NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving for iron and steel industry.) (Hansard, 11 August 1947)

§ Major P. Roberts
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I want to try, first, to dissipate some of the fog of uncertainty the Government have spread about what is to happen to this industry, because of the importance it has to my constituents in Sheffield, of whom some 40,000——

The Chairman
The new Clause relates to the making of regulations of orders for the bringing of the assets of the steel industry under public ownership. It is not competent to discuss the subject of nationalisation of the iron and steel industry on this new Clause.

§ Major Roberts
I was going to suggest that my task, is first, to show how the powers under the Bill, under which regulations and orders can be made, might be used to bring the iron and steel industry under public ownership. Then, if I establish that, I want to go on to argue that those powers in the Bill are unnecessary, and that to use them to bring the industry under public ownership would be the wrong way to bring the industry under public ownership at this time. However, I want to go on to recall that the Lord President of the Council, on the Second Reading of the Bill, said he did not propose to deal with big questions of nationalisation in that way, and to say why that statement should not be accepted by the Committee at this stage.
4.30 a.m.
If I may revert to the first problem, as to the powers under the regulations 2160 and orders which might enable the Government to take over all or any part of the iron and steel industry, I would refer first to Regulation 55. If the Lord President will look at that regulation, he will see that there are wide powers by which the Government can take over functions of control on behalf of His Majesty's Government as may be provided by the order. I now wish to refer to Regulation 55A, under which the Board of Trade may also restrict any firm from entering into, and prohibit it from carrying on in, any premises for the proceedings of its factory. In other words, these two regulations together, coupled with Regulation 51, which deals with the taking over of land, and also coupled with Regulation 75c which deals with compensation, and coupled with Clause 1 (1, c) which has already been passed by this Committee, will enable the Government, if they go through these regulations very carefully in the next two years, to take over the assets of the iron and steel industry and so to reorganise the industry that it will be practically impossible at the end of those two years for the industry to get back on its feet again. If that is so, while I wish to point out to the Government that this is not the way nor the time—a time of crisis—to take such power, I ask them first to make a definite statement this morning that they have no intention of so doing; and if they make that statement I wish them to go one step further and to accept this new Clause, which makes it clear that they will exclude the iron and steel industry from this Bill.
I want to substantiate the second point by saying that these powers which the Government are taking to themselves should not be exercised at this time. The iron and steel industry is fundamental to our reconstruction and to our economy. I wish to point out further that the question of nationalisation, on its merits—I am not taking that point at the moment—is an experiment so far as the commercial undertakings of this country are concerned. Hon. Members opposite have already taken steps with regard to coal and road transport and electricity, and surely they should wait to see how far these experiments go before they urge for this further experiment with iron and steel. I have pressed the Government as 2161 to what is the position with regard to the cost in the coal industry——

The Chairman
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now proceeding to discuss the merits and demerits of public ownership of the iron and steel industry and of coal.

§ Major Roberts
Perhaps I may summarise what I have said. I have sought to show that there are powers which the Government could take to bring the assets of the iron and steel industry under nationalisation; secondly, there was the point that this is not the time, nor is this the way, to do it. Now I want to take the third point, and that is that the Leader of the House said that in any event he was not going to use this method for nationalisation of the iron and steel industry and that really, therefore, we need not discuss it. My answer is that I am not prepared to give these powers to any Member of the Government Front Bench. I am not prepared to say that they are capable of doing what is in the national interests. I suggest to them that at this time we have seen how far back-benchers control the Front Bench. We saw on the issue of conscription how Members of the Front Bench came to the House and said that eighteen months was the time. This argument is perfectly relevant because I say that the Front Bench may change their mind.
The Leader of the House has said that he is not going to use these regulations for nationalisation. What I say is that that is not sufficient. I ask him to accept this new Clause so that he will not be able to use those powers, even if he says that he is not going to use them. There are Members on both sides of the Committee who will appreciate the importance of getting some clear-cut information from the Government on this point. Here the Government are taking powers at this hour of the morning which are of widespread consequence, and I ask the Government to say, here and now, what is the intention with regard to the iron and steel industry. The Lord President can say perfectly well whether he will accept this new Clause or not. If he will accept it, then the matter is clear so far as regulations and orders are concerned.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
Why all this excitement about iron and steel? Why does the Opposition seize upon this industry and leave all other industries out.

§ Major Roberts
The right hon. Gentleman should know.

§ Mr. Morrison
Nobody has said anything on the other side about why they are picking this out. I do not know why they are. The proposed new Clause is a silly Clause. Nothing can be said for it, as I will show. In the first place, the Clause reads: Nothing in this Act shall allow of regulations and orders. … It is a silly thing to say that, because under the Bill regulations could not be made at all, whether about iron and steel or anything else. Therefore, the hon. and gallant Member has fallen into a completely foolish error in putting the word "regulations" in this Clause. It is true that orders can be made under existing regulations, but new regulations cannot be made under this Bill and we have said that from the Second Reading onwards. When the Opposition will learn it, I have not the least idea. Therefore, there is no power under this Bill, and there was no power under the Act of 1945, to make new regulations. As regards making orders, the only power which is capable of being used for bringing the iron and steel industry or any part of it under public ownership is contained in Regulation 78 of the General Regulations. This regulation enables the competent authority, which includes the Minister of Supply, to provide by order for the transfer to the Minister or competent authority of the shares of any company placed under control of the authorised controller under Regulation 55 (4). That is the power we have got, and we propose to retain that power.
There are some other powers as well, such as that used to take over share capital, as was done with Short Bros, by the war-time Coalition Government. These powers have existed under the Defence Regulations in the wartime legislation. They were preserved for the purposes of peace under the Act of 1945, and they will be preserved for the extended purposes to be found in this Bill. So far as the Government are concerned, if it is expedient and desirable in the public interest to use 2163 any of these powers in relation to particular undertakings in the iron and steel industry, we shall use them. I do not want the Committee to be under any misapprehension in this respect. If it is in the public interest to use them, we shall use them. If it is not in the public interest to use them, we shall not use them. That is the clear answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point. First decisions will be made by the Government or the competent authority within the Government.

§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
What about the back-benchers?

§ Mr. Morrison
Really, the noble Lord should not intervene about back-benchers. He invented a new policy about national savings which had not the authority of his party, and he has never been repudiated to this day. As I say, it will be the responsibility of the Government and, if any Member is dissatisfied with that decision, then a Prayer can be presented in the ordinary way. But I wish it to be clearly understood that these powers exist over a wide field of industry, and indeed, I think, over industry generally, and so far as iron and steel or any other industry is concerned, we will use these powers if the public interest so demands. I am not going to make any compromise whatever on the point. If the new Clause were carried, its effect would be to deprive the Government, so far as the iron and steel industry is concerned, of their power to take over an inefficient undertaking and operate it in the public interest, or to operate it because the undertaking did not conform to the national needs. This would deprive the Government of an effective weapon for dealing with the crisis, and it would put the iron and steel industry in a preferential position to other industries. Why do the Opposition want to take out this industry? Years ago, I suppose, it would have been the brewing industry.

§ Major Roberts
May I answer that? It is because it is the most basic industry which is being attacked by the propagandists and the back-benchers.

§ Mr. Morrison
That is not the answer. In so far as it is a basic industry, that is a reason not for leaving it out, but for keeping it in. The argument is preposterous 2164 and childish. There is no case for picking out the iron and steel industry and saying "This is untouchable". On both the grounds which I have indicated, the new Clause is highly objectionable, and we resist it. It may be said by the movers of the Clause that they can put forward the argument that, under Regulation 78, powers can be used by the Government to carry out the whole nationalisation of an industry, or part nationalisation of it. In law, I do not know what course the courts would take, but I assure the Committee that complete nationalisation of any industry would not be effected in this way. Defence Regulations should not be used for the socialisation of whole industries. If this Government has nationalised an industry it has done it by Act of Parliament, and we shall continue to use that procedure; but we must have powers for the implementation of the Prime Minister's declaration of last week. I can give the Committee the assurance that the regulations would not be used for the purpose of socialising the whole industry, but we will use them for the purpose of seeing that industries, or parts of industries, conform to the national needs. That is all there is to be said about it. The onus is on the Opposition to show why this particular industry should be picked out for complete protection and isolation from the Bill. Nothing has been said as to why the new Clause should be included in the Bill.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
We are very sorry for the Lord President, who seems to be having a bad night. The Debate was moving along peacefully, and we had hoped to get home in good time, but now this has cropped up. I understand this is a sore subject with the Lord President. We can tell him—although some of the sources of information are not so authentic as they used to be—that there were a number of abstentions in the party meeting upstairs, and his friends are only too ready to tell everyone the whole story——

§ Mr. Hale
On a point of Order, Major Milner. As the right hon. and gallant Member has made serious allegations about the party meeting today, may we ask him to substantiate them or to withdraw them.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
The hon. Member cannot ask me——

§ Mr. Hale
Is it proper for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to refer to a matter which the House is to debate in the next 24 hours?

The Chairman
It was an unwise remark to make and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must take the responsibility for saying it.

§ Mr. James Callaghan
There is a substantial point in what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been saying. He says that there are people in this party who have told him what happened at the party meeting this morning. I do not know how the Committee will regard that matter, as it bears on the report of the Committee of Privileges—but I ask, is it not proper for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who occupies the responsible position of leading the Opposition on this particular Motion now, to tell us who it was who gave him this information?

The Chairman
Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman going to explain?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I was going, to say I did not believe there was any question of Privilege, of one Member saying anything about another Member.

§ Mr. Hale
I raise this not as a matter of Privilege, but as a matter of Order. The right hon. Gentleman made an allegation of a gross breach of confidence, coloured by a statement that he has been furnished with detailed information in breach of confidence, and I add to it that what he is now saying is a palpable lie—and I can substantiate it.

The Chairman
I do not think there is any question of Privilege, but I did not hear the precise statement the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made. I do not think any question of Order arises.

§ Mr. Hogg
On a point of Order, Major Milner. I was expecting you to say something which you did not say. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) use the phrase, "a palpable lie" about a remark made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I must say I was astonished he was not immediately called to Order.

The Chairman
The hon. Member must restrain his feelings a little. If the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) was saying that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was telling a lie that is not a Parliamentary expression, and must be withdrawn.

§ Mr. Hale
If the word "lie" is an un-Parliamentary expression, I at once fully and freely withdraw it, but the statement made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was completely lacking in veracity, was obviously unfounded, and should not have been made.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
These, I understand are perfectly Parliamentary expressions, and I bear no ill-will to the hon. Gentleman for the use of Parliamentary expressions. I will now tell him why I made these remarks. It was because the Lord President of the Council challenged us on this side of the House to say why he did not discuss iron and steel. He must have known, and he knew very well, that he was trailing his coat with the greatest deliberation up and down the Floor of this Committee and he must not be surprised when somebody treads on it. I trod on it, and I will proceed to tread on it now.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
I was perfectly genuine. What I wanted to know, and still want to know, is why, of the whole series of British industries, iron and steel has become the special darling of the Tory Party. That is what I want to know.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
The right hon. Gentleman is a little confused in his mind in this early hour of the morning. He has not accurately remembered what he said. He said, not that the iron and steel had become the darling of the Tories, but why had we picked on steel to discuss at all. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well exactly why we have picked on iron and steel and exactly why iron and steel, not only in this party, but in other parties, has been the subject of very active consideration and opinion and discussion during the past 24 hours. Since we have cleared that matter out of the way, let me go on to say that, first, the right hon. Gentleman asked why iron and steel had been chosen as a subject for discussion. I have told him. Does anybody else want to say anything about it? Now we can go on to the question of iron and steel.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
We have the whole night before us. The Lord President is obviously looking for a continuation of the Debate because he used words which, as Leader of the House, he must well know were bound to lead to a prolongation of our discussion. If the hon. Member wishes to put a question, I will be willing to give way.

§ Mr. Gordon-Walker
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman challenged us to put any further questions on this point. I think he said that the reason this new Clause was down was because events had occurred in the last 24 hours. I am wondering if he remembers when this new Clause was put down.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
No. The Lord President asked why it was being chosen as a subject of discussion. I am telling him why I am discussing it. It is known to everyone on the other side of the Committee that it has been a matter of active discussion within the last 24 hours Now does anyone deny that?

§ Miss Jennie Lee (Cannock)
May I ask two questions? The first is, has the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) been consulted before hon. Members opposite have placed such great emphasis on the iron and steel industry; and the second is, does the right hon. and gallant Member know how grateful some hon. Members on this side of the Committee are to the right hon. and learned Member for underlining the fact that this industry is the darling of the Tory Party?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
It would be un-chivalrous if I said that it was the only darling of the Tory Party. The hon. Lady rose along with the Lord President of the Council when he rose to speak. That was another reason for my choosing the subject of iron and steel, because I took it for granted that the hon. Lady was not rising simply to strew flowers in the course of the Debate, but that she had some fairly active things to say either about the conduct of hon. Members on this side of the Committee or of hon. Members on her own side. She is known as one to whom we listen with interest, and indeed with apprehension, on all sides of the Committee; and sometimes she attacks 2168 hon. Members on that side. She is very catholic in the direction of her assault, and like the queen of the chess-board, one can never predict in which direction her darkling moves will be.
I say that the iron and steel industry was chosen by my hon. Friends because it was an economic subject of great importance, and I chose to speak on it because, in addition to its being an economic subject of great importance, it is a matter which has exercised the minds of hon. Members on all sides of the Committee within recent hours. I hope there will be no hon. Member in any part of the Committee who will take the slightest exception to that, because if necessary I can say it again and again. We have all listened to the Lord President of the Council. He has had a bad day one way and another, and has made incautious remarks in view of the natural desire of the Leader of the House to get the Debate concluded. He then proceeded to carry on the extraordinary argument which has been a feature of the Government's case throughout the whole of the proceedings on this Bill—never quite sure whether to light it up as far as possible to comfort the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) and the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock), or to damp it down as far as possible on the ground that these powers are of practically no importance—that if the Government are actually going to do anything, they are going to proceed by the ordinary steps of introducing Bills, making sunshine talks, having a crisis, and then excusing themselves for the failure of their plan. These are the ordinary lines. What we feared was that this process was going to be somewhat truncated by the actions of hon. Members opposite.
Now we are told by the Lord President of the Council that we need not fear that at all; that, of course, he can give an assurance that the regulations would not be used for the nationalisation of whole industries; that is to say, that the broad, sweeping, swift, precise steps which hon. Members, and not right hon. Members, on that side of the Committee hope will arise from the Bill will not be taken, at any rate, in connection with iron and steel. It may be necessary to bring pressure to bear on one firm or another, and it may be necessary to take over a firm, as in the case of Short Brothers—I think 2169 that my hon. Friend beside me has great knowledge of that and that he carried through that transaction, and will be able to inform the Committee on that matter at a later stage in the Debate. We have now a positive assurance from the Lord President of the Council that this Bill will not be used for the swift and sweeping steps which hon. Members on this side thought it might be used for and on which my hon. Friends desired an assurance. We are grateful.
5.0 a.m.
The next thing the Lord President of the Council said was that under Regulation 78 he could take certain steps—he could squeeze people whom he did not like. Did he not say that? I am only anxious to elucidate. I thought that was what he said. He said this Bill would not debar the Government from taking over an inefficient company or a company which did not play. That is the Lord President's definition of somebody he does not like. Does the Lord President suggest he does like people who do not play?

§ Mr. H. Morrison
Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
No, I do not. The right hon. Gentleman said he could use it in the case of individuals——

§ Mr. Mitchison
The right hon. and gallant Member should not be guilty of so elementary a logical fallacy.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
The hon. and learned Member is well acquainted with logical fallacies. I will leave them to him. We now have it clear that the Lord President is not going to use this Bill for swift, sweeping steps. What is he going to use it for? There seems to be a certain dubiety about the purpose of the Bill. I understand it is to take over an inefficient company or a company not conforming to his general rules and directions. Am I right?

§ Mr. Morrison
That is what I said. What the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said I said was that I was taking power to squeeze firms and people I did not like. That was a complete misrepresentation unworthy of any Member and particularly of a Member representing a university. If that is university representation, it is a wash-out.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
In a Pickwickian sense, then, the company he does not like—which is not conforming to his high and patriotic ideals for the good of the country. Would the right hon. Gentleman prefer that? Good. We are again at one; the whole Committee is at one. He does not intend to use it for general purposes, but he may use it, in his capacity as a Minister and Lord President of the Council, against people, not of whom he has a particular personal dislike, but who are not conforming with his broad general lines. We are clear about that.
The purpose of this Bill, then, is to deal with small individual cases and not to deal with general problems at all. Then, the whole excuse he brought forward for this Bill—that it would enable a big, sweeping movement to be carried through—falls, and the Lord President asks for a Bill because he is not going to do very much with it. He may apply it to individual cases, to take over individual firms, or he may deal with a firm that does not play. That is all. In any case he has the powers. I think that after all these explanations, after bringing forth this ridiculous mouse, the least we can do is to indicate that we are willing to accept his explanation; but I will say it is a very great come-down from some of the things said in a previous stage of this Debate, and if that is what the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) meant when he said this was the developing and unfolding of great policies—[Interruption.]—I am sorry; I am only quoting the hon. Member.

The Chairman
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is straying far from his course. He seems to be circumnavigating the whole question.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Far be it from me to circumnavigate, except for the purpose of arriving safely in port. Now that we have been told that these are entirely unimportant powers which the Lord President of the Council desires, and that they will not be used for any of the broader purposes which have been explained in previous speeches, as far as I am concerned I am satisfied, and would say to my hon. Friends that they have done a great service for the iron and steel industry, and can compliment themselves on a successful half-hour's work this morning.

§ Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison (Glasgow, Central)
As one of those who put his name down in support of this new Clause, I want to add my own personal reasons for having chosen iron and steel in this instance. The purpose has in part succeeded. It should be used, in my view, as a test case to see how far in the matter of nationalisation the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to go by using this particular form of legislation. He has cast great mystery on the fact that iron and steel was chosen in regard to this new Clause. There was no mystery whatsoever. Hon. Members should cast their minds back to a document in which they have great pride—"Let Us Face the Future"—and remember what industries they said they would bring under public control. Iron and steel is the only one not yet attempted. If they were honest to their mandate and opinions—[HON. MEMBERS: "The gas industry."] There is only one industry to which they have not yet applied their nefarious plans, and if they are true to what they allege, they would seek another mandate before trying to nationalise any other industry. That is the simple reason why I and my friends chose this industry as the test, and all this nonsense and attempt to create a ferment of excitement, and this talk about the "darling of the Tory Party," and all the rest, is so much poppycock.

§ Miss Jennie Lee
I think the Committee must appreciate the skill with which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has supported his back-benchers, but I am still convinced that if they had asked his advice, and still more had asked the advice of the senior member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) he would have told them it was extremely indiscreet of them to raise this matter in this manner at all. We have still not had a basic answer why the iron and steel industry was chosen. Why not the gas industry?

§ Major P. Roberts
I happen to represent one of the constituencies of the City of Sheffield, which is one of the greatest steel producing centres of this country. The people in Sheffield are particularly interested in this industry, and they are very worried at the inconsistency of the Government on this point. There are thousands of people in Sheffield who want 2172 to know the answer to the question. What are the Government going to do? This question arose not this week, or last, or a month ago, but a year ago.

§ Miss Lee
That is a very fair answer from the hon. and gallant Member. I am going to assume that all who have supported him do not necessarily represent constituencies concerned with the iron and steel industry. I am also going to assume that he speaks here in Parliament on broad issues as well as on constituency problems. I come back to what I think is well worth underlining. At this moment, when we have to make up our minds how to face the crisis, we have a demand from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they have chosen for its subject the iron and steel industry. I hope that the moral of their choice will not be lost on the country, and, least of all, on anyone on this side of the Committee. To know what one's enemies most fear is a very good guide to how to conduct one's battles.

§ Mr. Christopher Shawcross (Widnes)
I beg to move, "That the Question be now put."

Hon. Members
Oh.

The Chairman
I do not propose to accept that Motion at the present time.

§ Mr. Harold Macmillan (Bromley)
During the 12 hours or so—during the greater part of which time I have listened this Debate has dealt with a very large number of important subjects, but I think that the Lord President would admit that this is one of major importance that causes great anxiety in many parts of the country. Of course, I recognise that, on this particular issue, we are treading on rather delicate ground. The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) made a very loyal speech. She is always loyal.

§ Miss Lee
Loyal speech? To the right hon. Gentleman? To his principles or mine?

§ Mr. Macmillan
To the interests of her party, or part of her party. Whether it was so well received by the Lord President I do not know.

§ Miss Lee
He is not a Tory, either.

§ Mr. Macmillan
It was even suggested that we were dealing with a matter of Privilege in this case. The Lord President showed, I thought—considering his 2173 usual good nature and good humour—a good deal of unnecessary excitement about this new Clause. I think that if he had made his speech in the reverse order we should have got on a little quicker. If he had started with the reassurances he proposed to give at the end, and left out the rather offensive observations he made about my hon. Friends, I think we should have made somewhat more rapid progress. I can quite understand that this is for him a very delicate subject. If I may repeat in a new form a well-known phrase, I would say, "He has sat so long on the fence that iron and steel have entered his soul." He gave us this assurance—I do not want to misquote him, because it is an important matter—but I gathered he said that it would be legally possible under the powers of this regulation to take over the shares of companies A, B, C, D and E all in succession, just as, under the two regulations of which he knows, we used powers to purchase the shares of Messrs. Short Brothers in the course of the war.
5.15 a.m.
We used the two regulations. First, the particular company had to be under a control, which was that of the Minister of Supply in that case; and then the controlling authority had to give its view that it would be in the public interest to acquire the equity. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman committed himself on whether it would be within the terms of the order to take over one company after another throughout the whole range of the industry, and therefore in effect to take the whole industry into the hands of public ownership by taking them over one by one. I would very much like his view whether it would be legal to do that by an order made under the existing regulations. He was absolutely right to say that we were dealing with existing regulations and not with new regulations.
Under existing regulations I understand it would be quite legal, but quite improper, to take over one company after another so that at the end of it there would have been a taking over of a complete industry under public control. It was to prevent that, that my hon. and gallant Friend moved this new Clause. The Lord President did not say whether it would be legal or not, but said that so long as he and his friends remain in power they would not use the powers in that way; that they must have the 2174 powers to deal with any particular firm that was recalcitrant, that would not play, or was not efficient, but that the powers would not be used to bring about a condition of public control by a series of particular orders against individual firms. I think I have put aright what he said.
Of course these are assurances which are particularly satisfactory to my hon. Friends. But if we pass the Bill in this form it may be legal to do so, and he with his moderate views and his friends who control the Government may not long be in control of the Government. We do not know how long his power will remain and how soon more dangerous people from the back benches would succeed him. His position is a very precarious one at the moment, and although his reassurance is satisfactory and is a great advantage to us, I am not happy that other people less scrupulous and with a less high standard of public propriety than I know he has, might use this legal power. Although we have gained by the reassurance, I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will not think it right and will not hesitate to press for the insertion of this new Clause in order that the right hon. Gentleman might be guarded from the dangerous friends that surround him.

§ Mr. Osborne
I apologise to the Committee for speaking at such a late hour but—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]—I have waited—[Interruption.]—all these fourteen hours, and since I have the Floor I shall wait until the catcalls of Members opposite have stopped. The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) said that this industry was the darling of the Tory Party and upon it, I believe she said, she was willing to fight the elections. We on this side would much rather fight on housing and coal.

The Chairman
The hon. Gentleman must not talk upon housing.

§ Mr. Osborne
The Leader of the House did not do my two friends and myself justice. I can only put his bad temper down to the lateness of the hour. He said this new Clause was foolish, but we have achieved exactly what we want. He has said to us that the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) shall not have his way. There will be no short cut. If iron and steel are to be 2175 nationalised, it will come through the House and will be discussed properly, and that is his answer to the impassioned speech made by the hon. Member of East Coventry. At least we have achieved that and to that extent this is not a foolish proposal. Under paragraph (c) the Government have taken very great powers which——

The Chairman
The hon. Member must address himself to the matter of the Clause. Paragraph (c) has been dealt with.

§ Mr. Osborne
This new Clause must be taken in the light of the new powers acquired under paragraph (c). With your permission Major Milner I propose to look at it in that light. It has been agreed on all sides that that provision represents new and very wide powers, and we want to know to what extent are these powers going to be used in certain cases. In answer to two questions I put a month ago about production and about targets, the Lord President had the impudence to accuse me of being defeatist. The justification of the whole of this Bill is the economic crisis we are facing. We are agreed on that; but when we reach—

§ Mr. Callaghan
What has that to do with iron and steel?

§ Mr. Osborne
Quite a lot, if the hon. Gentleman will listen. The Leader of the House first accused me of spreading gloom and despondency—when he was trying to get his own back benchers to face the present and not the future. His faithful "Daily Herald" hurried to support him in this. Because I was trying to get the Government to face the facts of our economic position, on which this whole Bill is based, the Lord President was foolish and irresponsible enough to say I was a defeatist.

The Chairman
The hon. Member must address himself to the Clause. I cannot have this continual travelling outside the scope of the matter under discussion.

§ Mr. Osborne
You are most lenient to real back-benchers, Major Milner, and I am only asking for the latitude you have given to back-benchers and Front Benchers on both sides. This new Clause—

§ Mr. Hale
On a point of Order. If you are in the habit of extending leniency 2176 to back-benchers, Major Milner, I venture to suggest that you extend this leniency to auditors and not only to the single speakers.

The Chairman
I am not aware that I discriminated between Front Benchers and back-benchers.

§ Mr. Osborne
Your original Ruling Major Milner that we are not allowed to discuss nationalisation at all rather put me off. I feel that the Government have plenty on their plate already with the nationalisation of coal, without tackling iron and steel. It is because I feel that that I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this. Under this new Clause there are no "short cuts" to nationalisation as the hon. Member for East Coventry has said, but we have extracted from the Lord President the only one sensible thing he has said today.

§ Major Roberts
We have received an assurance from the Lord President, although he was not very courteous about it, that there is nothing sinister in the iron and steel industry, and it will be a great disaster for the country if this plan is brought off. But, as we have his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.