on your board. But this will presumably only be pos- sible for a limited number of companies to achieve. Technique No 2: if. for some obscure reason, you want to be referred, subscribe to Tory party funds; if you don't, don't. Technique No 3: obtain the ser- vices as your chairman of the chairman of the BBC or the !TA, or failing that of the chairman of a newspaper company or pro- vincial television company—anyone, in fact. of sufficient eminence in the communications industry from whom the Prime Minister has received or hopes to receive favourable treatment. Technique No 4 (in a defen- sive situation): announce that all your senior executives will resign if the merger is allowed to go through. Technique No 5 (also defensive): sell the company to a nationalised industry. The counter to this is, of course, to find a vociferous trade union leader to threaten a strike if the merger is stopped or allowed, as the case may'be. If all else fails, a personal visit 'of - explanation' by the chairman or managing director to No 10 is worth trying—although only if the company concerned is in press or TV.

Finally, there are some things that are missing from the cm Bill, and some which are in it which ought not to be. It is most unfair that the am is not among the bodies which can be referred to the special panel which is to determine the top salaries in public service. Yet what better body could there be to adjudge the pay and produc- tivity of the cm? There is the shocking omission of any reference to race relations, which I have already mentioned. And then surely it is all wrong that membership of the cim should rank as an office of profit under the Crown which would be incompat- ible with membership of the House of Com- mons. Up to now we have had to make do with a rare and treasured visit by Aubrey Jones to our party finance committees, while the House of Lords could enjoy a lecture from his colleague Lord Peddie any day of the week. This sort of class distinc- tion really ought not to be tolerated any longer.,