HC Deb 03 June 1947 vol 438 cc53-71

Amendment made: In page 1, line 6, leave out "or groups of industries."— [Mr. Marquand.]

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Lyttelton

I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert: and shall not make any such order if it shall appear to him that a large majority of the persons carrying on business in the industry, representing the greater part of the production in that industry, and a large majority of the workers in that industry are opposed to the making of such an order. The object of this Amendment is to meet the point, frequently expressed in Committee, that development councils should not be imposed on an unwilling industry. I think it is the general opinion of both sides that these development councils will not be successful, and will not attain the object we all have in view, unless they are set up with the good will of all concerned. We have put forward one or two other Amendments in different forms to meet this point, and I hope very much that the Government will see their way to accept this one. It provides that a development council shall not be set up when there is a large majority, in either of the two sections which make up the industry concerned, in opposition to the proposal. We have had several statements and assurances from the Government that only in the last resort do they intend to impose a development council on an unwilling industry. We should like to see this assurance in some statutory form, and this is the mildest form in which we can ask the Government to do it.

Mr. Harold Roberts (Birmingham, Handsworth)

During the Committee stage, objection was taken by hon. Members opposite on administrative grounds to any Amendment of this kind. They pointed out that it might be difficult to ascertain a majority. That point is met in this Amendment, because it is left to the Minister to gather the sense of the industry concerned in such way as he may think most appropriate.

Mr. Marquand

I am afraid that I am unable to accept this Amendment. It would lay upon the Minister an obligation to ensure that there was a majority on both sides of the industry in favour of a development council. It is true that my right hon. and learned Friend has made it quite clear that the Government have every intention of proceeding by agreement rather than by compulsion, and does not wish to impose a development council on an unwilling industry. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee said: My right hon. and learned Friend hoped very much that it would never be necessary to impose a development council, by Order, without the consent of everybody concerned. He went on to point out that if the Government did decide to impose a development council upon an industry which did not appear to want it, the Order setting up the development council would have to be approved by an affirmative Resolution of the House. There is that check already provided in the Bill, that if a Minister went so far as to propose setting up a development council against the substantial opinion of the industry, he would have to have his Order approved by the House where objections could be taken. My hon Friend then went on to say: I should regard it as highly probable that it would be precisely the industry which needed the development council which would be the one not to want it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 24th April, 5947; c. 57–8.] It is on that point that we fail to agree with hon. Members opposite. We wish to proceed by agreement rather than by compulsion. While my right hon. and learned Friend does not wish to impose a development council upon an unwilling industry, nevertheless the fact may be that the least progressive elements of the industry concerned might constitute the majority.

If the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Supply, or whoever it may be, has in reserve the power to bring an order before this House before setting up a development council he is in a stronger position in dealing with a backward industry, or an industry which happens to have a numerically large proportion of unprogressive elements. It may be said that a "numerically larger proportion," is a rather vague phrase, but if anybody asks me what is meant by it, I ask those who put forward the Amendment how they propose to ascertain the majority in such cases? It would be difficult to ascertain whether the majority existed one way or the other. In view of the difficulties of ensuring majorities, the difficulty in arranging polls to determine majorities, and the desirability—

Mr. H. Roberts

If there is a technical difficulty in ascertaining the majority, how will the Minister ascertain if the industry is unwilling? Surely, the technical difficulty is still there.

Mr. Marquand

Yes, the technical difficulty remains, but it is more serious when the obligation is imposed upon the Minister, rather than that he should sense opinion and hold discussions. The Minister might feel that the majority of the industry was against him, but that the good sense of the progressive persons in the industry was on his side. It would be for the House, in view of all the circumstances, to decide whether a development council should be set up in that industry.

Mr. W. Shepherd

We have had a very disappointing reply from the Paymaster-General. He asked how a majority of the industry was to be determined. I would refer him to his own Bill, Clause 1 (3) of which says: Before making a development council order the Board or Minister concerned shall consult any organisation appearing to them or him to be representative of substantial numbers of persons carrying on business in the industry and such organisations representative of persons employed in the industry as appear to the Board or Minister concerned to be appropriate. There is an indication of the means by which the Minister proposes to determine whether there is a majority of people in support of or against this proposal. We on this side find no comfort in the fact that a Resolution will be submitted to the House. We know that the Government have a mammoth majority here, and that it is possible for an industry which took a go per cent. objection to have a development order made in respect of it because of the substantial majority in this House. While there are technical difficulties in the determination of the majority, I believe that the value of accepting an Amendment of this kind, the psychological value, overrides these considerations. If industry holds the view that this is something which will be imposed upon them whether they like it or not, this Bill will lose a lot of its value. But if the Minister would say that the Government intend to go by the will of the majority, to pursue the voluntary, rather than the compulsory, principle, the Bill will have a better showing. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken the view he has taken, because I do not think it is in the best interests of all concerned.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison (Glasgow, Central)

I can see the difficulty in which the Minister is placed. He wants to be able to impose development councils on industries where necessary. At the same time, to be able to do that he is taking power to be able to impose such orders against the will of an industry. During the Committee stage, it was clear that Government spokesmen were anxious to carry with them as large a measure of approval in industry as they could possibly get. Now, while paying a certain amount of lip service to the desirability of having the consent of industry, they are taking powers to override industry at any time. They are asking us to rely on promises and intentions at some future date, which might be worthless. I should have thought that a method could have been devised to meet both points of view. I am certain that the brains which devised a Measure like the Transport Bill would not be stuck to find a definition of the words, "a large majority," whether it was in relation to capital, output, or workers. The Minister said that the Government would be involved in finding out whether there was a majority in favour of a development council. The Amendment would reverse that. The onus would lie on the industry to say to the Minister that they do not want a council. That would make the issue clear. There would be no obligation on the Minister to say, I propose to do this." It would leave to industries the onus and responsibility of saying that they did not want a development council, that a majority did not want a council.

Mr. Rhodes

There would be only two instances in which such an order would be made, perhaps against the wishes of the industry—first, in the case of a very badly organised and inefficient industry; second, in the case of a highly organised, but closed, industry, working in a price ring. In the latter case, a development council might be necessary to investigate prices and conditions in relation to consumers overseas. It might be necessary to investigate conditions right the way through the industry. The Minister, or the Government, could not possibly arrive at a majority.

4.30 p.m.

Sir John Barlow (Eddisbury)

I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept this Amendment. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) that the industries not wishing to have a development council would probably be those which were either backward or highly efficient, with price rings. There are many other reasons why councils should not be imposed. The Minister put forward two objections to this Amendment. It is one thing to discuss with an industry the value of a council in that industry. It is a very different matter to discuss the question with an industry with the possible threat that, if it does not agree, a development council will be imposed upon it against its will. I think that would introduce an element into these bodies which would be very undesirable and would mitigate against their best use. With regard to the difficulty of getting the views of the majority of either section—employers or those employed in an industry—I cannot think that it would be impossible to do so. In many industries votes have been taken on different matters. Yardsticks have been agreed upon—it may be in regard to production—and there have been agreements on different points. Probably most of the industries in this country, at one time or another, have had discussions and have come to decisions on matters. Many of them have developed their own particular yardsticks which could be very well used by a Minister when wishing to find out the advisability of imposing a development council on any particular industry. For those reasons, I am sorry that the Minister is not able to accept this Amendment.

Sir Arnold Gridley (Stockport)

I think the argument put forward by the Paymaster-General proves the weakness of his own case. If he will cast his mind back, he will recall, I imagine, that there was no industry in this country in which those concerned were more tenacious and stubborn in their point of view than the cotton industry. Yet the President of the Board of Trade went to Manchester on various occasions to address representatives of that industry and succeeded very largely, I believe—perhaps even sometimes against their will—in persuading them that development steps must be taken to help that industry to meet the future. If there is an inefficient industry in which it may seem, in the first instance, difficult to obtain a majority either of the employers or of the employees on the necessity for a body of this kind, is the Paymaster-General asking us to believe that the Minister concerned will not feel it his duty to go to the heart of this industry, wherever it may be, to call together the responsible leaders, and to say, "Look here, for this reason and that reason, we think it necessary that there should be set up one of these bodies to go into the position of this industry"? If he had all the statistical evidence that is to be provided in the future, chapter and verse to support the argument which he will put before the representatives of this inefficient industry, is the Paymaster-General asking us to doubt that the Minister will carry the day? Of course he will.

In this Amendment, it is left to the Minister to decide. If it should appear to him that a large majority of the persons carrying on the business, or a large majority of the workers in the industry, are opposed to the making of an order, it is in his own hands to decide, and I should have thought that, in those circumstances and having regard to the powers and the information which an intelligent Minister could present to an industry in a persuasive way, he would bring them to his point of view. Therefore, I think that there ought to be no difficulty in the way of the Minister accepting this very reasonable Amendment. A great many men engaged in industry are very nervous about what would appear to be the extensive powers sought under this Clause which we are trying to amend. We have all to work together in the future to get through the great economic crisis with which we are now faced, and which may become greater within the next six or 12 months. If we are to get through this crisis, there must be real co-operation between the Government and industry—the Government contributing their knowledge which they alone have, and industry contributing the experience which it alone has. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter.

Mr. Scott-Elliot (Accrington)

It seems to me that, in theory, most of us would say that this was not an unreasonable proposal. No one wants to apply compulsion unless it is essential in the public interest to do so. What is the weakness of this Amendment? It seems that the Opposition are putting forward a theory, and we must try to see how it would work out in practice. I think that it is almost impossible that the majority of employers and workers in industry will object to development councils being set up. My argument is based on what has already come out in the working party reports. I think that hon. Members opposite will generally agree that the working parties were representative of the industries concerned, both employers and workers, and in the majority of cases the working party reports have definitely advocated the setting up of development councils. Therefore, it seems that the odds are 99 to one against this contingency arising. Supposing it were to arise, and that there was a small or inefficient industry. To take the point made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow), who pointed out to the House that there may be other reasons—it seems to me that if there are other reasons the Minister must use his judgment. But supposing, as I am prepared to do, that a small industry is inefficient and badly organised, and one in which employers and workers are not willing to accept modern ideas, then I think that we are faced with the dilemma of what the Minister is to do. This is a point which I want to put to hon. Members opposite. Is the Minister to sit down under this, or are the Government going to govern and take what is the best line in the broad public interest? I conceive that this Bill is in the broad public interest. I do not regard it as standing for any particular section—for organisations of workers or employers. It is to get everyone to work together and to get industry more efficient in the public interest. I agree with what the Paymaster-General has said. If this Amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall have much pleasure in going into the Lobby to vote against it.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory (Tiverton)

I hope that the Minister will reconsider his attitude. I believe that these development councils in appropriate circumstances are capable of doing very good work, but only on two conditions: First, that they are not set up unnecessarily to do a job which is already being done by other agencies successfully; and, secondly, that they are voluntary. I do not think that, if they are forced on an unwilling industry, they will do any good. Those who have had any experience of co-operation know that an ounce of voluntary co-operation is worth a ton of compulsion. I know that the President of the Board of Trade feels that way, but we have to look ahead and to provide for the possibility of more dictatorial and more intolerant Presidents of the Board of Trade than the right hon. and learned Gentleman who now occupies that office.

I gather from the Minister that he sees three difficulties in this. First, he sees the possibility of one party holding up development in the industry. This Amendment provides for not setting up a development council if a majority of both sides of the industry are against it. The second difficulty was that of counting heads, but I cannot believe that that is insuperable. It is the sort of thing that we have to do in our everyday life, for example, in ascertaining the feeling of a meeting for or against a certain course. It cannot then be simply a question of counting heads. The third point was in relation to forcing development councils upon inefficient industries when both sides of those industries believed that the idea would not work. The only thing is, I suggest, to go flat out and tell both sides of the inefficient industry that a development council would help to get things right. I, therefore, urge the Minister to consider once again whether there is in the Amendment anything which is really contrary to the proposals which he has in mind for getting these development councils to work.

Mr. Marquand

With the leave of the House I should like to say firstly how much I appreciate the helpful contributions which have been made in the discussion on this Amendment. The spirit on both sides of the House is the same. We all want to make this plan work and to use the most appropriate means to persuade industries to take advantage of the opportunity of having one of these development councils. The speech of the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) was particularly helpful in this matter. It seems to me that the argument which he adduced really supported the attitude which I have taken. He instanced the example of the President of the Board of Trade going to Lancashire in order lo persuade a reluctant cotton industry to accept his policy. I agree; I understand that that is what happened. But the President of the Board of Trade went to Lancashire and persuaded the industry because he had, not exactly a blank cheque, in his pocket but one with a limit on it; and secondly, he represented the Government which could bring in legislation to deal with the affairs of the industry, because the parties concerned could not agree on the policy which they thought appropriate. He had power in reserve. I attach little importance to my subsidiary argument about ascertaining the majority.

The argument on which I should like to rest my case for continuing to resist the Amendment is that the power in reserve for bringing an Order before the House of Commons will help the Minister considerably in persuading an industry. I thought for a moment that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) was going to demonstrate the independence of the National Liberal Party froth the other

party opposite, but unfortunately he came down on the wrong side of the fence. I would ask him to remember the example of the trade boards which were introduced 40 years ago by the Liberal Party, in relation to industries, which would be unanimous today in desiring to keep those trade boards. There are cases in which the imposition of a progressive reform of this kind proves eventually to the industries concerned that the reform is desirable and worth while, and those industries end by accepting it. I would point out in conclusion that the argument about consideration by this House is the one which has substance in it. It is not only this House which has to consider these matters but both Houses of Parliament. The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) said that the present Government had a majority in this House. That is so, but the time may come when the Government will not have such a large majority; and thee is always another place. In present circumstances it brings to bear a different set of opinions, or if we like, prejudices. I should have thought that the matter was well safeguarded by those considerations.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 234.

Division No. 229.] AYES. [4.47 p.m.
Aitken, Hon. Max Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale) Marples, A. E.
Amory, D. Heathcote Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Marsden, Capt. A.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R Glyn, Sir R. Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Baldwin, A. E. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Barlow, Sir J. Grant, Lady Medlicott, F.
Baxter, A. B. Gridley, Sir A. Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Grimston, R. V. Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)
Birch, Nigel Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Neven-Spence, Sir B
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Haughton, S. G. Nicholson, G.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Butcher, H. W. Howard, Hon. A. Peto, Brig, C. H. M.
Challen, C. Hurd, A. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Channon, H. Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.) Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Prescott, Stanley
Cooper-Key, E. M. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Raikes, H. V.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E Keeling, E. H. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Crowder, Capt. John E. Kerr, Sir J. Graham Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Cuthbert, W N. Langford-Holt, J. Sanderson, Sir F.
Darling, Sir W. Y. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Shephard, S. (Newark)
Digby, S. W. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Dadds-Parker, A. D Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Drewe, C. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Duthie, W. S. Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight) Smithers, Sir W.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Fletcher, W. (Bury) Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Manningham-Buller, R. E. Studholme, H. G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) Walker-Smith, D. York, C.
Taylor, Vice-Adm, E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) Webbe, Sir H (Abbey)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. Wheatley, Colonel M. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) Major Conant and
Touche, G. C. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Major Ramsay.
NOES
Adams, Richard (Balham) Hale, Leslie Porter, G. (Leeds)
Allen, A C. (Bosworth) Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R Proctor, W. T.
Alpass, J. H. Hannan, W (Maryhill) Pryde, D. J.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Hardy, E A. Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Attewell, H. C. Harrison, J. Randall, H. E.
Austin, H. Lewis Hastings, Dr Somerville Ranger, J.
Ayles, W. H. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Rankin, J.
Ayrton, Gould, Mrs. B. Herbison, Miss M Rees-Williams, D. R.
Bacon, Miss A Hobson, C. R. Reeves, J.
Balfour, A. Holman, P. Rhodes, H.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Barstow, P. G. House, G. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Barton, C. Hoy, J. Rogers, G. H. R.
Battley, J. R. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Bechervaise, A. E. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Royle, C.
Benson, G Irving, W J Sargood, R.
Berry, H. Janner, B. Scott-Elliot, W
Beswick, F. Jeger, G. (Winchester) Shackleton, E. A. A
Bing, G. H. C Jeger, Dr S. W. (St Pancras, S. E.) Sharp, Granville
Binns, J. John, W. Shurmer, P.
Blackburn, A. R. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Silverman, J (Erdington)
Blyton, W. R. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Silverman, S S. (Nelson)
Boardman, H. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Skeffington, A. M.
Bowden. Flg.-Offr. H. W. Keenan, W. Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Kendall, W. D Skinnard, F. W.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Key, C. W. Smith, C. (Colchester)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Kinley, J. Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Bramall, E. A. Kirby, B. V. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Brook, D. (Halifax) Kirkwood, D. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Lang, G. Snow, Capt. J. W
Brown, George (Belper) Lawson, Rt. Hon, J. J. Solley, L. J
Brown, W. J. (Rugby) Lee, F (Hulme) Sorensen, R. W.
Bruce, Major D. W. T. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Burden, T. W. Leslie, J. R. Sparks, J. A.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Levy, B. W. Stamford, W.
Byers, Frank Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Steele, T.
Castle, Mrs B. A. Lewis, J. (Bolton) Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)
Chamberlain, R. A Lewis, T. (Southampton) Stokes, R. R.
Champion, A. J. Lipson, D. L. Stross, Dr. B.
Chater, D. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M Stubbs, A. E.
Chetwynd, G. R Longden, F. Swingler, S.
Cluse, W. S. Lyne, A. W. Sylvester, G O.
Collins, V J. McAdam, W. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Comyns, Dr L McAllister, G. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Cook, T. F. McGhee, H. G Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G Mack, J. D. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Corlett, Dr J. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Thomson, Rt Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Corvedale, Viscount McKinlay, A. S. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Cove, W. G. McLeavy, F. Thurtle, Ernest
Crawley, A. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Titterington, M. F.
Crossman, R. H. S. Mainwaring, W. H. Tolley, L.
Daggar, G. Mallalieu, J. P W Usborne, Henry
Davies, Harold (Leek) Mann, Mrs. J. Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.) Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Viant, S. P.
Deer, G. Manning, Mrs L. (Epping) Walkden, E.
Diamond, J. Marquand, H. A. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Driberg, T. E. N Mathers, G Wallace, H. W. (Waithamstow, E.)
Dumpleton, C. W. Mellish, R. J. Warbey, W. N.
Edelman, M. Middleton, Mrs. L Watkins, T. E.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Monslow, W. Watson, W. M.
Ewart, R. Moody, A. S. Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Farthing, W. J. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Fernyhough, E. Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Foot, M M. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Forman, J. C. Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Freeman, Peter (Newport) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (L'wish'm, E.) Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B
Gallacher, W. Mort, D. L. Wilkes, L.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S Moyle, A. Wilkins, W. A.
Gibbins, J. Neat, H. (Claycross) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Gibson, C. W. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Gilzean, A. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Glanville, J E. (Consett) Noel-Buxton, Lady Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Gordon-Walker, P. C. Orbach, M. Willis, E.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Parkin, B. T. Woodburn, A
Grierson, E. Paton, J. (Norwich) Yates, V. F.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Peart, Capt. T. F. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Piratin, P.
Guy, W. H Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Porter, E. (Warrington) Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons

Question put, and agreed to.

Sir A. Gridley

I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert: and the appointments which the Board or the Minister concerned proposes to make to the development council as the independent members of such council shall he considered in such consultations.'' It only needs a sentence or two to commend this simple Amendment to the Government. It provides that those whom the President of the Board of Trade proposes to appoint to the development councils shall be appointed after consultation with those in the industry whom he is charged to summon under this Clause. I am sure that the Paymaster-General would agree that those we appoint should be men who would merit the confidence of those engaged in managing and in producing in the industry under consideration. The President of the Board of Trade desires to have the good will of all sides of the industry, and I cannot conceive that he can possibly find any exception to this Amendment, which I hope he will except.

Mr. W. Shepherd

I beg to second the Amendment.

A good deal of the efficiency and success of the development councils will depend upon the care which is exercised in the selection of independent members. It is possible to foresee that an unwise selection of independent members would be sufficient to ruin a development council, and, therefore, we on this side are most anxious that the independent members selected shall have the confidence of those with whom they have to work. This Amendment suggests that in the consultations which normally must take place between the Minister and the industry the question of the selection of individuals to act as independent members must be considered.

There is a very great similarity between the position of independent members of the development councils and independent members of working parties. One feels that, as they have to work side by side over a long period of time, the members who form the backbone of the councils—the workers, on the one hand, and the employers, on the other—should have some say in making certain that the independent members are men in whom they have confidence.

5.0 p.m.

One does not want the independent members to be Government stooges, or to represent the London School of Economics or the City of London. One wants to have as independent members really practical men. It will he difficult to get such men to act as independent members, and for that reason, I hope the Paymaster-General will see the wisdom of this Amendment. If there is faulty selection of the independent members, the work of the development councils may well he jeopardised.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain one point? I see that his name is attached to the next Amendment on the Order Paper, in page 2, line 28. Does he intend to move that Amendment, which would mean that, if the present Amendment were carried, any consultations about the appointment of independent members would be embodied in a report to Parliament? In that case, it would certainly be difficult to get independent members.

Mr. Shepherd

The hon. Member had better wait and see what happens.

Mr. Marquand

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) that it is very desirable that industry should have confidence in the independent members. I hope I shall not be suspected of having any special affection for the London School of Economics, and I do not know why my right hon and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade should be suspected of such affection. There is every intention to appoint to the development councils not only persons who are well qualified by their knowledge of industry, their public spirit, and their honesty and uprightness, but also persons who will gain the confidence of members of both sides of industry In order to ensure that there shall be an opportunity for consultation in that way, provision has been made in the Bill, but it is made at the point at which such consultation would be wanted to take place. The Amendment refers to Clause r, in which we are dealing with the making of an order for the establishment of a development council

The point at issue is whether a given industry should have a development council. At that stage, one does not necessarily consider who should be members of the development council. When agreement has been obtained and it has been decided to set up a development council, one then proceeds to consider who ought to be on it, and at that point we find, in Clause 2 (5), a provision that a development council order may specify requirements as to the appointment of, and the tenure and vacation of office by, the members of the council, as to qualification or disqualification for membership, and as to bodies or persons whom the Board or Minister concerned is to consult before appointing persons to be members. Those words are included deliberately to take account of the desirability of there being consultation before the indepedent members, as well as the other members, are appointed. There is every intention of consulting both sides of the industry as to the acceptability of the independent members. I hope that with those assurances the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Lyttelton

As my name appeared to this Amendment, I will advise my hon. Friend to ask leave to withdraw it on the assurances which the Paymaster-General has given.

Sir A. Gridley

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lyttelton

I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert: and there shall be presented to each House of Parliament at the same time as the draft of the order is presented a report by the Board or Minister concerned on the consultations required under Subsection (3) of this Section. This Amendment covers a slightly different point. We recognise that in regard to consultation there is a difficulty. The Government wish to preserve the idea that there is no obligation upon them to take the advice tendered to them in the consultation; indeed, in matters of defence, we have had recently an example of how perfunctory the consultation with the Chiefs of Staff can be. The Government are always in a position to say, "We have to carry the responsibility, we have consulted this or that body "—they may or may not say so—" but we have decided to proceed on the following lines." The line of demarcation between informing the representative bodies either of the workers or the employers of what the Government intend to do, and consulting them upon what is the best course to take, is a very narrow one.

The object of the Amendment' is to bring out into the open what consultations have taken place so that the Government may be questioned as to exactly what points of view were put forward by either side in industry. It is quite a different point from the one which deals with the appointment of independent members to the development councils. We pressed for an Amendment of this sort in Committee, so that where there is a concensus of opinion in the industy against the composition of a development council, the Government will perceive it. The Amendment is designed merely to ensure that there would be a report to the House on the consultations, with the names of the bodies with whom the Government had consulted before the development council order was brought forward.

Mr. Marquand

The Government are in agreement with the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) in believing that Parliament should be informed of the views of the various parties in the industry on the Minister's proposals, but we do not welcome an Amendment which would compel the Minister to publish a report on the consultations, simply because we find it very difficult to see how a formal report of that kind would serve any useful purpose. Consultations with industry on matters of this kind are fairly intimate affairs. They do not consist of one or two strictly formal meetings, with people in attendance taking shorthand notes; they are informal meetings, soundings here and there, and they might even take place over a luncheon table; they might take place sometimes with two or three members of an organisation, leaving out some others.

There must be a certain amount of flexibility and informality in a situation in which it may be necessary to persuade a rather reluctant group of individuals to accept a desirable course of action. In the course of discussions of this nature the points of view of the members of the industry, and even the Minister's point of view, might undergo changes as the consultations proceeded. Modifications might be agreed upon, explanations accepted, and compromises negotiated. It would be difficult to give in a brief Parliamentary paper even a bare summary of the conclusions of a complicated series of discussions which would be accepted by all present as balanced and fair, and which would avoid the danger of reawakening controversies which were on their way to being settled. It would be undesirable to include in the Statute an absolute requirement for this purpose, but my right hon. and learned Friend certainly has in mind, not merely to have consultations, but also to give Parliament, when the time comes for the presentation of the order, an outline of the sort of discussions that have taken place. I feel that, on the whole, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. H. Roberts

We are informed that there are in this Bill two safeguards against Ministerial tyranny—one, consultation with interested parties, the other, approval by both Houses of Parliament. If the safeguards were to be a reality.one would have thought that there was not the least difficulty in furnishing a clear account of how the Minister has implemented the first before coming to Parliament to ask them to proceed with the second. It appears from the speech of the hon. Gentleman that consultations may be so very irregular and informal that no coherent account may be given without reawakening angry passions. I do not believe that. Any competent civil servant could perfectly well prepare a concise and reasoned account of consultations whether they took place at the Ministry, or over cups of coffee, or, indeed, anywhere else. There would not be the least difficulty if the will were there; if the will were not there then, of course, it would be very difficult indeed. If the idea is that this provision is not to be in the Act but that it is to be left to the will and pleasure of the Minister to tell the House from time to time as much or as little as he chooses, I agree that there are great difficulties. But the difficulties do not arise in the subject matter; they arise from the fact that in reality consultation is not at all welcomed by the Government.

Mr. W. Shepherd

I listened to the statement of the Paymaster-General and I and my hon. Friends on this side sympathise with the difficulty in which the Government may find themselves in this matter of recording consultations. However, we also find grave cause for concern in the feeling that exists in the minds of many manufacturers that they have not been consulted. In connection with many Bills, doubt and dispute are arising as to whether consultation has taken place. We had a dispute on the Floor of this House a little time ago as to whether a particular industry had been consulted in connection with the Statistics of Trade Bill. What we are seeking to do by this Amendment is to remove the element of doubt which exists and which may cause friction between industry and the Government in the application of this Bill. It is as important that industry should feel that it has been consulted as that it should, in fact, have been consulted, and we suggest that our Amendment—calling upon the Minister to give an account of the consultations. or even, perhaps, a list of the organisations consulted—would go a long way to reassure these people. It would, at any rate, show Members of the House which organisations had been brought into consultation with the Government. I hope that if the Minister is unable to accept the full implications of our Amendment he will at any rate give us an assurance that when an Order is brought before the House a list of the organisations consulted by him during the process of the negotiations will be laid.

Mr. Sparks (Acton)

I do not think that there is very much substance in the argument put forward from the benches opposite, and I believe hon. Gentlemen are stirring up what is very much a mare's nest. As I understand the Bill, the draft order would, in any case, be laid before each House of Parliament and if, in fact, there had been no consultation, or if there had been tyranny exercised by the Minister over some industry or organisation, I cannot imagine hon. Members opposite remaining dumb. As a matter of fact, when an order is presented to the House, that is the opportunity they will have of calling attention to any so-called tyranny or lack of consultation which now appear to them to be a danger.

5.15 p.m.

As for a report of the consultation, the only satisfactory one would be a verbatim record of what Tom said on the one hand, what Harry said on the other, and what somebody else said about this, that and the other, which is absurd. Unless we had a verbatim report the record would have to be put into very condensed form, and once we start condensing a report of that description it is always liable to be misinterpreted. I ask hon. Members opposite not to press this Amendment. As I have said, the opportunity to voice any misgivings which they may feel is open to them at any time when an order comes before the House for approval.

Mr. Lyttelton

Who will listen to them?

Mr. Sparks

Some of us will be there to listen to them, and in any case, I hope that the benches opposite will be full on such occasions. The Minister will not do these things behind the back of the House and I feel certain that if there has been any tyranny or unfairness the Opposition will have a great deal to say when an order comes before Parliament.

Mr. Challen (Hampstead)

I thought that the speech of the Minister emphasised the need for some report of the kind suggested in the Amendment. He made it quite clear that there may be the most informal consultations—as he said, over a luncheon table—and I cannot conceive anything that would give rise to greater apprehension than his holding a luncheon at, say, the Dorchester, with a few selected persons behind closed doors, at which a conclusion was reached about the appoint. ment of a development council for the whole of an industry—

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps)

If such a luncheon were at the Dorchester it would undoubtedly be at the invitation of an industrialist.

Mr. Lyttelton

Or a Cabinet Minister.

Mr. Challen

I was going on to say that such a proceeding would lead to a good many questions as to who was present and who paid the bill. The suggestion has been made that questions and complaints of this nature concerning hole-and-corner methods can be raised on the Floor of the House when the Government come forward with a development order, but we know very well that that is too late. Surely, it is clear that we are not asking for a complete report of all that is said, but for some indication of the nature of the consultations in order that we may decide whether we consider them sufficiently important.

Amendment negatived.