HC Deb 27 June 1951 vol 489 cc1530-9

Considered in Committee, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW

in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(APPOINTMENT AND FUNCTIONS

OF MINISTER OF MATERIALS.)

10.52 p.m.

Mr. P. Roberts

I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, at the end, to insert: except raw materials used in the production of steel. This Clause confers powers upon the Minister who is to be charged with functions relating to raw materials and other materials. The object of this Amendment is to exclude from his powers raw materials used in the production of steel. I have listened carefully to the Second Reading Debate, and to the speeches made on both sides of the House, and I felt that when we reached the Committee stage it would be proper to give the Minister an opportunity to say whether he would consider this point. I am grateful to the Minister for being in his place, because I wish to put to him a point which, I feel, is not political and will be supported, I hope, by hon. Members opposite.

The argument so far has been that the Minister hopes to control in one place, rather than from several places, the various licences, and so on, for which industry has to apply. While I can see the argument which he has made about leather or timber, or other commodities which he will take over from the Civil Service organisation or from other Departments, I find it difficult to do so in regard to steel, a large proportion of which is to remain in the control of the Minister of Supply.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his winding-up speech, said that certain of these raw materials were left behind because they were dealt with by the Iron and Steel Federation's buying organisation. One can understand that. But the Chancellor went on to say that these powers would only relate to ores, and that once the ores had been smelted the metal would come under the Ministry of Supply. If that is so, surely it is going to make confusion doubly worse. We will now have to deal not with one Ministry, but with two Ministries.

I was very much impressed by the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). He started his argument by saying that he thought it was bad that there should be a split between the two Ministries. He then went on to say, and in this I do not agree with him, that in that case ore should be given to the Minister of Materials. That is an argument which I would not accept, yet it underlines the argument which I am trying to make, of the split in the original proposal.

The object of this Amendment is to put back those raw materials, which the Minister is trying to control, to the Ministry of Supply—where they have been at least during the war, and for some time before. I see no good reason for a change in that policy, because what is going to happen to industry itself? At the moment, industry is hampered enough under the difficulties of nationalisation; that is another issue, and I shall not dwell on it, but there is the fact. Now, industry has to deal first of all with the new Corporation; and having got through that obstacle, it has to deal with the Ministry of Supply, and then with the Ministry of Materials; and the Ministry of Materials, having obtained the ore, industry has to go back and deal with the Ministry of Supply so far as the metal is concerned, and then deal with the Corporation.

I ask the Minister quite sincerely, is that a sensible and business-like proposal? Personally, I can think of nothing else which would do so much to make the muddle worse, and I do ask the Minister to consider this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) reminded hon. Members that the Minister will go, for example, to the United States, in his dealings in raw materials, and I "think it is accepted on both sides of the Committee that there will be important meetings. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that he should not be cut off from executive action; the Minister must have officers under him.

My point is that, with regard to the demands of the steel industry, the Minister will not have any executive officers under him. He will have to take the instructions of the Ministry of Supply and he will be, therefore, in exactly the same position as that envisaged by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe when faced by negotiators on the other side of the Atlantic. If it is a question of sulphur, or leather, or timber, for example, he will have the civil servants under his control and will be able to answer the questions. But, so far as the steel industry is concerned, he will be able only to take the instructions of the Ministry of Supply. It would have been better for the Minister of Supply or a junior Minister to go with him in order to deal with the questions with the force and authority of that organisation.

I do suggest to the Minister that if he does not accept the Amendment he will cause himself a lot of trouble; if he accepts it, he will be able to make a success of his Ministry in at least one respect. But if, instead, he is going to hang this stone of steel around his neck, he will have à great handicap from the very start. Materials in the making of steel cover an enormous range; the Minister, of course, knows that so well, and he must see the need for the Amendment.

I do not ask him to accept it in its detail; it may well need re-drafting, but I do ask him to accept the principle. In other words, if he will say that he will look at the Schedule to the Order in the White Paper and eliminate some of the raw materials from that Schedule, it will meet my point. But I do hope the Minister will not say that this is so wide as to cause difficulty of management. As I have intimated, I will withdraw the Amendment if he will accept the principle; if he does not accept the principle, he will take on something which is going to jeopardise his Ministry from the beginning.

Mr. Stokes

It may help the Committee if I answer the question at once and say why the Amendment is not acceptable to the Government. In Parliamentary language, it is what I think is known as a "wrecking Amendment."

11.0 p.m.

Hon. Members

Withdraw, withdraw.

Mr. Stokes

Certainly, I withdraw. The situation really is this, and I thought I had explained it in my opening speech this afternoon—that it is essential in the carrying out of negotiations on the other side of the Atlantic that I should have these materials under my charge. Secondly, if the words were accepted as an amendment to the Bill, it would preclude at some future date, if any Government so desired, the inclusion of the iron and steel trade in this Ministry.

There have been great arguments from the other side of the Committee asking why the iron and steel trade is not included. It comes, therefore, as something of a surprise to me to find it being proposed by the Opposition that iron and steel should be specifically excluded. It would be impossible for us to accept the Amendment, because it is essential that I should have under my control the procurement of the materials, some of which do not concern the iron and steel trade only, and, secondly, it is desirable—

Mr. P. Roberts

The right hon. Gentleman will not have these materials under his control. He can only accept what the Minister of Supply says is the position.

Mr. Stokes

That applies to quite a lot of things. It all adds up in the general summation of the required materials. Even if the arguments were accepted, it would be impossible to accept this Amendment, because it would preclude all possibility of including iron and steel at a later stage if it were found to be desirable.

Mr. Jennings

I have listened to the speech of the Minister and I am afraid I am not satisfied with his explanation. During the Debate we listened to a very forceful and good speech by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), who explained in great detail the effect of the control of these raw materials being in two different Departments, and he instanced the particular ores and particular materials that would be in one Department under one Minister and those which would be under another Ministry. I feel, as he said, that this would cause some confusion in having to deal with two different Ministries. I speak on behalf of the specialised iron and steel industry of the City of Sheffield where they make special alloy steel, and, goodness knows, the job is difficult enough to deal with one Ministry.

I have always been a great believer in this House that the less industry was mixed up with Government Departments the better for that industry, and I still take that view. Here we are getting the Minister of Raw Materials who is going to control certain special raw materials. It is true he has to produce them, but the allocation could be done through the Ministry of Supply and then the industry would know where it is. I do not think the procuration of the materials should have anything to do with the allocation.

I agree with the hon. Member for Rotherham that we are going to create greater chaos and greater confusion among the steel-producing people, particularly in the City of Sheffield. I ask the Minister, if he cannot accept these words, to do as my hon. Friend said, to see if he will not go some distance to put some common-sense into this control so that the people running this industry will know exactly where they are instead of having to deal with so many Government Departments.

I support this Amendment very strongly on behalf of the steel industry in Sheffield, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at it again and see if this double control cannot be eradicated and some form of sensible control put in its place so that the industry will be dealing with one particular Department.

Amendment negatived.

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

Mr. Fort (Clitheroe)

The Lord Privy Seal, speaking earlier this afternoon, emphasised his wish to have flexibility in the new arrangements for setting up the Ministry of Materials. Consequently, I should like to ask him if he would explain one point in Clause 1 (2) and, if necessary, have a small redraft made when the Bill goes to another place.

As I read that subsection, the enactments that are referred to in the Schedule can be applied to the new Ministry of Materials only in so far as they at present apply to the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Supply. If he looks at the Acts listed in the Schedule he will find that other Ministries are concerned, in addition to the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply. I should like his assurance that the functions of the other Ministries in so far as they are affected by the scheduled enactments can be transferred to the new Ministry of Materials if he finds such transfer desirable or that the necessary amendment will be introduced to make that possible.

The matter is of some substance. Among the other Ministries referred to in the scheduled enactments, and the materials for which they are at present responsible and which he may wish the Ministry of Materials to take over, are the following: the Ministry of Food, vegetable oils and sugar, which is the raw material for a small, though important, part of the chemical industry; the Ministry of Health, pharmaceutical products; and the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the large and important group of coal-tar chemicals.

Mr. Osborne

I was once told that the greatest virtue in politics is patience, and having sat here all day to try and put a point on behalf of the textile industry I am beginning to believe in the truth of that saying.

The Chancellor said that the appointment of a new Minister of Materials would add to the burden of the textile industry, and I want to underline that point. The Minister knows quite well that in the Economic Survey the burden was laid upon the textile industry, not only of supplying the home market with plenty of utility goods, but of filling the export gap that was going to be left by the reduced exports of motor vehicles.

The appointment of this Minister means that we are going to have two Ministries to deal with instead of one. Everyone who has to do business under the direction of Ministries knows that the fewer controls we have to comply with, the fewer directions we have to get, the better for our trade. Therefore, I want to make it quite clear that so far as the textile industry is concerned this is going to add to our burden. It may—to what degree none can tell—effect both our production for utility goods in the home market and it will certainly add to our troubles in the export trade.

I should like to make this last point. I suppose that apart from the right hon. Gentleman there is no one in the Committee who knows more about this new Ministry than the former President of the Board of Trade. On the appointment of a new Minister of Materials he said that the best that could be said for this appointment was that it would result in greater difficulties between Government and industry; the worst that could be said for it he would not care to express to the House. Yet he voted for it. As I promised, I will not develop the arguments I would like to have made on behalf of the industry with which I am concerned, but I must warn the Minister that if he adds to the burdens the industry is already carrying the results may not be as good as he would like.

Mr. J. Grimston

In everything the right hon. Gentleman has said it is clear that his eye is on Washington. He is regarding the powers conferred on him in the light of whether they will or will not be of use to him in bargaining at Washington. Will he also look at it from the point of view of increased production in the British Empire? I am convinced that that is where the main usefulness of this Bill is going to lie. For example, the solution to the non-ferrous metals shortage is in Northern Rhodesia; but the key to it is coal, which is in Southern Rhodesia.

The Deputy-Chairman

Order, order. That is going rather wide.

Mr. Grimston

This Clause confers certain powers on the Minister, and I want him to see that he has adequate powers to solve the problems not only in Washington but also in the British Empire, where the permanent solution is to be found.

Mr. Spence (Aberdeenshire, West)

I should like to add a word on the question of textiles, and to ask the Minister if he will give an assurance that he will bear in mind the importance of ensuring raw materials to that section of the trade dealing with exports of textiles. We in the industry have had every sort of exhortation to export our products all over the world, especially to the dollar countries, but so far there has never been any priority in the allocation of raw materials, except in the case of the rarer fabrics. I beg the Minister to look into this, and to give an assurance that the textile trade using wool for exports gets some sort of priority over that part of the industry which is concerned only with the home trade. If we are to do the job we ought to be doing in trying to make up the other export figures that have fallen short the industry must be given an assurance that the raw materials will be there.

Mr. Stokes

The powers that this Clause give me are general powers transferred from the other two Ministries, and I do not think that I can make any further alterations on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort). With regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) about the difficulty of having to deal with two Ministers instead of one, as he described it, I am aware—and I dealt with this at some length in my opening speech today, and so did my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—of the difficulty, and we are seeking every possible way of reducing inconvenience to industry to the absolute minimum. That there will be inconvenience I do not doubt at all. I accept that; but the over-riding consideration to me and to the Government is to ensure that there is a regular flow of raw materials coming this way sufficient to meet our needs. We consider this is the best way of tackling the job. We are doing our best to reduce the inconvenience to a minimum and I cannot promise more than that.

11.15 p.m.

With regard to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston), who alleged that my eyes were on Washington, that, of course, is partly true. But I should have thought it would have been abundantly clear from what I said in my opening speech this afternoon that the Government and I are very much alive to the important part which the Commonwealth can play in this matter. The announcement that a Commonwealth Conference of Ministers engaged in production has been called gives an assurance on that point, I should have thought. I certainly assure him that I have the power to enter into all necessary negotiations with the Ministers of Commonwealth countries in order to achieve the objective he desires.

With regard to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence), who asked about the textile trade, I am aware of the difficulty of diversion, even between procurement and distribution. The responsibility for dealing with the export trade rightly has been left to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. What materials go to which sections is his responsibility, but as he cannot be here tonight to hear what was said in the debate, I will certainly call his attention to what the hon. Gentleman said.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3. —(APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS

REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES.)

Mr. R. S. Hudson

I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out from "appoint" to "secretaries" in line 10. and to insert "such."

The effect of this Amendment would be to remove from the new Minister the power to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary. We think it is sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman to be added to the list of new Ministers and, as the work has already been done by the existing staff of the Ministers, plus the Parliamentary Secretaries, it ought to be carried on in future without a Parliamentary Secretary. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman does not dissent from this view.

Mr. Stokes

I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment, and I will tell the Committee why. I would first make it clear that I have no intention immediately of asking for a Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has authorised me to say that at the present time he has no intention of appointing one. But it would be quite wrong to set up a Ministry and exclude the possible need of a Parliamentary Secretary at a future date.

Therefore, in our view it is necessary that the arrangement should stand as it is in the Bill, and the Amendment should not be made. If it were made, it would not achieve the right hon. Gentleman's objective, because I am advised legally that leaving the word "secretaries" in the Clause would include the possibility of appointing a Parliamentary Secretary. The Amendment which he proposes to exclude the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary would effect nothing of the kind. Even if it did so, I could not accept it.

Mr. Hudson

I do not want to prolong the debate, but the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman tempt me to do so. For the Minister to get up and say that, supposing the House deliberately passed an Amendment forbidding him to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary in these terms, he would still be open to take advantage of the use of the word "secretaries" to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary, seems to me to fall little short of what has hitherto been regarded as indecent practice by Ministers towards the House. I am not going to pursue that matter, but I am advised to the opposite, and in view of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment read the Third time, and passed.