HC Deb 17 April 1946 vol 421 cc2693-709
The Minister of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot)

The House will remember that on 19th November, 1945, in announcing the Government's plans for the socialisation of industries, the Lord President of the Council stated that the Coalition Government had invited the iron and steel industry to submit a report on the improvements required to put the industry on an efficient operating basis, and that His Majesty's Government proposed to await this report before taking final decisions on the future organisation of the iron and steel industry. A report prepared by the British Iron and Steel Federation was received and has been considered. It set out plans for the development and modernisation of the industry over the next five to seven years at an estimated cost of £168,000,000. Proposals were also made to effect a certain rationalisation of production in order to achieve maximum plant efficiency. Reports have also been received from the Joint Iron Council dealing with the foundry iron and iron foundry sides of the industry. The Government welcome these reports as an important contribution to the planned development of this basic industry.

After full consideration the Government have reached the conclusion that the position of the industry and its importance in the national economy necessitate a large measure of public ownership and that legislation for this purpose should be prepared. Meanwhile, immediate discussion will take place to ensure that urgent modernisation and development schemes are carried through without delay. The Government are anxious to secure the utmost cooperation of both managements and workers during the period which will be necessary for the preparation and putting into effect of the scheme of public ownership. For this period I propose to establish a Control Board. This Board will replace the existing Iron and Steel Control, and will be responsible to me for the general control and supervision of the industry. The Board will pay special attention, in consultation with the industry. to facilitating the early execution of the urgent development schemes. The Board will also act as my advisers on questions arising in the preparation of the scheme of nationalisation, including the definition of the sections of the industry to be taken into public ownership.

Mr. Churchill

I think the House must have been astonished at the statement to which we have just listened. First, it is quite clear that the Government have no plan of their own. They have reached their decision without having any plan of their own. During the next year or two, so far as I can gather from the statement which has been vouchsafed, they are going to seek reasons to justify the decision they have now taken. I had always understood—

Mr. Speaker

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but it looks to me as if he were starting a Debate on this matter.

Mr. Churchill

I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for drawing attention to this point. It is, to my mind, very much open to question, if I may respectfully say so, whether a statement of such great and far-reaching importance should be flung out to us without a Motion for the Adjournment of the House being moved by the Minister, in order to enable the necessary preliminary discussion to take place. I have always understood that, when Ministers made very serious statements of this character, a certain latitude of comment, as distinct from what may be called debating statements, was permitted to the other side, otherwise we get neither the opportunity of making our protest at this moment, nor the full Debate which certainly should have followed such an astonishing announcement as we have just heard. I hope, therefore, I may have what has often, in my recollection, been permitted to those who sat on the Opposition side here in the days of the war—the opportunity to comment upon an important statement of policy. [Interruption.] I am addressing Mr. Speaker, and not the hon. Member who interrupts. I am very ready to address him when his turn comes. I am asking the Chair whether reasonable latitude of comment will not be permitted.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman's comment should be put in the form of a question, otherwise it is quite possible that we should have an irregular Debate with no Question before the House. That is the real difficulty. We cannot move the Adjournment of the House on this subject because it involves legislation and would therefore be out of Order. I am quite prepared to allow reasonable comment, but I think it is better to ask questions.

Mr. Churchill

I will endeavour, with the utmost timidity and with any ingenuity I can command, to couch my comment in interrogative form. Am I not right in assuming that the steel industry stands out in pleasing contrast to many other industries? Surely, I may he permitted to remind His Majesty's Government, for the purpose of ascertaining their reaction, that the Coalition Government, in which we all served, asked the industry to produce a plan? That is the plan, is it not, to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred? And has it not been in the hands of the Government since December last? Does it not comprise a very full provision of new capital? In fact, if my memory serves me, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of £168 million—I hope I heard aright—to be provided by the steel industry for the development and improved efficiency of its whole machinery. Why, in the face of these facts, have the Government—

Mr. H. Hynd

On a point of Order. As this speech is in manuscript, Mr Speaker, is the right hon. Gentleman in Order?

Mr. Churchill

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any notes I have in manuscript are only the result of my general reflections upon the rumours which we have heard, and I am asking the Government to consider the different points which I am raising. I do not understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite should be so afraid of this matter being debated. Have they already begun to be ashamed of the plan? May I also ask whether it is a fact that in this statement the Government have not even defined and delineated the portions of the iron and steel industry which are to be nationalised and that all they are going to do is to try to find this out during the next year or two? Why should the industry be disturbed in this way? What right has the right hon. Gentleman to talk about the "Dunkirk spirit" when. the next moment, he comes forward and makes an announcement of this character?

I should like to ask three specific questions which arise out of this announcement. Why is meant by the term "a considerable measure of public ownership"? It might mean anything and it might mean nothing. Is it intended to introduce legislation for this public ownership within the lifetime of the present Parliament? We should have an answer to that. The Prime Minister is the Minister to answer about legislation. Is legislation necessary to set up the Board and, if so, when will it be introduced? I think we should have an answer to those questions now. It is all very well making statements of this kind but they should, at any rate, be complete in the main essentials. I ask the Government very carefully to consider, and to search their hearts and consciences, whether they are taking this step on the grounds of helping forward the trade and productivity of the country, or whether it is not due to some obscure political—

Mr. Harold Davies

On a point of Order. As a comparatively new Member of this House, may I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on this exhibition of evading the practice and customs of this honourable House by the right hon. Gentleman, who is taking advantage of his position as Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker

I hope this discussion will not continue much longer. We are really getting into a full Debate. I admit that it is a very difficult situation when an important statement of this kind is made. Naturally, one is prepared to give a little latitude, but I hope this discussion will not develop into a real Debate.

Mr. Churchill

It is not my intention, for one moment, to attempt to lead this discussion into a Debate. When it comes to a Debate, a great many more things will have to be said. I must confess that the question arose in my mind immediately on hearing this statement: Is this business, or is it politics? Of course, we must ask for a day at the earliest possible opportunity to discuss and debate this matter fully without the necessary restrictions which custom and Order impose,it this time. There I leave it for the moment. I am content to say that, so far as we are informed at present, the announcement to which we have just listened wears the aspect of a singularly questionable, and, indeed, thoroughly disreputable performance.

The Prime Minister

I find it rather difficult, Mr. Speaker, to keep in my head the large variety of questions on various topics addressed to 'different Members of the Government, some to me and some to other Ministers, by the right hon. Gentleman. I will reply to those addressed to me. In the first place, the general matter of the nationalisation of this industry could have been discussed on the King's Speech. There was, secondly, an opportunity for discussing it in the very general Debate which was introduced on a Vote of Censure on the subject of nationalisation. The third point is that, of course, an opportunity can be afforded at the right time for discussing this, but a long speech at the end of Questions is not the most suitable occasion. In regard to legislation, this will, of course, be introduced for this purpose, and before the end of this Parliament. I should have thought it was obvious to anybody that, with an important industry like this, and with the decision to nationalise, interim arrangements had to be made for carrying on the industry with the good will of all working in it. My final point is that if the right hon. Gentleman was taken by surprise at this statement, he was remarkably well prepared for it.

Mr. Churchill

I always devote the utmost attention to any duty which I may be called upon to discharge. I do not see why I should be criticised for that. Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the questions I asked him, whether legislation is necessary to set op the Board, and if so, when that legislation will be introduced?

The Prime Minister

We have sufficient powers of control and direction during the transitional period.

Mr. Clement Davies

Will the Government make available the report which apparently has been in their hands since December?

Mr. Wilmot

To do that, I must seek the permission of the authors of the report.

Mr. Davies

Surely, it must he produced to the House.

Mr. Walkden

Could you give the House guidance on this point, Mr. Speaker? We have had a statement pre- pared by the Minister and, according to the length of the questions—or the statement—which followed from the Leader of the Opposition, it would appear that some kind of courtesy through the usual channels had been afforded to the right hon. Gentleman in that he was given some indication of what we were going to be told. In my opinion, this has led to a Debate, and I ask whether, in the case of future statements of this nature, this courtesy, enabling briefs to be prepared beforehand by the Leader of the Opposition, will be extended so as to promote a Debate in which we can all join?

Mr. Speaker

I cannot say anything about the courtesies which go on through the usual channels. I am afraid it does not come within my power to prevent or encourage them. I know nothing about the matter. I quite agree that if statements are made it is unfortunate, to say the least, if they result in prolonged and irregular Debates. May I remind the House that this is, perhaps, one of those times of excitement and tension when, after all, the House of Commons is showing that it is a live body?

Mr. Churchill

On that point, may I be permitted to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not aware of any exceptional courtesies which I have received in this matter, except that last week I asked the Chief Whip whether a statement would be made on Monday or Tuesday, and, at any rate, to let me know on which day it would be made? Otherwise, when I collected my thoughts upon this subject and barbed one or two interrogatory arrows, I had not at that time received any information which was not in the possession of the House. Therefore, I hope I shall not be accused of having ill-treated or ill-returned any courtesy with which I have been treated, not only by the Government but by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Kirkwood

While heartily welcoming this statement made by the Minister of Supply, which is on the right lines, I would like to ask if the Government intend to take over all the derelict steelworks in this country. If they are, it will spell disaster. This is a different industry from coalmining and railways. By that I mean that we can build new steelworks, and that is our only way out. We have got to build new steelworks, even more up to date than those in America, and not take on a lot of derelict steelworks. I know one steel- works, the owners of which pretend they do not want them taken off their hands. I warn the Minister not to be led away, because we are not tied up in the same way as we are with the mines. There we had hardly any way out, and we would not have any way out with the railways, but we have a way out in this case. We cannot build a railway to compete with the present railway system, but we can put down new steelworks. We would get the men, and hon. Members opposite would not get them because the men would not work for them. Then they would come and appeal to us, and ask us to take the steelworks off their hands.

Sir Waldron Smithers

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, did you not give a Ruling that this Debate should be continued only in the form of questions?

Mr. Kirkwood

Those were only the preliminary remarks.

Mr. Speaker

I thought I gave a fairly strong indication of the procedure which I thought should be followed. Perhaps it has not been followed exactly, and I hope the rest of these proceedings will be in the form of interrogatories as far as possible.

Mr. Gallacher

Is it not the case that the Leader of the Opposition put his arguments in an interrogatory manner, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) put his interrogatives in an argumentative manner?

Mr. Speaker

I did not stop the hon. Member 'for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) because I thought what was sauce for the gander, was sauce for the goose.

Mr. Bowles

On a point of Order. I think you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that during the last Parliament a certain hon. Member opposing the Coalition Government felt that statements made by Ministers after Questions were liable to put the House in an awkward position. Surely, on this occasion, it has been shown that the practice, which has slowly grown, is liable to develop, even if only interrogatories are allowed, to a stage at which you, Sir, might find great difficulty in stopping such discussion. I do not know how you visualise stopping these interrogatories, but surely it might be suggested at some time that a document of this importance should be issued in the form of a White Paper so that there could be an opportunity for debate. There is nothing, at the moment, on which a Debate can take place.

Mr. Speaker

I appreciate the arguments which the hon. Gentleman has adduced, and I have no doubt they will be carefully considered for future application.

Mr. W. J. Brown

I wish to raise another point of Order which I think is important. I have always understood that it is a Rule of the House that if, in the course of a statement or a speech, a Minister refers to a document and quotes figures from it, it is obligatory upon him, on request. to make the substance of that report available to Members of the House. I would like to ask your Ruling, Sir, on whether that would not apply to the report on the steel industry to which the Minister has referred.

Mr. Speaker

I do not know that the Minister quoted it. He mentioned it. I cannot remember offhand the actual wording of the Rule, but I think if it is a departmental document, it does not necessarily have to be produced. It must be something analogous to a document produced in a court of law, or an Ambassador's report, so far as I remember. No doubt, it will be within the recollection of the Minister, but as far as I know he did not actually quote from it.

Hon. Members

He did.

Mr. Brown

I certainly understood, and I think other hon. Members did, that not only did the Minister quote from a report, but he quoted precise figures. The figure that stays in my memory is the figure of £168 millions for recasting the steel industry.

Mr. Speaker

Even so, it may not necessarily be a document which comes under the Rule. I do not think myself that it is.

Mr. Churchill

Cannot the Government relieve us of this difficulty, by saying that they will publish the report?

The Prime Minister

My right hon. Friend said that it would require the permission of the authors. That can be ascertained. I see no objection to publishing the report if the authors agree.

Mr. S. N. Evans

Having regard to the fact that the British Iron and Steel Federation has consistently put the interests of its members before the interests of the nation, and that its restrictions and practices are crippling national recovery, will the Minister promise to draw from the ranks of technicians and managers the members of the advisory council of which he has spoken; and will he call in American and Continental experts, as may be found desirable?

Mr. John Wilmot

At this stage I do not think it would be possible to define the personnel of the Control Board The need for having up-to-date technical advice will certainly not be overlooked.

Mr. Churchill

Could I ask the Prime Minister, with reference to a phrase which he used in his answer, whether there is any difference between the words he used, and the statement made by the Minister of Supply? The Prime Minister used the expression "nationalise the steel industry," whereas the Minister of Supply confined himself to the much more general term "a considerable measure of public ownership." Is there any difference between those phrases, and which is the view he holds; or are we to gather the Prime Minister is only taking a somewhat cursory view of this particular problem?

The Prime Minister

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not follow the statement, or he would have seen that two phrases were used in the statement made by my right hon. Friend. One statement was "a measure of public ownership "and the other was" nationalisation." I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish the same word to be used all the time, The iron and steel industry is an industry with very great ramifications. I thought there was common agreement that any form of nationalisation must consider these various ramifications, and it was not suggested for a moment that everything would be nationalised. Part would he nationalised and part not. [Interruption.] Really hon. Members opposite are getting 'very indignant. Is it to be suggested that, in this announcement, every single detail about the plan should be set out? Surely hon. Members can afford to wait.

Mr. Henry Strauss

May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on one point? I understood the bulk of the statement of the Minister of Supply to deal with an interim period under the proposed new Board, and that was the main subject of the subsequent interrogation. When, at an earlier stage, you ruled on the propriety of our proceedings, I understood you to say that the Minister's statement could not be discussed on a Motion for the Adjournment, because legislation was involved Subsequently the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister rose in his place and said that for the purpose of setting up this interim Board no legislation was required. In those circumstances, in my respectful submission to you, Mr. Speaker, on your former Ruling, it would now be quite in Order for somebody on the Government Front Bench to move the Adjournment of the House in order that this subject could be properly debated. As I understand it there is nothing in your Ruling to prevent that. Am I right in saying, that we could put the proceedings in Order, and discuss the statement properly, without the limitations to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was subjected, if, in reliance on the statement of the Prime Minister, that this Board could be set up without legislation, the Adjournment of the House were now moved?

Mr. Speaker

That would De a very narrow point indeed. It would be bound to involve legislation, and it would be very difficult for the Speaker to control the Debate. Quite frankly, it seems to me impossible to accept a Motion for the Adjournment on that point alone, because it would inevitably involve a discussion on legislation, in view of the object for which I gather the Board is being set up. Further to the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) I have refreshed by memory. I will read the following extract from Standing Orders: It a. Minister of the Clown quotes from a despatch, or other State paper…"— I do not think either affects this point. This ruling is analogous to the rules observed in courts of law against the quoting of documents not produced in evidence, but it cannot be applied to private documents. The document in question seems to be a private document, therefore the Rule does not apply.

Mr. Brown

It is obvious that it does not come under the Standing Order you have just quoted In those circumstances, and in view of the general desire of many hon. Members to get all the relevant information on this matter, may I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Supply to do their best to see it it can he published?

The Prime Minister

If the hon. Member had been listening, he would have heard me say, about five or six minutes ago, that publication depended on getting the permission of the authors, and that I would seek that permission.

Mr. Brown

The Prime Minister did not use that expression.

Hon. Members

He did.

Mr. Henry Strauss

If my point was the narrow point you suggested, Mr. Speaker, of course I do not press it. I understood from the Prime Minister that this Board was not a board that would carry on for any short interim. The only undertaking about legislation was that it would be in the lifetime of this Parliament; there was no suggestion about this Session. I do not think the point can be a narrow one. We may be operating under this Board for years.

Mr. George Brown

Arising out of that point of Order, Mr. Speaker, could you help me, in view of a correction which I received on another occasion? I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Strauss) used the phrase "We could put the whole of this discussion in order "if something were done. Is not that a gross reflection upon the Chair?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think it was meant as a gross reflection upon the Chair. I think it was an honest desire to try to get a discussion, and to get me to look kindly on this proposal. There is another point which the hon. Member forgot, namely, that the Minister said he thought that, in clue course, there would be a Debate on the matter.

Hon. Members

No.

The Prime Minister

I suggested that the matter of a Debate should be raised through the usual channels. On a point put to you, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we did take a definite decision with regard to the public ownership of the iron and steel industry, and in doing so also announced certain interim arrangements, and those interim arrangements were part and parcel of the nationalisation. It is quite impossible to sever one from the other. Therefore, I submit, Sir, that your Ruling with regard to the Adjournment Debate must hold.

Mr. Churchill

On the question of the Debate, am I right in thinking that the right lion. Gentleman is willing, in principle, to give a Debate on a Motion, when the whole matter can be discussed freely at the earliest convenient moment after we reassemble?

The Prime Minister

I should like to know what kind of a Motion the right hon. Gentleman proposes.

Mr. Churchill

Surely it is for the Government to propose the Motion, when they come forward with a scheme affecting one of our greatest industries? Surely the Government would not shrink from bringing a proposal to the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister

Not necessarily. It is a matter of administration, and it can be raised on administration. It is a matter of the introduction of legislation.

Mr. Churchill

There is to be no legislation for some time. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has just explained that no legislation will be needed for the Board, and the other legislation is not to come forward until after the Board has made prolonged inquiries, and the education of Ministers on the subject is completed? Surely we are entitled to have this Debate, and the Government should put down a Motion in terms agreeable to themselves at the earliest possible date; that is not a matter for the Opposition.

The Prime Minister

I think the right hon. Gentleman might discuss this through the usual channels. When an indication of legislation is given by the Government, with an indication of interim arrangements, it is not therefore necessary for the Government to put down a Motion. It is a matter for legislation.

Mr. Churchill

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, in a matter of this kind, it is not simply a question of procedure? Following the declaration which has been made great anxiety is felt, and it may be that the trade of the country will be hampered. We ought to know where we are, at an early opportunity. [Interruption.] I am putting this point to the Prime Minister. We have a right to know exactly what the position is, not in every detail, but in broad outline. I hope we may hear from the Prime Minister something a little more definite than a mere indication to probe the secret channels.

Mr. Jennings

As one of the Members for the great city of Sheffield, which derives its whole living from steel, I would like to ask the Minister two questions. Is he aware of the very grave apprehension his statement will arouse in the minds of those people engaged in the steel industry at the suggestion of further Government interference at a dangerous time like this? In order to put his proposals into operation, has he a further plan to give full employment to the thousands of steel workers in the industry when this acrobatic policy becomes a complete failure?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Cobb

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps we had better allow the right hon. Gentleman to answer.

Mr. Wilmot

In answer to the hon. Member for Hallam, Sheffield (Mr. Jennings) I would say that I am aware there are differing opinions on this matter. I believe there is a very large body of opinion in the industry which will welcome the Government's proposals. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's question, it is the belief of the Government that only by bringing important sections of this industry under public ownership can the necessary modernisation and development be proceeded with actively.

Mr. Cobb

Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the main object of the Government's proposals is to enable industry, for the first time in many decades, to get steel and iron as cheaply as they have been available for many years past to our foreign competitors?

Mr. Wilmot

The primary purpose of these proposals is to improve the efficiency of the industry.

Mr. Blackburn

On a point of Order. In view of the fact that the Minister's statement today amounted to little more than a reiteration of the programme outlined at the General Election, may I submit to you, Sir, that questions should not be allowed at this stage? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] May I submit that questions are out of Order which are not for the purpose of eliciting information?

Mr. Speaker

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that I should like to see this discussion come to an end, but hon. Members have their rights, and I am not going to stop free speech in this House.

Mr. Blackburn

May I say, with great respect, Sir, that I was in no way seeking to restrict the right of free speech? But I have been ruled out of Order on many occasions on my questions—[Interruption.] I have had questions ruled out of Order on the ground that they were not asked for the purpose of eliciting information. May I suggest that what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander?

Mr. Speaker

I have an idea that it we trust to the common sense of hon. Members, they will see these questions come to an end fairly soon.

Mr. David Eccles

May I ask the Prime Minister a question? Is he aware that once the Government become monopolist producers of iron and steel in this country they will have to enter into sharp and daily competition with every other steel producing country in the world, and will find themselves in rivalry with the United States of America, Australia, India, Belgium, and a great many other countries? Does he really think that is going to help the Foreign Secretary to establish good relations with other countries? Is it not common sense that if we are to have State monopolies, they should be, at least, confined to goods and services which do not enter into international trade?

The Prime Minister

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that difficulty has been caused between countries, in international affairs, often by private monopolies.

Wing-Commander Geoffrey Cooper

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the satisfaction that will be occasioned by this announcement to the vast body of workers in this industry? I should like to ask him if there will be an opportunity to debate this question of some measure of public ownership which has been raised. Some hon. Members on this side of the House, I believe, have the idea that there might possibly be an opening under this kind of control, for a certain amount of divided responsibility, which might not prove satisfactory. May I ask my right hon. Friend if he recalls that the periods of great prosperity and full employment in this industry have been during the periods of war and rumours of war? Does he realise that there will be great satisfaction in all parts of the country at the removal of the temptation to make profit out of war by friends of non. Members opposite?

Mr. Clement Davies

Are we right in assuming that no step will be taken, even administratively, with regard to this industry', for any change, before the House has had an opportunity of full discussion of it?

The Prime Minister

Certainly not. Administration must go on.

Mr. Davies

Not before we have had an opportunity to debate the proposal?

The Prime Minister

The hon. and learned Gentleman, I thought, said any step at all." I have already explained that my right hon. Friend is going to have discussions with the industry.

Mr. Churchill

Cannot the Prime Minister assure us that he is not going to take any important, decisive administrative step, before this matter is debated?

The Prime Minister

No. I am certainly not going to give an assurance like that.

Sir Waldron Smithers

Hitler.

Mr. James Callaghan

On a point of Order. Is it in Order for a Member of this House to accuse the Prime Minister of acting like Hitler?

Mr. Churchill

On a point of Order—[Interruption]. I am going to make a point of Order.

Mr. Speaker

Is the point of Order the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise the same as the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan)? I do not think it is. The hon. Members asks if it is in Order to call the Prime Minister "Hitler." I, personally, do not think that ought to have been said.[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Hon. Members ought not to accuse other hon. Members, by calling them offensive names.

Sir W. Smithers

Of course, Sir, I withdraw it unreservedly. But may I ask all sides of the House what difference there is between the policy—

Mr, Speaker

I think we ought to be prepared to leave it at that. The House is always generous to repentant sinners, and not quite so much to one who tries to carry on the controversy.

Mr. Churchill

May I now submit my point of Order? We heard just now the Prime Minister say that he could not give any guarantee that some urgent, definite, important administrative step might not be taken even before we meet again after the holidays and have a chance of debating this matter. Does that not affect the position created by the statement this afternoon, in the sense that it constitutes a matter of urgent public importance? The Prime Minister is not prepared to give us an assurance that the position will still be open. What we apprehend to be great evils will follow from this departure. Until we meet again we lie under the shadow of some far-reaching, administrative step. Is that not a case within the meaning of the Standing Order justifying the moving of the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. Speaker

No. I think that, in either case, the whole matter would be involved in future legislation, which would render the discussion out of Order. Supposing the Government take some drastic action, which the right hon. Gentleman seems to fear, it would be open to the Opposition, if the Government should so act, to put down a Motion of Censure straight away.

Sir W. Smithers

A bit late.

Mr. Scollan

May I now ask a question which I was not able to get in earlier because the fight between the Front Benches was so hot? At what stage in the proceedings is it intended to draw the line between private enterprise and nationalisation?

Mr. Wilmot

That is a matter upon which I should like to take the advice of the Control Board.

Mr. Churchill

Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to say that he has made all this announcement, without having arrived at a clear opinion as to where this line of delimitation is to be drawn?

Mr. Wilmot

It is necessary to give this matter prolonged consideration in the circumstances of varying plants, and it is necessary that there should be technical advice, which can only be given, in the opinion of the Government, by a board constitutionally arranged.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

I have been trying for the last half-hour to catch your eye, Sir. With respect to the last statement of the right hon. Gentleman, does he not agree that, at least, his statement today will have an unsettling effect upon a very wide range of British industry? Is it not necessary in the Government's own interests, and in the interests of the country's advance, to state now, in some way, the limitation of his policy? How far does it go, roughly?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Wilmot

That is the same question, in a different form, as that which I answered before. It is necessary to have technical advice in the particular circumstances.

Mr. Ewart

Will the iron ore producing interests be included in this scheme of public ownership? If so, will those interests be included in the proposed board?

Mr. Wilmot

It is not possible to go into details of delimitation at this stage.

Mr. Churchill

Does not every word of this conversation and the statement by the Minister show that we are in the presence of a pure political ramp?