HC Deb 05 April 1927 vol 204 cc1975-83

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. HARTSHORN

I have no intention of opposing this Clause. As a matter of fact, I do not think it is the intention of the Labour party to oppose any provision of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) and other colleagues took part in the Second Reading Debate and clearly indicated what was the attitude of the Labour party towards the Bill. I want to say a few words about this Clause and its bearing on the general principle of the Bill. On the Second Reading the fact was stressed that this was a Socialist Measure. Both the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Seaham emphasised the fact that the provisions of the Bill had been agreed to, at least in the main, by the right hon. Gentleman who was Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Labour Government. I desire to show how the Socialist principle embodied in this Bill is applied, following the lines of an agreement made by the Labour Government. When any suggestion is made about extending the principle of Socialism, we are told by hon. Members opposite that it cannot be done unless we go on the lines of bureaucratic control. They say that the indus- try concerned must be dominated by an army of Government officials and they contend that in these circumstances all industry must be strangled by red tape. We have in this Clause a simple method of avoiding that which is being adopted in this Bill, which has been agreed to by a Labour Minister, and which has been accepted by a Conservative Minister. The Clause shows that there is really no necessity, when applying Socialist principles, either to strangle industry with red tape or to have a huge army of Government officials. One need only read this Clause to see that such is the case: The Board shall be charged with the control, management, maintenance and working of the cables constructed under the said Acts, and may construct and work any extensions, connections, and rearrangements, whether by way of cable or wireless telegraphy, in or near the Pacific Ocean which are necessary or expedient for the improvement of the Board's undertaking. The Board provided for in this Bill is to all intents and purposes equivalent to the board of directors of a private enterprise. They are as free as any board of directors and are as fully endowed with powers as a board of directors, the only difference being that under this Bill all profit which accrues from the industry, accrues to the public generally. After the next General Election I have no doubt we shall have a Labour Government. When that event takes place we shall be introducing a long series of Bills extending the principle of Socialism; and I rise on the present occasion merely for the purpose of pointing out that when, in future, we talk about applying this principle we are thinking not of a big army of officials, not about red tape, but about applying the Socialist principle as is done in this Bill. In the Second Reading Debate the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) asked whether this Bill really did strangle industry or whether the board had reasonable freedom of action under it, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister in charge said: That is so. It conducts the ordinary business of the Pacific cable as a commercial undertaking without interference."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1927; col. 1303, Vol. 204.] We have been saying from these benches for a long time that there is no reason why we should not extend this principle and carry on great Socialised enterprises and industries in this country just as it is proposed to supply this great public service—on exactly the same lines as commercial enterprises and undertakings and without any interference from outside. We have here an organisation which was set up more than a quarter of a century ago. From time to time, by Act of Parliament, its activities have been extended and its authority widened. Under this Bill, after 25 years' experience of the working of Socialism in this direction, a Conservative Government comes along and says to the men who are to form this Board, "We confer upon you authority to manage and control completely, in the interests of the Governments concerned, this great public service," and that is to be done without any red tape at all. We realise that the principle of this Bill tends in the direction in which we seek to promote legislation. The machinery of its operation is on lines of which we heartily approve and I think I can say, speaking for myself and my colleagues, that we shall not oppose this or any of the subsequent Clauses of the Bill.

Mr. WHEATLEY

There is one aspect of this Bill which justifies us in seeking to elucidate as far as possible the meaning of its contents before it passes from us. When this Measure leaves us, as far as I can see, our control over this Board will be gone for ever. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken dwelt on the Socialist character of this scheme; but I think it differs from ordinary socialisation on the point to which I have referred. If we were dealing with socialised mines, for example, presumably we would get periodic reports from a responsible Department which would enable us to discuss the policy, the proceedings and the prospects of the concern. I am not aware, however, of any provision which enables us to follow in the future the Board to which we are granting to-night such important powers. That is my justification for intervening. I wish to get a little more information on the Clause now before us. One only requires to read it in order to see the extent of the powers conferred. The Board may do anything in the way of expenditure, and I wish to know from the Minister if any limit is being set to the capital expenditure which may be undertaken by the Board. That is very important, because I am not confident that this will be a paying proposition. All my experience and all my study of the Conservative attitude towards private and public control, lead me to the contrary view.

If any substantial profit were to be made out of this concern it is unlikely that a Conservative Government would display such enthusiasm for Socialism. While denouncing Socialism in the most vigorous and eloquent terms, Conservatives are always prepared to employ it as a nurse for unprofitable industries. For instance, they will allow you to socialise the Army because no one can make a profit out of running an army. They never advocate the formation of a company to run the Navy, because in the running of a navy there is no prospect of a 10 per cent. dividend. I assume that in the same way we are getting public ownership of these cables because it is unlikely that a private company would be able to exercise profitably such ownership. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, in the course of a former discussion on this Bill, said the Board was being constructed for service and not for profit. That does credit to his study of Socialist literature, because one of the claims usually put forward by Socialist teachers or propagandists is that the necessary industries of the nation should be run for the use of the nation and not for the profit of a section of the community. Again, it is that very enthusiasm for national service, as apart from private profit, which leads me to think here that we are being given the baby to hold. That is all the more reason why we should receive from the Government here and now all the information which they can place at our disposal as to what steps they have taken to secure us against extravagant expenditure on what is bound to be an unprofitable undertaking. I hope the Minister will be perfectly frank with the Committee and will let us know how far it is safe to give these powers to a Board which in the future will be uncontrolled, and particularly how far it is safe to give it what appear to be almost unlimited powers in finance.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery)

I do not think it is necessary for me on this Clause to enter into a general disquisition on the relative advantages of State ownership or private ownership. All I would say in answer to the interesting remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) is that this Clause does not represent merely the result of the negotiations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) three years ago. It is a brief summary of the provisions which have governed the management of the Pacific cable system ever since 1901. We are merely renewing those general provisions The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) suggested that this matter has been undertaken by the Government, because it is bound to be unprofitable. That is not the reason. Government ownership of this undertaking, for strategic and other reasons, is akin to that Government ownership of instruments of defence, which is, of course, a commonplace among nations. Further, there was the desire to secure a cheaper Press service and a cheaper general public service. But, so far from this being an unprofitable undertaking, it has been a very profitable one, and one of the chief reasons for the present Measure is to make suitable arrangements for dealing with the surplus profits. The view of the Government, if I may repeat a phrase which was quoted in a summarised form by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston, is that it is more important to use those profits for the improvement of the system and the general service of the public, than to parcel them out among the constituents of the Board. Lastly, I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken in thinking that the powers of the Board are unlimited. They can only undertake any of the kind of expenditure to which he referred, except the ordinary everyday working of the lines, by the con sent of all the partner Governments as mentioned in this Clause, and, of course, the various Governments in considering the matter will naturally not encourage extravagance or schemes which do not hold out a reasonable prospect of success.

Mr. BUCHANAN

The point which is worrying me with regard to this Clause is the question of control over the policy of the Board. What I am thinking of more particularly is this: Assuming a difference arises between the workpeople and the Board, have the men any appeal other than to the Board themselves? Are the Board the final people to deal with the employés, or can the employés raise the question, say, in this House? It seems to me it is very difficult for any employé to raise any question once the Board have decided against them. Has this House any control over the Board as far as the workpeople are concerned, or is the Board the last word?

Mr. AMERY

The Board, as the right hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) pointed out, works like a private corporation and is not a mere Department; therefore it has direct control over the salaries and conditions of each of its employés. On the other hand, as the contributions of the Government towards the expenses will come up in this House, that, of course, affords a perfectly open occasion for any Member of the House who has reason to believe that the conditions of employment are not satisfactory, to raise that point, and to press this Government as one of the partners to secure an amendment through their representatives on the Board.

Mr. WHEATLEY

But the right hon. Gentleman, in replying to my observations on the Bill, pointed out that we were not likely to require from this House much in the way of financial contributions. Assuming we are only distributing profits here, and investing them for the extension of the concern, and that they could go on without any outside financial aid for a number of years, am I to take it that during those years the House of Commons would have no opportunity whatever of discussing the proceedings of the Board as regards their management and control of the concern?

Mr. AMERY

Certainly not. The British Government have their representatives on the Board, and it is always open to any Member of the House to address questions in respect of these matters, and, if they are dissatisfied, to get an opportunity to discuss them. There are several alternative ways by means of which questions affecting either the business control or the conditions of employment can be raised in this House.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Could not the right hon. Gentleman have safeguarded the conditions of the employés more than they are safeguarded? I agree that with regard to raising the question in Parliament, there is nothing that an ingenious person cannot do in that respect once he sets his mind to it. Rules are always being invented to keep back the ingenious person, but I fancy a Member who is ingenious enough will be able to find some way. Our fear, however, is not so much that we should not be able to find a way, but that the limits of raising it are very narrow considering the pressure of Parliamentary time. It is not a question like the Post Office Vote, and other Votes, because of its smallness. The right hon. Gentleman who, I am sure, wants to meet us on this point, might have drafted in the Bill some words to safeguard the conditions of the employés. We have the impression—it may be a wrong one—that this Board may not give to the employés that fair treatment which we, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, desire. Therefore, cannot an Amendment be made to the Bill to safeguard the conditions of the employés? We do not want to see a wrangle between the various Governments as to these conditions, and one would have thought the right hon. Gentleman could have found some method of safeguarding them. He knows that on the last occasion we debated this the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) pointed out how the Board's salaries were safeguarded, and it ought to be possible to give some safeguard in the Bill regarding the employés.

Mr. AMERY

I think I pointed out to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) the other day that the salaries of the Board are not safeguarded. What are safeguarded are the interests of the contributory Governments by limiting the amount the Board may distribute to its chairman and members to a maximum figure, I also took occasion to point out that the conditions of employment under the Board are, I think, in every way satisfactory. I also pointed out that the conditions in the different parts of the world where the Board is operating are so various that it would be quite impossible to fix any single standard. I think that must be left to the discretion of the Board, together with the influence upon it of the representatives of the Governments concerned, with their Parliaments behind them. I am quite sure if there were any reason for considering that the conditions of employment under the Board were unsatisfactory, there would be no difficulty at all, and no great ingenuity would be required on the part of any Member in raising the matter in this House. At any rate, as far as this Government is concerned—it must be remembered that this is a partnership venture, and we cannot have complete control—we should endeavour to secure through our representatives any alterations which Parliament might desire. Further, this Bill has been textually agreed with the Governments concerned, and therefore, unless there were a very powerful case for an alteration, on which we could get an agreement with the other Governments, I hope the Committee will leave the matter on the clear understanding I have given.

Mr. DUNCAN

Do not the salaries of the Board come upon the Estimates, and would it not be open to raise the whole question?

Mr. AMERY

No, the salaries of the Board would not come under the Estimates, but any contribution or expenditure would have to be sanctioned by this House.

Mr. KELLY

This question of the conditions of employment is a serious one, and when appointments are made to the Board, will regard be had to that matter so that we may feel secure that whoever is appointed to represent this country will have knowledge of labour conditions, and, indeed, be sympathetic in the matter of labour conditions?

Mr. AMERY

I am sure the hon. Member's point will be kept in mind.

Clauses 3 (Application of receipts and surpluses,) 4 (Application of reserve fund,) 5 (Deficiencies,) 6 (Application of sums paid to Government in United Kingdom), 7 (Accounts and audit,) and 8 (Subsidiary powers of Board) ordered to stand part of the Bill.