That is a significant point, both in terms of profitability and of cash flow and I shall say more about cash flow shortly. On the question of the ability, and the qualifications, of the Commission to determine these matters, I think that the same is true of the word "efficiency". That word was bandied about on Second Reading by Labour Members, but nobody defined efficiency. Nor does the Price Commission attempt to define it in any report that I have read. The word is not susceptible to definition. One again it is a matter of an entirely subjective judgment whether a company is efficient.

I make no apology for returning to two matters dealt with on Second Reading, because although I specifically asked for a response to these two points I got none whatever during the course of the reply by the Under-Secretary of State. During the course of his speech the hon. Gentleman chose to deal with various points made by his right hon. and hon. Friends about certain matters relating to the Commission but failed completely to deal with the important points made during the debate. I thought that his speech was in contempt of the House in many ways, because he ignored the debate which preceded his speech.

The two points to which I particularly wanted an answer, and which are germane to this debate, concern, first, the timing of this Bill. We have had no adequate explanation about the timing of the Bill. It was introduced in the middle of an industrial crisis—last week, when the road haulage strike was at its absolute peak.

If we look at the comments made about a recent CBI survey, we se that it says: The Confederation of British Industry has started an urgent review into financial problems facing companies as a result of the lorry drivers' strike as fears grow of a serious liquidity crisis.Growing concern about a cash squeeze, and falling industrial confidence in the wake of inflationary pay settlements, and industrial unrest came through strongly in the CBI's latest industrial trends survey released yesterday.The CBI is planning to arrange a meeting of senior finance directors to gauge the extent of the problem and the Government and the banks have been alerted. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Industry referred on Friday to the problems that companies are facing as a result of the present industrial situation.

The report adds: the CBI is disturbed that the toll taken by the lorry, drivers' strike will mean many companies … will face cash problems until the summer … some export business may be lost permanently from disenchanted customers. What a time to introduce a Bill such as this, when companies are hard hit by the industrial situation. We have had no explanation from the Government about the timing of the Bill, except that in the course of the debate on an earlier Amendment it was said that its timing was to satisfy the TUC. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) said on Monday that the TUC was not interested in the Bill one way or the other. That is clearly true. I do not understand the timing of the Bill. We have had no adequate explanation about it.

The second point that I raised on Second Reading related to confidence. This was bound up with the reason for the Government introducing the safeguard regulations in the first place, as the Secretary of State made clear on many occasions in 1977. The CBI has reported the effects which this and other events are having on confidence. It said: The rapidly rising level of pay settlements, concern about public sector pay trends, coupled with the tougher price control measures are adding to the industrial depression. The detailed survey results do not suggest a sharp fall-off in industrial activity but … confidence has dropped to below average levels and pessimism is strongest among the bigger companies. This is the essential point about the safeguard regulations—the interim regulations in particular. They gave to industry a degree of confidence about the operation of the Price Commission Act. That is being taken away, and that is why we make no apology for tabling this amendment, even though it may have a devastating effect on the Bill.

There is a certain amount of logic in the amendment. It retains the principal safeguards but removes the interim ones. There is a distinction between these types of safeguards which I do not believe the Under-Secretary of State understood. He became confused between the two on Second Reading. There was an illogicality in the principal Act. If we accepted the principle of the Act—which I did not—the Government should have said that the Price Commission would investigate proposed price increases but that no action would be taken in respect of such increases—they would be allowed—until the investigation had been completed. It should have been stated that if, when the investigation had been completed, the increases were found to be justified they could be rolled back. That would have been a more logical way of proceeding rather than telling every company that was being investigated that its prices were to be frozen for four months—a month's notification period plus the three-month investigation period.

The principal safeguards would come into operation in those circumstances. It is the interim safeguards which are the most important. They protect companies during the investigation period. Although in 23 cases out of 30 involving companies which have been the subject of reports interim safeguard applications have been allowed, the reports show that the Price Commission would have allowed these increases subsequently. Most would have been justified on their merits.

The Government should have done one of two things. If, as the Under-Secretary of State believes, the regulations are too generous because they are arbitrary, the Government could have amended them. They have not sought to do so. Instead they have sought to do away with them altogether. Earlier the Secretary of State said, in a not very encouraging answer to me, that even when a company was making losses it might not be able to increase its prices sufficiently to eliminate the losses.