HC Deb 03 May 1949 vol 464 cc941-5
Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 61, line 39, to leave out "20,000," and to insert "50,000."

I think it would be convenient if we considered this Amendment and the Amendments in page 61, lines 41 and 44. at the same time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles)

If hon. Members would like to divide on each of these Amendments, Mr. Speaker has indicated his assent.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

We will reserve consideration of that problem until we have heard the reply of the Government. Even at this late hour, we are not without hope that the Govern- ment may take a more reasonable attitude to some of our Amendments.

The effect of the Amendment is, of course, to limit the operation of the Bill. We think that the Bill is an extremely bad one and will do a great deal of harm. The effect of increasing the amount from 20,000 tons to 50,000 tons will mean that the scope and degree of harm which the Bill will do will be limited, and for that reason alone this Amendment is a good one. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us on what principle he has acted in determining that the figure should be 20,000. I hope that it is not the case that he has arbitrarily selected that figure. There must have been some ground for selecting it rather than 50,000. If it is purely an arbitrary selection, I suggest that the figure of 50,000 is a much better figure for this purpose.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

I do not think the Opposition will be surprised if I oppose this Amendment. Of course, the figure of 20,000 is an arbitrary figure, as would be the figure of 50,000 which the Opposition seek to insert in its place. We naturally considered this matter at great length, and very carefully. We were anxious to bring into the new iron and steel organisation those major companies in the industry which really form the core of the industry, together with that section on the fringe of the industry, doing ancillary and subsidiary work, which really make up the iron and steel industry of this country, as it is generally known.

These companies could be made into an organisable and integratable whole—I apologise for the expression—which could be effectively run by the Iron and Steel Corporation without great difficulty, but which would nevertheless be large enough to allow measures for efficiency, economy, and reorganisation to be introduced in the industry. To insert the figure of 50,000 in the place of 20,000 would leave out a very large number of companies which we think ought to be included. We think that 20,000 is the right figure. I therefore ask the House to reject this Amendment, which would materially alter the structure and size of the organisation under the Corporation.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

I hope that my hon. Friends will press this Amendment to a Division. We had a useful and quite exciting discussion on this in Committee, when my hon. and right hon. Friends pressed the point of view that the only future for the British iron and steel industry lay in the fact of firms whose productivity was of the order of 20,000 to 50,000 tons being outside the Government sepulchre. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas), whose speech in Committee I have just been re-reading, will also contribute to this Debate even at this late hour.

It ought not to pass from the public consciousness altogether that, by reason of the arbitrary figure selected by the Minister, firm after firm, with famous names going right back into history, which have been brought to a high state of development by honest and courageous businessmen and their forefathers before them, are now seized by the Government, tightly embraced, made to conform to the wishes of the Government of the day, and not allowed to develop as they want towards one activity or another. They are cabined, cribbed and confined, and we foresee in this tight organisation a very serious danger for the future of our country. We do not think that from now on, technological development in industry will go forward at anything like the same rate, simply because there are—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The noble Lord must confine himself to the number of tons produced per year. He must not develop his present argument at too great length.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

I was about to say that, simply because there are set out in this Schedule, under the limitation of tonnage imposed by the Minister, so many companies which from now on will not be in an independent position to compete effectively against each other, we shall see, because of that lack of competition, less and less progress, and less and less technological development in industry. We therefore hope that the Government will accept our Amendment.

Mr. Ivor Thomas

The Minister has suggested that any figure that might be placed in the Schedule would be an arbitrary figure. That is the not the case. There is a figure at which the smelting of iron ore in the blast furnace becomes worth while and a figure at which the production of ingots becomes worth while. I do not profess to know what that figure may be, but there must be such a figure, and the consequence of the figure of 20,000 tons inserted by the Minister is that the sector of this great industry which is left in private hands will not be able to compete as efficiently as would otherwise be the case with the publicly-owned sector, for it will not have a production sufficiently large to make it worth while. I do not know what the real figures should be, but I know that 20,000 is not large enough.

Mr. Renton

This Bill has a potential merit which all its predecessors in nationalising industry have not had, and that is that by not nationalising all concerns, a degree of competition will be left. In order that the fullest possible advantage may be derived from that potential benefit, the degree of competition has to be real and substantial. If the Government make such a very low limit for compulsory acquisition, the number of firms left out and the size of them will not be sufficiently substantial to give the competition which will put the Corporation on its mettle and make it more efficient.

It is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not give the House some indication of the difference between the number of firms which will be taken over under the Bill as it stands and the number which would be taken over if the Amendment were accepted. Nor did he give the total amount of output covered by that difference. We are therefore to a very great extent in the dark as to the precise substance of the difference between the two sides of the House. However, we are at any rate agreed that a degree of competition should remain. It seems to me that the object which both sides of the House apparently wish to be fulfilled will be much better fulfilled if the Amendment is accepted. I hope the Government will give this matter a second thought.

Mr. Harrison

I would remind the House that some of our most efficient smelting plants are plants which produce less than 20,000 tons—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Gentleman will be out of Order in pursuing that line. He has to argue whether 20,000 or 50,000 is the correct figure to be inserted in the Schedule.

Mr. Harrison

I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I thought I might mention the fact that companies producing less than 20,000 tons include some of our most efficient companies.

Mr. Renton

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that some companies producing less than 50,000 tons are among our most efficient?

Mr. Harrison

I admit that equally. My point was that the limit of 20,000 does not exclude efficiency in the smelting of iron and steel. Ancillary undertakings make that possible. I thought it as well to draw the attention of the House to that fact at this juncture.

Amendment negatived.

9.15 p.m.