HC Deb 11 February 1953 vol 511 cc521-49
Mr. John Freeman (Watford)

I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, after "Britain." to insert: or to cease or diminish the provision of any production facilities in Great Britain. This Amendment is of considerable importance, but it may not be necessary to detain the Committee for long in discussing it because I should be very surprised if the Minister, assuming that he means some of the things he said in his Second Reading speech, does not make a fairly substantial concession towards meeting the point of this Amendment.

Briefly, the Amendment seeks to place upon the Board the same duties and rights in respect of contraction capacity in the industry as this Clause in any case places upon it in the case of expansion capacity. To see what the ostensible purpose of the Government is in this Clause, I propose to quote a couple of passages from the White Paper which they published prior to the introduction of the Bill. Paragraph 9 of the White Paper states: The Board will have the general duty of supervising the industry with a view to promoting the efficient, economical and adequate supply of iron and steel … A little later, after saying that one of the most important responsibilities of the Board will be to supervise capital development, the White Paper continues. in paragraph 13: If a company should put forward a major scheme which in the opinion of the Board would seriously prejudice the efficient am' economical development of the industry, the Board will have the power to restrain that company from embarking upon such a scheme. How can the Board have the power effectually to restrain a company from embarking upon a scheme which would seriously prejudice the efficient and economical development of the industry unless it has the power which we seek to give it by this Amendment?

It is not to be supposed that all schemes are necessarily going to be for the purpose of expanding capacity; they are just as likely, or more likely in the near future, to be schemes for contracting capacity. Since the war the emphasis of our economy, particularly in this industry. has been on expansion; but anybody can see that that trend is already beginning to go into reverse. National production has already fallen very dramatically when compared with the previous seven years. Some of our exports of steel manufactured products have fallen. Presumably that is due to Government policy; it is certainly the result of Government policy to disinflate the economy a good deal more sharply than its predecessors. Presumably that policy will continue.

As many hon. Members opposite have said, steel output is still increasing, and they expect it to go on increasing. Even allowing for the fact that engineering as a whole will probably continue for some time to be a relatively buoyant industry in the fields both of production and export, compared with some of the consumer industries, we must face the possibility that in the next year or two there will be a surplus of steel. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) who[...] when not being simply an entertainer, lets out a serious remark occasionally, warned us that there will be a quite substantial surplus of steel in the near future, and another hon. Member on the back benches opposite said that salesmen were already touting for orders. If that is true how can the Board possibly accept the responsibility of making a serious and comprehensive plan for this industry without having the same powers in relation to contracting capacity as the Bill gives them in the case of expansion?

If the companies are left to themselves —and we have heard a good deal this afternoon about the degree of independence they are to have with regard to production—we know from past experience that they will operate in pursuit of profit. They are not going to operate in the public interest. The whole purpose and substance of a great deal of the Minister's arguments on this Bill—in spite of paying lip-service to the doctrine of private enterprise—has been that we must harness the profit-seeking urge of private enterprise or we may have a situation too chaotic to be tolerated even by hon. Members opposite.

On Second Reading I said that a great many of these provisions for controlling private enterprise in the steel industry amounted to nothing more than a sham and a fraud. The Minister looked extremely hurt when I said that, and one of his right hon. Friends reproached me for using such strong language. I should like to believe what the Minister has said, but I am extremely sceptical. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If he wants us to believe that these supervisory powers which are given to the Board are anything more than a sham, he can go some way towards proving his point by giving us a satisfactory answer this evening.

It may be that there will not be very many occasions where this difficulty will arise. It may be that the powers already incorporated in the Bill will give the Board substantially the power which it is likely to have to use on most occasions. But it is absolutely inconceivable that circumstances will not arise from time to time in which the Board, deprived of the power which we now seek to give it, and, incidentally, of the duties and responsibilities which we now seek to give it, will be unable to make any sort of comprehensive plan.

I can foresee that the Minister might find himself in one difficulty about this, because he may say—and I concede that there is a certain substance in it if he says it—that, accepting the validity of some of the arguments which have been advanced, it is nevertheless not possible to place on the Board the duties of preventing a company from closing down something which belongs to it and which, in the interest of its shareholders, ought to be closed.

It is the Minister, not hon. Members on this side of the Committee, who is transferring the ownership of this industry from public to private hands, and if he wants to make the sort of point which I have put forward—that it is a great deal more difficult to do this when the industry is in private ownership than when it is in public ownership I shall agree with him; and, indeed, it is an excellent example of the point which we have so often emphasised from these benches that, whereas one can achieve a degree of negative planning under private ownership, one cannot achieve positive planning. The Minister has, therefore, created the difficulty for himself, if he wants to go any way towards meeting the point we make in the Amendment. It is his own difficulty and he must think of some way out of it.

While we were discussing Clause 4, it occurred to me that the Minister might say, concerning the power which the Board is given in Clause 5 to withhold consent in writing from a project of this kind, and concerning the proposal that it should be applied to a decrease of capacity, as I suggest, that some such power already exists by virtue of Clause 4 (3) which we have just discussed under which, of course, the Minister himself has power in certain circumstances, where it is in the national interest, to keep in use production facilities which would not otherwise be kept in use. But the intervention of the Solicitor-General in the recent debate—an unfortunate intervention in many ways, my hon. Friends felt— has made one thing quite certain: that unless there is some compulsory power here, the reference to Clause 4 (3) is completely irrelevant.

What we are seeking to do in the Amendment is to make certain that, where there is to be a decrease of capacity, two things shall happen: first. that notice shall be given in writing to the Board, and, secondly, the Board shall have power to withhold its consent. I think there is a slight distinction between the two. To begin with, even if the Minister were to argue that the power to withhold consent was, in the last analysis, unreasonable, nevertheless the necessity to give notice in writing is very important.

It is quite conceivable, and indeed, I think it is more than likely to happen, that in some cases the Board will not be consulted about these manoeuvres at all unless there is some sort of statutory obligation upon the companies to consult it. It is possible that a firm will reduce its capacity in some way without the slightest reference to the Board.

The consequences of that are two-fold. First, it makes certain that no general provision and planning of the industry which the Board sought to undertake would be effective. Secondly, it would make it extraordinarily difficult for the Minister, even if he wanted to do so, to call into use the powers which he has taken to himself under Clause 4 (3). There need be no notice at all of any intention to reduce capacity unless we insist on its being made compulsory at this stage in the Bill.

9.15 p.m.

There are, in fact, a number of other advantages in dealing with this matter on this Clause rather than on Clause 4. To begin with, in Clause 4 there is no obligation, so far as I can see, on the Board and the Minister to consult anybody else who may be interested, whereas in Clause 5 there is an obligation to consult representative organisations, and in cases of decreasing capacity, closing down of works, or whatever, that may be extremely important. Secondly, as I have already pointed out, the really major argument against the use of Clause 4 is that there is no compulsion in it at all.

There are various circumstances in which one could imagine that this compulsion to give notice would be absolutely necessary. Suppose, for instance, the Minister were to say in the last analysis "I am not prepared indefinitely to insist on a company, at the expense of its shareholders, keeping capacity going against the interests of the shareholders. Even so, it may be highly desirable that, for a limited period, it should be compelled to do so." Suppose a company came along and said it was going to close down some of its capacity with consequences, either economic or social, which the Minister thought undesirable.

Suppose that the Board, if it were given the power we are seeking to give it now, were to say, "We withhold our consent for the present, but will not withhold it indefinitely, but while we examine the situation to see what adjustments have to be made, either by way of capacity, or the provision of alternative employment, or whatever it may be, to cope with the situation." Once again, unless this power is given to the Board in this Clause, I cannot see that there will ever be any means whatever of slowing down such an operation while the Government have time at least to think about it.

I think it is almost inconceivable that the Minister or any hon. Member on the other side of the Committee can allege that the giving to the Board of the sort of power I am suggesting could lead to very serious abuses. One of the advantages about Clause 5 is that it is absolutely hedged around with safeguards. First of all, the company which is proposing to change its capacity has to give notice. Then the Board has got to make up its mind whether it consents, and before it withholds its consent it has to consult, and can withhold its consent only for certain particular reasons—reasons which we hope to add at a later stage. Finally, if the Board does in the end withhold its consent, there is the right of appeal to the Minister.

When one moves Amendments of this kind it really is no good merely putting forward an argument which one side of the Commitee believes to be cogent if it is perfectly obvious that it goes directly against what the Government side of the Committee believes. At least, one can move such an Amendment, and it may be good fun to do so, but one does it knowing one has no chance of succeeding. In this case, however, I ask the Minister most seriously to consider whether anything we are proposing is in any way damaging either to the Bill as it stands or to his political doctrine, because he is the person who, at stage after stage in the discussions, first on the White Paper, then on the Bill, has assured us that he wants a steel industry which is susceptible to public control, to be answerable to the public interest, and that he believes that he can get it under public ownership.

We have warned him again and again that we do not accept that view and that he is creating difficulties for himself. We are now getting to the point where one of those difficulties arises. He cannot really believe that the Board can carry out the general obligations which are placed on it by this Bill, and which are clearly defined in the passages I have already quoted from the White Paper, unless it has exactly the same powers in relation to substantial decreases of capacity as it has to substantial increases.

There may well be—there are, indeed —difficulties with this Amendment—difficulties which are really more than just drafting difficulties, because I recognise that there is the problem of fitting this power which we are seeking to add through Clause 5 together with the decisions we have already taken on the powers under Clause 4. If the Minister says to us, "In the light of the powers that I have already under Clause 4 I propose to deal with the matter in a slightly different way from that advocated by this Amendment," then we shall accept that. But lest there be any doubt about what it is that we want, the test we shall apply to the answer that the Minister gives us is this: does this solution impose upon the company seeking to close down its works or to change its capacity the obligation, first of all, to give adequate notice to the Board that it is going to do so; and, secondly, that notice having been given. does either the Minister or the Board— we think preferably the Board—have the power to stop it happening if it is clearly against the public interest?

Mr. Robson Brown

I am in full agreement with the general spirit of this Amendment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to find some form of words which will interpret the sense of the Amendment, namely, that full and adequate notice in writing shall be given by any firm which proposes to close down any undertaking. That part of the Amendment should have the sympathy of this side of the Committee. The social consequences of arbitrarily closing down a works are well known to everyone, and the significance to families is something that I do not need to enlarge upon. I am satisfied that there can be no set of circumstances which would compel any company to close down a plant permanently at a moment's or a week's notice, and a proper and adequate period of notice is highly desirable.

That part of the Amendment which suggests that the closing down of any works shall not be carried out without permission in writing from the Minister or from the Board is something that the Minister should look at again. A tremendous power is given there which could drive a company into financial ruin, and I do not think that that should be allowed to happen.

My own feelings in this matter are that I favour the Amendment in the sense that there should be adequate consultation with the Board about the closing down of a works so that every means is considered by which it can be continued in operation, and that the Board should be wholly satisfied that everything has been done to continue operations. That is necessary, desirable and humane, but I have grave doubts about the second part of the Amendment, and I am afraid that I could not support it.

Mr. Jack Jones

I intervene only to put a point of view which may not appeal to anyone else in the Committee. I support the very eloquent plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman) and I desire to put to the Committee a rather different slant on this question of diminishing capacity.

In the steel industry it is possible to diminish capacity and improve earnings. That sounds fantastic, but it is perfectly easy to take a plant currently producing 5,000 tons a week and reduce its output until it is producing 1,000 tons a week or less. By that conversion the value of the steel produced at the rate of 1,000 tons a week is of a higher value than that produced at the rate of 5,000 tons a week. To do it the furnaces producing the 5,000 tons have to be diminished in capacity, because a fine quality type of steel cannot be produced in high productive types of furnaces.

If a concern reports to the Board its intention to diminish capacity, the Minister should first discover the over-all national trend in that type of production and the amount of that particular quality before reaching a decision on the subject. I put this forward to reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. P. Roberts

I ask the Minister to be very careful when considering this Amendment. First, I think that it will be quite impracticable to work it. I hope that the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman), who moved the Amendment, realises the difficuIty, which is that one cannot make a firm, a business or an individual do something efficiently which he does not want to do. That is the great stumbling block to this Amendment, and that is why I think the Minister must be very careful when he looks at it.

With regard to notification, I admit that there is some point in the argument which the hon. Member advanced. I would, however, again warn the Minister that there is the danger, as I hope to point out to the Committee later, of a certain amount of unnecessary bureaucracy under this Clause. The provision concerning notification of the diminution of production capacity will have to be very carefully defined, otherwise a firm or a business which is merely going to take one furnace or one small section of plant off for some time might have to give notification to the Board. I am certain that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee do not want that.

I suggest to the Minister that if we are to have notification it should be about something which is clearly understood, such as the closing down of the firm itself or the closing down of productive capacity in the neighbourhood of some money value, such as £250,000. There must be some definition, otherwise we shall saddle the industry with more paper work, which will not assist the idea behind this Amendment, but will merely tie up the firms and the Board with unnecessary paper work.

I therefore hope that the Minister will not try to make anybody carry on a business which he does not want to carry on, and secondly, on the question of notification, I feel that there should be some clear limits defining that notification.

Mr. Mitchison

As the two hon. Members who have spoken from the Government benches have recognised, there are really two points in this Amendment. The first is notification. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) recognise the necessity of that, and I agree with his conclusion and his reasons for it. There can be no doubt that without notification of this kind the Board will be required to carry out its duties, as it were, with one arm tied behind its back the whole time. There is every reason in common sense. and having regard to the history of the industry, to have changes of this sort notified.

To the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) I would say this: bureaucracy and forms may be a good warcry, but when the history of the closing down of factories in this industry is considered, I hold that kind of matter of little account compared with the social consequences which may be caused by an ill-considered and unpatriotic closing down of works for reasons that may suit some particular firm. If that kind of thing is to be avoided. then I think we must be prepared to accept a little inconvenience to some few of the people who run the industry in return for avoiding the human horrors that the past have shown us in this kind of matter.

9.30 p.m.

Lest I be accused of being merely sentimental about this, I will put it to the hon. Member and to the Minister on another ground. What it is proposed to do even by way of notification is merely to let the Board know what is proposed. If we attempt to limit the scope of the notification by the sort of general suggestion which the hon. Member made rather vaguely, we shall open the door to all sorts of evasion. We may say that it shall not be done beyond a certain amount or a certain capacity, but the door will be open for it to be done by means of a succession of manœuvres each of which will be within the prescribed limit.

In a case of this sort, by far the simplest plan is to make people say what they are going to do and then leave it to the Board to say whether or not any action shall be taken about it. I would agree with a very small exemption, something so trivial that it did not matter, provided it were clear that it was not in the form to which we are so accustomed in dealing with Stamp Duty, a series of transactions. I would certainly not go beyond that. Every time I should be inclined to err on the side of making someone fill up a few more forms if it were worth doing in the national interests and in the interests of the full employment of those engaged in. the industry. I would take a chance on more forms and less suffering rather than fewer forms and more suffering.

The second point is a slightly different one. The Clause as drawn requires any proposal which has been notified to receive the consent of the Board before it is carried into effect. I entirely share the views of my right hon. Friend that we must have some limit. Obviously, once the industry has been driven back into the arms of private enterprise we cannot expect to avoid all the evil social consequences that that inevitably entails. One is that we cannot oblige people to carry on steel works indefinitely when they do not want to. Consequently, we get the kind of thing that I remember with a horrid vividness. I remember "Dirty Dowlais," as it was called, in the years between the wars when the whole of that Welsh township was thrown into misery and unemployment because, for good technical reasons, an iron and steel company closed down its works there. I remember other such places in Wales; Merthyr Tydfil was one.

I also remember to this day the streets of Jarrow on a February night when there had just been some change in the unemployment regulations and the only thing that concerned the population of that miserable town was whether or not they would get any more dole as a result of the change. They had given up hope of work. I remember to this day one of the reasons they had given up hope of work. The steel barons had refused to allow a certain firm to start a new steel works in Jarrow just when it was particularly needed. I will not dwell on that because it is within the recollection of most hon. Members, and I feel certain, since we are human beings, that it is within the sympathy of all of us. Let us at any rate do what we can to ensure that that kind of thing never happens again.

Accepting as I do that we cannot oblige a private concern to continue running something at a loss when it does not want to which is probably what will be said about this matter—I want to look for a moment at what is in the Bill. If I may summarise the position, the Minister has certain powers, under the Clause which we have just been discussing, to keep on, in certain emergencies, in the national interest, productive capacity which would otherwise be disused. Of course, if he is to do that he must know that it is to be disused, and without this Amendment I see in the Bill no means that he will have for discovering that, except by one of those happy accidents which I hope fall to those fortunate people who occupy Ministerial posts, but on which we ought not to reckon as a matter of course in our legislative proceedings.

I therefore suggest that if the Minister has to take any action in the matter, there should at least be some means or other of providing him with the information that there is to be a case. I think we agree about that. Let us take the case—assuming this Amendment to have been accepted—of a company intimating to the Minister or the Board that they intend to close or make a substantial reduction in capacity. What will happen? Mr. So-and-so—I can see him in my mind's eye but it would be invidious to mention any names, and he would probably have been knighted by then—appears at the door to tell the Minister or the Board that he intends to shut down the steel works which are the one source of employment at, let us say, some place in my constituency, which, after all, includes Corby.

The Minister finds that this is a shock, but we are not concerned with smelling salts for the moment. We are more concerned with what the Minister intends to do. It is true that he has power to make arrangements for someone else to carry on these activities as soon as he has recovered from the shock, but that will take him a little time, and one of the important things for which we are asking by this Amendment is that he should have some opportunity of saying to Mr. Tiddlywink, who has come with this sinister and sudden message, "Hold your hand a little. You will put the whole of that town out of work, and the social consequences of what you intend to do will be the misery and unemployment of a large body of your fellow citizens."

Surely it is reasonable that in those circumstances the Minister and the Board should between them be allowed to say, "Stop, hold your hand, give me time to make arrangements. Come back in three months' time, if you like, and ask again, but for the moment you must carry on because, important though your private profits are, the way in which your fellow citizens have to live in this town is even more important, and I must have time to make the arrangements which I am empowered to make." He is so empowered under subsection (3) of the previous Clause which we have just been discussing.

That seems to me to be the most important effect of this Amendment. After all, the safeguards are important. Here we have a case where, if there is a question of consent, not only has it to be within the limit prescribed but it has in fact to be with the consent of the Board, with at any rate full consultation with a large body of people such as the Board may consider appropriate, and the definition of "representative organisations" is to be considerably enlarged. It has also, by reason of the powers of the Bill, to be with the consent of the Minister.

I take the view, as I hope the Committee will, that in a matter of this sort, instead of trying to limit, by some legal definition in an Act, the circumstances under which the power can be exercised, it is very much better to recognise that those circumstances will differ from case to case, that there are cases in which the power will be necessary and that the sensible thing to do is to leave the power within the discretion of the responsible authorities, taking abundant care that every proper person is heard, and that there is an appeal if the first authority concerned makes a mistake in the matter.

This Clause provides for that, and I suggest that the sensible thing to do, having regard to the obvious necessity for it in many cases, is to provide for it simply in the terms of our Amendment and assume, because, after all, one can assume, that both the Board and the Minister will occasionally, at any rate, usually we hope, in a matter of this sort be reasonably sensible in its application.

I do not want to pay the Minister too many compliments, but I hope he will appreciate that we would believe in him and the Board, at any rate that far. For those reasons, I think the difficulties put from the benches opposite were exaggerated. The Clause obviously is needed. and I hope the Minister will accept it, at any rate in principle.

Mr. Sandys

The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman) and other hon. Members have pointed out that this Amendment would have two effects. The first would be to empower the Board to require a producer to notify the Board if he intended to close down the whole or any part of his works. The second would be to take away the right of a producer to close down all or part of his works without the consent of the Board. I will deal with the second effect first because, from the standpoint of hon. Members opposite, I think it is the more important.

I hope that hon. Members opposite will recognise that I am as much concerned as they are about the unemployment and social effects which might result from closing down a works. We must assume that we all have good intentions and that we are all moved by the same human kindness as was expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). Let us look at this from a practical point of view. In the main, it can be assumed that a company would wish to close down its works only if it was uneconomic to keep them in production.

As a general rule I think hon. Members will agree that it is unsound from any point of view to keep uneconomic plant in production even including the sociological point of view. That applies to State owned as much as privately owned industries. We have the example, very much in our minds at the moment, of the tinplate industry in South Wales. The former Government publicly recognised some years ago that, when the new continuous strip mill at Trostre came into production, it would inevitably involve the closing of a number of the old hand mills which had become obsolete.

The former Government, wisely in our view, did not attempt to interfere with this process of industrial modernisation. I believe that they were right, not only from the economic point of view; not only from the standpoint of the efficiency of the industry but also, taking the longer view, in the interest of employment in the area. There is nothing worse than to stand in the way of the modernisation, rationalisation and improvement of an industry, because, sooner or later, in a competitive world, there will be unemployment on a much larger scale. The tinplate industry in South Wales is, of course, State owned. I do not wish to criticise or to make any party point. I have already said that I think that the policy towards the tinplate industry was inevitable. It was right and it was welcomed by the working population in the area. I am merely making the point in reply to some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Watford.

9.45 p.m.

It is the duty of the Board to promote efficient and economic production. It is no part of its business to prevent the closure of obsolete plant which can no longer be run economically. However, I realise, as I think all hon. Members realise, that there may be special cases. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) emphasised that such cases would not necessarily be numerous. There may be special cases where it is in the national interest for an uneconomic plant to be kept in production. If so, we maintain that the decision to keep it in production should be taken by the Government, which is in a position to judge what is or what is not in the national interest. We consider that the Government should shoulder the responsibility and we have, therefore, provided a power for this specific purpose in Clause 4 (3), to which the hon. Member for Watford referred. Under that subsection the Minister can acquire and keep in production works which would otherwise be closed.

The hon. Member for Watford said that it was no good our relying upon Clause 4 because, among other reasons, it did not provide for proper consultation. I do not think that he is correct. Under subsection (3), which is operative on this point, the Minister, who is given the power in this respect, has to consult the Board. In turn, the Board. under Clause 4 (1), has to consult the representative organisations. They include not only the employers but also the representatives of the trade unions concerned.

I think that the hon. Gentleman will see that, so far as Clause 4 (3) is applicable—I know that he is not entirely satisfied that it covers the point completely— it is not open to criticism on the ground that there would be insufficient consultation.

Mr. Mitchison

No doubt in subsection (3) there is provision for consultation with the Board, but there is no provision for consultation by the Board with representative organisations. As I understand, there is no provision for consultation on the question of maintaining existing production.

Mr. George Chetwynd (Stockton-on-Tees)

Does not Clause 4 deal solely with additional productive capacity, and not with the closing down of existing capacity?

Mr. Sandys

I am sorry, but that is the way I read it. If that is not satisfactory, I am prepared to look at it. In my view Clause 4 enables the Minister to consult the Board. Perhaps I am wrongly assuming that we are to have responsible and sensible people on the Board, and that, if the Minister consults them on a point, they will seek the advice of those who can express an informed opinion on the subject before advising the Government.

If it is felt that some of these things which we are, I think rightly, taking for granted should be put in black and white we can go ahead on the assumption that we have got an idiot Board and that every single thing which we expect them to do has to be set out in the Bill. I realise the importance which is attached to this, and I will undertake to look at the point and see whether the provisions about consultation in Clause 4 (3) are satisfactory. If they are not, I will see whether something could be put in to make that point quite clear.

Apart from these semi-legal considerations, I should like to say that, in our opinion, it is quite unrealistic to try to compel a company to continue in production, notwithstanding that it may be running at a loss. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) said, in such circumstances the company might be driven into bankruptcy. The suppliers, of course, would, quite naturally, refuse to deliver materials, and, Board or no Board, the works would very soon come to a standstill. In short, our considered view on this question is that it is neither right in principle nor feasible in practice to give the Board the power to refuse to allow a company to close down its works.

The question of notification, with which the second part of the Amendment is concerned, is quite a different matter. I recognise, and I am sure that all hon. Members recognise, the hardships and the damage which can be caused by sudden and needlessly abrupt closure of works. It is more than ever important, in a Bill which provides power for the Government to keep in production works which would otherwise close, that the Government and the Board should be kept fully informed as far in advance as possible of any impending closure of any substantial units in the industry.

I am assuming that the Board will work smoothly, intelligently and responsibly, and I am confident that this will happen naturally and automatically, through the exchange of views and information which we expect will take place regularly between the Board and the industry on all questions of production and capacity. In addition, the Board can, if it wishes, specifically call for information of this kind under the new Clause 13, which I am proposing to move later, in place of the present information Clause on the Order Paper.

It seems, however, that there is a general wish in the Committee for some specific reference to the duty of notifying the Board about closures to be included in the Bill. That being so, I undertake to look at the legal implications in drafting such a provision, and I can assure the Committee that it is my firm intention to introduce an Amendment to meet the point on the Report stage.

Mr. Lee

I am sure the Committee are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in his concluding remarks regarding the necessity for notification. That, of course, would not give the Board any power to refuse to allow a works to close down. Therefore, we are driven back to the point that only in the event of a plant proving to be uneconomic would a firm wish to close down either the whole or part of it.

Hon. Members on this side of the Committee are only too well aware that at a time when the Government are telling us that they hope to end rationing of steel and price control of every type and description, it may well be that if a firm making tool steels and such like were to decide to put into operation the law of supply and demand, it would be a paying proposition for them to decrease their products upon which the industry itself and the consuming industries depend in order to raise the selling price of a decreased quantity of commodities.

Though the Minister deployed his argument very clearly on the question of uneconomic plant, I wish he had given a little consideration to the point that there may well be a small section of the steel industry making special steels which would have the power to hold to ransom not only the whole of the steel industry, but also, for example, the engineering industry to whom special steel tools of various types are vitally necessary if they are to continue their job of cutting mild steel, and so on.

I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to that fact, because in our experience it is not necessarily the uneconomic plant which might close down. I should have thought that an added reason why the Minister should put this into the Bill is the fact that there is no longer a Consumers' Council in existence. This is the sort of case which a Consumers' Council would have put to it. For instance, if certain consumers were jeopardised regarding supplies because of the threatened closing down of a steel producing plant, the Council would have been competent to deal with the matter. The fact that there is no longer a Consumers' Council makes it all the more important that the Minister should guard against the type of practice to which I have referred.

10.0 p.m.

We have not yet been told why there should be de-nationalisation of the steel industry. I do not want to argue the point now, but that just happens to be a fact. What are the reasons which the Government advance for making such a dynamic change? First, this industry is in fact making considerable profits, and so it cannot be the profit motive. Second, the industry is now producing at a higher level than before, so it cannot be because the industry is inefficient in its production. Therefore, the only other reason that should be in the mind of the Government in making a change is the social consequences of leaving matters as they stand at present.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) have made very human pleas on this question of social consequences. I hope that the Minister will concede that, in considering this kind of Amendment, one of the three points which I have raised should guide him. The first two are out of consideration because profits are being made and production is increasing, so I hope that he will give more consideration than he has done up to now to the social consequences and that ultimately he will accept the argument behind this Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

The Minister was quite right when he said that we consider this problem of the notification of the closing of works as of the highest importance. We do so because we are aware, as indeed he is, that nowadays if one closes down a steel works or curtails its production seriously one may be killing a township and a whole community, destroying, not only the lives of large numbers of people who work in steel plants, but of shopkeepers and professional workers and people engaged in all kinds of trades and activities. Their livelihood and their future and the future of their wives and families may be destroyed by a decision which in the past has been taken irresponsibly by directors of companies with no or very little responsibility to the public. Indeed, they could not have had, and I do not blame them for that.

We want to be assured that under the new set-up which the Government are proposing, no such human tragedy, particularly on a big scale, shall take place unless it is absolutely essential and unless there are very sound economic reasons for it and unless all the social factors have been taken into account. All those things must be balanced. We got out of that difficulty to a certain extent, though not entirely, in our scheme of nationalisation when the responsibility for closing works was placed squarely upon the Corporation, as the Corporation admitted it in their annual report.

They admitted that they were responsible and answerable. If they had to continue in operation works which were uneconomic and likely to be so for a long time they would no doubt come to the Government and would want to know what support the Government were prepared to render to keep that particular works in operation. The bias was there, not only for dealing with curtailment of productivity, but for keeping works going if there was a good social case and it was not uneconomic to do so.

The Minister has said today that he is trying to meet us, that realising our anxiety in the matter he is prepared to consider an Amendment so that the Board shall at least be notified in advance of any closing of works. But I hope that also includes any proposal seriously to cut down the output of work, which might indeed affect the employment of hundreds of thousands of people. I do not think there is much difficulty about that. As the right hon. Gentleman said, normally the Board will get to hear of any big closing down. The question is what is to happen after that. Here the right hon. Gentleman says that once the Board are notified of any closing down, under Clause 4 (3) the Government, if they so wish, can step in and buy the works if that is necessary to keep them going.

We should be fully satisfied with that answer if, in fact, the Minister were able to buy the works if he thought it desirable to do so. But the Minister has just rejected an Amendment which gave him compulsory powers to buy works going out of production or where the full facilities were not going to be used. Under the Bill he is only allowed to buy such works by agreement, and one can conceive of any number of reasons why the owners of works would not want to sell them to the Minister.

They might want to change the user. They might want to do all sorts of things which would not make them interested in selling to the Minister. There might be cases where they would think it better for the shareholders to hold out for a year or two to get a better price, or where they might think that the Government might give in in a year's time because the international situation was worsening and they would want to buy the works for defence purposes.

Therefore, however strong the social case may be for keeping alive a works, and even if there is an economic case, the Minister is unable to do so, because he refused the powers we asked him to take just now, to keep the works alive if the owners are not prepared to sell them to him or are prepared to do so only if he is willing to pay a price which the Treasury may justifiably say is unreasonable.

As a result of the offer which the Minister has made, we are to have at a later stage an Amendment whereby any closing of works is to be notified to the Board, but because of his refusal to accept our last Amendment and, indeed, his general unwillingness to interfere with the iron and steel industry, he refuses to arm himself with powers to take over a works which is going out of production, however strong the case.

As the Government are deprived of a power which they ought to have, not only in the interests of the steel industry and its consumers but also very largely the interests of the workers in the industry,

and as the Government refuse the power to keep works alive where they believe that on social and economic grounds it is desirable to do so, we are unable to accept the right hon. Gentleman's conciliatory speech because it does not touch the root of the matter, and we propose to support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 245.

Division No. 88.] AYES [10.10 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Albu, A. H. FoIli[...]k, M. Mainwaring, W. H.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Foot, M. M. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Forman, J. C. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mann, Mrs. Jean
Awbery, S. S. Freeman, John (Watford) Manuel, A. C.
Baird, J. Freeman, Peter (Newport) Mayhew, C. P.
Balfour, A. Gibson, C. W. Mellish, R. J.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Glanville, James Messer, F.
Bartley, P. Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mikardo, Ian
Bence, C. R. Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) Mitchison, G. R.
Bann, Wedgwood Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Moody, A. S.
Benson, G. Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Morley, R.
Beswick, F. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (LlaneIly) Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Bing, G. H. C. Griffiths, William (Exchange) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Blackburn, F. Hale, Leslie Moyle, A.
Blenkinsop, A. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mulley, F. W.
Boardman, H. Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Murray, J. D.
Bowden, H. W. Hamilton, W. W. Nally, W.
Bowles, F. G. Hannan, W. Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Hargreaves, A. Oldfield, W. H.
Brockway, A. F. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Oliver, G. H.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Hastings, S. Orbach, M.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hayman, F. H. Oswald, T.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) Padley, W. E.
Burton, Miss F. E. Herbison, Miss M. Paget, R. T.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Hewitson, Capt. M. Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Callaghan, L. J. Hobson, C. R. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Carmichael, J. Holman, P. Palmer, A. M. F.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Houghton, Douglas Pannell, Charles
Champion, A. J. Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Pargiter, G. A.
Chapman, W. D. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Parker, J.
Chetwynd, G. R. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Plummer, Sir Leslie
Clunie, J. Hughes, Heotor (Aberdeen, N.) Popplewoll, E.
Coldrick, W Hynd, H. (Accrington) Porter, G.
Collick, P. H. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Cove, W. G. Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Proctor, W. T.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Isaaos, Rt. Hon. G. A. Pryde, D. J.
Crosland, C. A. R. Janner, B. Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Jeger, George (Goole) Reid, William (Camlachie)
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) Rhodes, H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Johnson, James (Rugby) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Roberts, Cor[...]nwy (Caernarvon)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Jones, David (Hartlepool) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Deer, G. Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Ross, William
Delargy, H. J. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Shackleton, E. A. A.
Dodds, N. N. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Short, E. W.
Donnelly, D. L. Keenan, W. Shurmer, P. L. E.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Kenyon, C. Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J C. King, Dr. H. M. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Edwards, John (Brighouse) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Lewis, Arthur Stater, J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Lindgren, G. S. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) MacColl, J. E. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) McGhee, H. G. Sparks, J. A.
Ewart, R. McGovern, J. Steele, T.
Fernyhough, E. McInnes, J. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Fienburgh, W. McLeavy, F. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Finch, H. J. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn Williams, David (Neath)
Swingler, S. T. Viant, S. P. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Sylvester, G. O. Wallace, H. W Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Weitzman, D. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Taylor, John (West Lothian) Wells, Percy (Faversham) Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth) West, D. G. Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Thomas, David (Aberdare) Wheatley, Rt Hon. John Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Wheeldon, W. E. Wyatt, W. L.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin) White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) Yates, V. F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) While, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Thorneyoroft, Harry (Clayton) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Tomney, F. Wigg, George Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins.
Turner-Samuels, M. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A B
NOES
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Fell, A. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Alport, C. J. M. Finlay, Graeme McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Fisher, Nigel Macdonald, Sir Peter
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F McKibbin, A. J.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Fletcher-Cooke, C. McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Arbuthnot, John Fort, R. Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Foster, John Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Slone) MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Astor, [...]on. J. J. Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Baldwin, A. E. Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Banks, Col. C. Gammans, L. D. Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E
Barber, Anthony Garner-Evans, E. H Markham, Major S. F.
Barlow, Sir John Glyn, Sir Ralph Marlowe, A. A. H.
Baxter, A. B. Godber, J. B Maude, Angus
Beach, Maj. Hicks Gough, C. F. H Medlicott, Brig. F
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Graham, Sir Fergus Mellor, Sir John
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Gridley, Sir Arnold Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Grimond, J. Mott-Radclyffe, C. E
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston) Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Nabarro, G. D. N
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Nicholls, Harmar
Birch, Nigel Hall, John (Wycombe) Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Bishop, F. P. Harden, J. R. E. Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Black, C. W. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Nield, Basil (Chester)
Boothby, R. J. G. Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Bowen, E. R. Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Nugent, G. R. H.
Boyle, Sir Edward Harvie-Watt, Sir George Nutting, Anthony
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Hay, John Odey, G. W.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Heald, Sir Lionel O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Heath, Edward Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Browne, Jack (Govan) Higgs, J. M. C. Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Bullard, D. G Hill, Mrs. E. (Wynthenahawe) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
BulIus, Wing Commander E. E Hirst, Geoffrey Osborne, C.
Burden, F. F. A. Holland-Martin, C. J. Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Hollis, M. G. Perkins, W. R. D.
Campbell, Sir David Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich) Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Carr, Robert Holt, A. F. Peyton, J W. W.
Carson, Hon. E. Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Cary, Sir Robert Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Channon, H. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence Pitman, I. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Powell, J. Enoch
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Howard, Greville (St. Ives) Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth. W.) Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Cole, Norman Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Profumo, J. D.
Colegate, W. A. Hurd, A. R. Raikes, Sir Victor
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Rayner, Brig. R.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Hutchison, James (Scotstoun) Redmayne, M.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. Remnant, Hon. P.
Cranborne, Viscount Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. Renton, D. L. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Crouch, R. F Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Robertson, Sir David
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Jones, A. (Hall Green) Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W Robson-Brown, W.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Keeling, Sir Edward Roper, Sir Harold
Davidson, Viscountess Kerr, H. W. Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard
Davies, Rt. Hn Clement (Montgomery) Lambert, Hon. G. Russell, R. S.
Dighy, S. Wingfield Lambton, Viscount Ryder, Capt. R. E, D.
Dodds-Parker, A. D Langford-Holt, J. A. Sandys, Rt Hon. D.
Donaldson, Cmdr C. E McA Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Donner, P. W. Leather, E. H. C. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Ree[...]dale)
Doughty, C. J. A. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Soott, R. Donald
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm Legh, P. R. (Petersfield) Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R
Drayson, G. B Linstead, H. N. Shepherd, William
Drewe, C. Llewellyn, D. T Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Duncan, Capt. J A L Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Spearman, A. C. M.
Duthie, W. S Low, A. R. W. Speir, R. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Erroll, F. J. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard Tilney, John Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Stevens, G. P. Touche, Sir Gordon Wellwood, W.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) Turner, H. F. L. Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Turton, R. H. Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Storey, S. Tweedsmuir, Lady Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Strauss, Henry (Norwi[...]h, S.) Vane, W. M. F. Wills, G.
Summers, G. S. Vosper, D. F. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne) Wade, D. W. Wood, Hon. R.
Teeling, W. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) York, C.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford) Wakefield, Sir Woven (St. Marylebone)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W) Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) Mr. Butcher and Mr. Kaherry.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N Watkinson, H. A.
Mr. P. Roberts

I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, after "Britain," to insert: other than facilities costing less than two hundred and fifty thousand pounds in any one year. We turn from discussing the question of closing down steel works and production facilities to that of developing and creating production facilities. The point to which I wish to draw attention is that we are seeking the right to prevent a firm from spending its own money on its own property in its own way in order to provide employment for its own people. We are seeking to prevent an employer from exercising that right, and I suggest that any Conservative Administration must be quite satisfied that the safeguards in the Bill for the right of the individual are sufficient to prevent either the individual or the firm from suffering injustice or, what may be even worse, feeling a sense of injustice.

The Clause makes it imperative that any form of increase in production facilities shall be notified to the Board, if the Board so decide. There is no limit in the Bill to the amount of development which must be notified to the Board. On the face of it—and I sincerely hope that the Parlimentary Secretary can satisfy the Committee on this point—any increase in production facilities, any proposed development, must be notified to the Board if the Board if the Board define it as having to be notified. Even more important, the firm cannot go ahead with the development until it has received the approval of the Board.

I suggest that if we insert some sort of limit which will define for the Board the amount below which the firm need not notify, then we shall be preventing a form of bureaucratic control which, in my submission, would merely hinder the efficient production of steel. There was such a feeling in certain sections of the industry that the ironfounders, and those interested in iron founding and casting, have now been excluded—or will be—from this form of notification of development. Under the Bill as it stands there are various steel firms, who are coming within the orbit of the Bill, who were not within the orbit of the nationalisation Act. These are small firms, and many of them are situated in and around Sheffield, and some in Birmingham. I want to make certain—this is the point I put to the Parliamentary Secretary—that the Bill as at present drafted gives sufficient safeguard that these small firms will not have to give notification to the Board whenever they want a small industrial expansion.

The Clause as now drawn refers to the definition which the Board must make before notification is necessary, and one must assume, and I think the Committee will assume, that the Board, when it gives this definition, will not be unreasonable. I think we must accept that, but I would point out that the definition which the Board can give can be referred to by its size—in other words, tonnage size—by money. Or by a class of product.

Therefore, it is quite possible for the Board to define a special class of product; perhaps some special steel. In this case of special steel the development limit may be only £50,000 or £100,000 in any one year, because, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen appreciate, the production of this special steel, some of which amounts to as much as £200 per ton, does need special forms of development. I am particularly interested in the case if this form of special steel. Iwant to be certain that the Board cannot by its definition of class of product create a limit so low as to make the individual firm spend much of its time filling up unnecessary forms for small amounts.

The limiting definition which I have put in this Amendment is the figure of £250,000. I shall be very interested to hear from whoever is to reply for the Government whether in his view he thinks that the Board will deal with develop- ments of anything under £2 million. The suggestion I put to the Government is this, that if the Government are thinking of dealing with large developments of £2 million or £3 million, then obviously the Clause is drawn quite sufficiently for their purpose; but I do not believe that in the case of the small amounts it is the intention of the Government, or the intention of the Board, for that matter, to go into these small details.

I want to be quite certain that the Minister is satisfied that the Clause as it is now drawn does give the safeguards which I have outlined. There is also the question of a form of appeal, which we shall come to tomorrow. We want to be satisfied that the form of appeal is also a safeguard in this respect.

I will end—in order to give the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity to reply—by saying this, that in and around Sheffield, there is a number of firms who need the assurance that the Clause as it is now drawn cannot be used and will not be used for the small sort of development which I have outlined. If we can get that assurance from the Government, I am sure there will be a great deal of satisfaction.

Mr. Low

I should like to do my best in a very few minutes to satisfy the fears which my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) has put before the Committee. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that it is not the intention that the Board shall require small schemes to be submitted to them or that the Board shall have powers to refuse their consent to small schemes. My hon. Friend has mentioned one or two safeguards that he has found in the Bill. We considered various forms of words designed to exempt from submission all proposals which in their entirety, taking in any related proposals made over a period by the same firm, cost less than a specified sum.

But we found it was impossible to fix such an exemption into the Clause for this reason. Before the submission of any scheme the only person who could decide whether the cost of the proposal would be less than £x would be the manufacturer himself. It might well be that at the start of the work he genuinely felt that the proposal would cost less than £x, but that subsequently, for one reason or another, it was clear that it would cost more. What would happen then? Ought the Board to be able at that moment to stop all work while it considers the proposals and perhaps stop the scheme altogether? That clearly would be wasteful of resources and money and would be nonsensical. We could not come to the Committee with a proposal like that. So we chose to rely on the Board's good sense and on the wording of subsection (3) that consent could only be refused if the Board considered that the proposal will seriously prejudice the efficient and economic development of the production facilities in Great Britain. Then there are further safeguards in case the Board should not act as sensibly as we are certain they will do. Subsection (2) provides for consultation by the Board with the object of avoiding the submission of schemes which the Board could not conceivably veto. Finally, there is the right of appeal to which my hon. Friend referred. My hon. Friend had one other fear, He mentioned the words "class of products" in Clause 5, subsections (1) and (2). These words enable the Board in their notice to exempt proposals relating to certain classes of products from submission to them for their consent. That is the only purpose of these words, and I can assure my hon. Friend that they will not make it possible for the Board to circumvent the general intention of the Clause. There is, in our opinion, no further safeguard or limitation needed, and I hope my hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom

I want to make it clear beyond a shadow of ambiguity that the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) neither represents Sheffield nor the opinions of the great majority of the people of Sheffield, nor the industry for which he has spoken.

Mr. Roberts

I was hoping that my hon. Friend would give us some idea of the figure he was going to express to the Board. I may get that at a later stage, and in the meantime I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

To report Progress; and ask leave to sit again.—[Sir H. Butcher.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.