=f So
Fred Lee M.P., the newly appointed er -
gion Affairs and Sir Paul Chambers, Chairman of I.C. “9 spoke pigieseiee ng tae of private enterprise. Except for Mr, Lee's display of sensitivity over the use of the word "profits", much of their speeches could have been interchangeable. Said Mr. Lee, "I sonetimes wish that the word 'profits' could be dropped from our language, since it stize up so many emotions which might usefully have been forgotten long ag0.
On the same day last week,
Mr. Lee did not exactly specify 4 word which would be less emotive, but the gist of his speech to the Chemical Industries Association suggests that he thinks the phrase "The National Interest" will sufficiently sugar the pill. He looked to private industry to produce the greater part of the increased national wealth that is needed, The making of profits was incidental to this, and "should be the conscious goal of everyone in industry, whether he was on the shop floor or sitting at the chairman's desk." Sir Paul Chambers, in a similar vein, spoke of the need to operate "vigorous expanding and enterprising businesses for the benefit not only of the owners and of the employers but of the national economy as a whole," Within a national economy which gives to 2 per cent of the population well over half of the nation's wealth, it is hardly surprising that Sir Paul says that private industry's major need is merely "to be left alone." It is no longer surprising, though none the less scandalous, that the Labour Government should speak with the same voice as the chairman of one of the "commanding heights of the economy." If ever there was a clearly ordained candidate for nationalisation, it is the chemical industry. Instead, Clause Four is interpreted as meaning national investment in service industries of which the major beneficiaries are the giant private monopolies,