HC Deb 24 February 1953 vol 511 cc1923-48

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

3.57 p.m

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

The Clause is a complicated one and is the one upon which the financial machinery of and round the Holding and Realisation Agency hinges. In this, as in other instances, the ways of the Treasury are somewhat dark and I suspect that the ways of the Government are somewhat devious.

If it takes me a little time to explain my doubts and ask my questions, I hope the Committee will forgive me. After all, we are dealing with, on any showing, a considerable amount of contemplated expenditure of public money, and it is a matter of considerable importance that we should see exactly what is proposed to be done and how it is proposed to be done.

As I understand, the first three subsections of the Clause deal with money required for the exercise and performance of … the Agency's functions under this Act. Those words are, of course, very widely drawn and could, as I see it, cover everything which the Agency are empowered to do. But it seems to me—I ask whoever is to reply to confirm or correct this—that the words are used in those first three subsections as distinct from other matters which are dealt with in the three next following subsections.

Broadly speaking, I understand the exercise and performance of their functions under this Act to have a comparatively limited intention, whatever the strict meaning of the words may be. The words have appeared, I believe, at only one other point in the Bill. That is, in Clause 18 (2), where there is a power to borrow temporarily …for the exercise and performance of their functions under this Act. Taking all that together and reading the three subsections carefully, I have come to the conclusion, which, of course, is open to correction from the Government, that "the exercise and performance of their functions" here means the day-to-day running of the industry, to use a somewhat abused phrase, and does not apply to the making of large loans or to expenditure in any capital form. I am supported in that by subsection (2), which clearly refers to a separate revenue account, the surplus of which is to be paid out of the Iron and Steel Realisation Account into the Exchequer. There, at any rate, we are clearly dealing with the revenue account, and if one reads the first three subsections together that is the general position.

The first question I should like to ask is whether I am right about that, and the reason I am asking it is that it appears to rest entirely on the consent of the Treasury as to how much is retained for the exercise and performance of the Agency's functions under this Act out of all the money that from time to time accrues to the Agency, and that phrase would clearly cover the proceeds of the sale of any iron and steel securities at all. Therefore, it appears that the Treasury are given an uncontrolled power of deciding how much is to be retained by the Agency, subject only to whatever limitation there may be in the words; the exercise and performance of … the Agency's— functions under this Act. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that, if those words have that meaning, then the limitation ought to be much more clearly expressed. If those words do not convey any other meaning, then I suggest that the power of retaining an absolutely indefinite amount of money coming into the Agency is far too widely drawn, and would, in fact, leave the Treasury an uncontrolled power of using, for any purpose for which the Agency can disburse money at all, very large sums indeed, including the complete proceeds of any iron and steel securities which they may succeed in selling.

I now come to the next subsection in Clause 20, and here, first of all, we come to another phrase: to enable them to make any payment or issues falling to be made out of the said Account under this Act. That seems to me—and, again, I should like to know whether I am right or not—to contemplate an entirely different kind of payment, and to cover loans and large capital transactions about which the Financial Secretary gave us some information yesterday. It is for that purpose that the Treasury are empowered to borrow money as for the National Debt, and to place money into the Iron and Steel Realisation Account. Further, for that purpose, undoubtedly, the proceeds of any sale of iron and steel shares may be used.

We were told yesterday that, of the £150 million, £85 million is for certain commitments by way of loans repayment, and so on, and £65 million is for admittedly uncertain development expenditure. I hope I am right—I may or may not be—but it seems to me that, in addition, there can also be other payments by way of loan and development under the preceding three subsections; at any rate, strictly as they are drawn at present.

I quite appreciate that the Financial Secretary may very well say, "That is not our intention," but, if so, I think that the words used need re-examination, because I believe that at present the proceeds of the sale of shares could be used for the purpose of making a loan and for the purpose of cancelling loans already made and making corresponding advances against them; that is to say, under Clause 17 (2, a) with regard to reorganisation of loan capital, and under Clause 18 (1, a) for making loans to a company a substantial part of whose securities is held by the Agency.

I call the attention of the Committee to what is happening, although I find it a little difficult to follow in detail what was said yesterday by the Financial Secretary about the composition of the £85 million, which, he said, was to be repaid and towards part of which this £150 million was to be used. The Financial Secretary told us that, first of all, there were the F.C.I. loans, and that these loans were about £45 million. I am now referring to the passage at the bottom of column 1860 of HANSARD, and I under- stand what is intended there. The next phrase, however, I quite fail to understand. On the fourth line of column 1861, we read: The sum of £20 million is in respect of loans from publicly-owned companies to the Corporation which is now being extinguished."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 1861.] No doubt we shall have an explanation, but I do not understand it. I do not know the basis or extent of any such loan, and I fail completely to see what the purpose of it is. Moreover, the Iron and Steel Corporation, in their last Report and statement of accounts—it is the last one, although, of course, now rather out of date, and it was for the period ended 30th September, 1951—showed nothing of the sort that I could find, at any rate, in the accounts of the Corporation. Exactly why a publicly-owned company should make loans to the Corporation baffles my limited understanding. On page 56 of the Report and statement of accounts, there is reference to the F.C.I. loans which, at that time, amounted to just under £40 million, and no doubt now correspond to the £45 million which was the figure given by the Financial Secretary yesterday.

Then I notice a figure of £20 million, but it is not in respect of loans from publicly-owned companies to the Corporation. It is something entirely different—loans from the public to certain publicly-owned companies—John Summers and Sons is one and the Steel Company of Wales is another—and both these loans together amount to £20 million. It is perhaps significant that one of them is not repayable until 1957, and the other not until 1975. Therefore, it seems to me difficult to understand why provision has to be made for repayment to the public of those loans unless, of course, the Government consider that it will take until 1975 to sell the iron and steel shares to the public. That argues a degree of pessimism on the part of the Government which they have not yet made public. I really do not understand that £20 million.

Still less do I understand the further £20 million which may be required as a result of anticipated overdrawing by the Corporation. That puzzles me. After all, the Corporation is now being extinguished, as the Financial Secretary said yesterday. It is a lively corpse if it suc- ceeds in overdrawing £20 million from its place of extinction. I should like further explanation of how this somewhat metaphysical performance is to be carried out.

I feel a real sense of confusion from all this. Let me take the F.C.I. advances as an instance. A number have been made but we do not know the interest. Perhaps I had better join them to the two lots of public debentures, the 4 per cent. and 3 per cent. All this is loan money which has been advanced to individual companies. The F.C.I. loans were made to the companies before the 1949 Act and were taken over by Section 14 of that Act. Similarly, the other two public loans were made to individual companies. What is happening is that the Government are proposing, at the same time that they are selling back the shares of iron and steel companies, to use up to £150 million of public money, raised, if necessary, on the open market, in order to lend money to the iron and steel industry and to replace the loans made to individual companies.

It may be said, of course, that the F.C.I. is not willing to continue these loans. We were not told that yesterday. All we were told was that it had the right to give six months' notice under Section 14 of the 1949 Act, as undoubtedly it has. I should like to know whether it has given the notice, if there is any reason why it should give notice, or whether the Government have given notice? What risk is there in this matter? As regards the two public loans, I fail to see any reason for repaying them, but perhaps it is not proposed to do so and that there is some other explanation of what the Financial Secretary said yesterday.

4.15 p.m.

By and large we come back to the same point: Why should £150 million of public money be used at the moment for financing this industry and is there no other source available for the purpose? Why, if that is the case, should it be used to repay existing loans unless there is some real reason for supposing that those loans will not be continued?

One has to remember that the F.C.I. is a public company and not wholly immune from some degree of intelligent collaboration with the Treasury. In those circumstances, this procedure seems even more curious. I call the attention of the Committee to the effect of this. With one hand the Government are selling out iron and steel stock and saying how essential it is in the public interest that this should be restored to private ownership thereby depriving themselves, no doubt, of the power inherent in its ownership, particularly in the equity capital. At the same time, with the other hand, they are bountifully advancing up to £150 million on terms which, so far as I can see, will give them no other voice in the industry than That still small voice which a creditor from time to time still has in our affairs.

I am baffled by the reason for it. I am the more baffled when I consider that some of the shares which the Government, after setting up all this hocus-pocus of machinery, are to sell back to the public, will consist of fixed-interest shares. It is perfectly true that if one looks at the last Report and accounts, the amount of fixed interest and loan capital in these publicly-owned companies has been reduced considerably, but there is still a lot of it. What is the point of selling out to the public a quantity of fixed interest stock and, at the same time, lending to the industry, presumably on fixed interest? These are to be loans to particular companies, not merely to the industry, and it is complicated by the loan-making powers of the Agency.

I feel that all this verges on the tedious, but it is difficult to make it interesting. However, this is a large sum of money and the Bill ought to be clear. It is not entirely my fault if I have misinterpreted it. As I read the Bill, we are empowering the Chancellor of the Exchequer to advance a large sum of money to various privately-owned companies without any check on the wisdom of or the need for those advances in one large lump sum. Even if we include the proceeds of the sale of the iron and steel shares, it is still a large amount and no information is given to Parliament before the expenditure is made. No doubt there will be a report and statement of accounts afterwards, but here we are lending £150 million to a large number of privately-owned companies at the sole discretion of the Treasury as far as I can judge.

This form of machinery seems to me to be unprecedented and I do not think it is proper that there should be so singularly little check on the need of or wisdom for these advances. I should like whoever is to reply to the debate to tell us what he considers the checks to be.

If I may sum up very shortly, I should like to know if I am right in thinking that the first three subsections deal with revenue expenditure incurred in one way or another on day-to-day work. That is to say, has the phrase the exercise and performance of their functions under this Act a limited meaning or not? If it has not, it seems to me to open the door extraordinarily wide to the expenditure of capital assets for revenue purposes, to their expenditure without any Parliamentary control and to what I can only call an exceedingly sloppy way of dealing with the proceeds of sale in this instance. If, on the other hand, it is intended to have a limited meaning, have I understood the limited meaning correctly, and could it not be more clearly and definitely expressed than it is in such a comprehensive phrase?

Secondly, what is the explanation of the two figures of £20 million that we were told about by the Financial Secretary yesterday. I think he must have got his words wrong. No doubt, he will tell us exactly what he meant, and perhaps he could do by reference to the last Report and accounts.

The next point is—and this is surely a question of broad policy—what is the purpose of the Government in putting the iron and steel industry back into private ownership with one hand with a blare of trumpets and a banging of drums, and, at the same time, rather quietly putting in public money on a corresponding scale with the other hand? What political doctrine or other purpose is served by that very remarkable proceeding? Lastly, is not the check on the expenditure of the £150 million unprecedented and insufficient?

Mr. Austen Albu (Edmonton)

If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) found some difficulty in fully understanding the provisions of this Clause, perhaps it is not surprising that some of us who are not learned in the law should also find difficulty.

I want to deal with a substantial point of policy to which my hon. and learned Friend referred in his summing up as his third point. To make my point clear, perhaps I should state the powers and functions, as I understand them, which have been given to the Holding and Realisation Agency. As I understand, first, the Agency may make loans to the iron and steel companies that remain in their ownership. Secondly, the Agency may borrow temporarily for this purpose. Therefore, presumably, they borrow for the making of short-term loans and for loans for what are virtually overdrafts. Thirdly, the Agency may, under Clause 20 (1), retain, with the consent of the Treasury, some of the proceeds of the sale.

Under subsection (2), if the receipts properly chargeable to revenue account for any financial year exceed the outgoings, they must be paid to the Exchequer. My hon. and learned Friend tried to find out what "revenue account" in this sense meant. I presume it cannot refer to the revenue from the sales of the assets, for that surely could not be in the revenue account. I can only presume that it refers to the dividends received from the operation of the companies. I should like an answer to that question.

Then the Treasury can put into the Iron and Steel Realisation Account for loan purposes up to £150 million for short-term loans, or alternatively it can use the surplus, if there is a surplus in the account, for paying off general national debt. It seems to me to be a highly complicated way of dealing with the capital changes in the accounts that will arise from selling off bits of the Iron and Steel Corporation, and in the income and expenditure account that will arise from operating the companies which are left in their hands. It is further complicated by methods for dealing with the further expansion of the companies that remain in the hands of the Agency.

Yesterday, the Financial Secretary said that the development of the companies remaining in the hands of the Agency would be financed out of the profits which they make and a maximum sum of £5 million would be made available for this purpose. He said: It is intended to use two sources for development of such companies as remain in public ownership. One source will be part of the ploughed back profits made from the operations of the company. I suppose that means "companies" because there are presumably a number of companies. I suppose that what he meant was that each company will retain its own property.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter)

indicated assent.

Mr. Albu

The hon. Gentleman continued: The other will be the £65 million."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 23rd February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 1861.] I suppose that is the amount which the Treasury may allow the Agency to lend. I hope that is right.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Yes, subject to this. The hon. Gentleman referred to £65 million as a maximum. If the £85 million is also a maximum, the £65 million may not be.

Mr. Albu

The maximum is £150 million?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Yes.

Mr. Albu

The question upon which I want further elucidation is this. Why does there have to be this Realisation Account at all? Is it because the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes that in some mysterious way he is thereby creating new savings for investment? It is true that when the companies are sold back to private investors or private investing bodies, companies or institutions, they will presumably have to find the finance out of the savings of the community for making that investment for buying the companies. I do not think that this in any way affects the position of the Treasury as the economic stabiliser of the economy or their responsibility for ensuring that the savings in the community as a whole are sufficient.

It looks to me as if the object of this exercise is to cover up this rather extraordinary activity. It may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees with the people who were referred to in the "Financial Times" on 18th February as those who are challenging the modern orthodoxy, as it is now called, the modern alternative apparently being that in times of inflation it is not necessary to balance the budget by taxation, and so the Chancellor could reduce taxation.

Is the view of the Chancellor, on the other hand, that our present situation is so deflationary that he need not yield the proceeds of the sale of these capital assets for the redemption of debt? Is it even suggested that he might use the proceeds for other purposes—as this article in the "Financial Times" says, for other purposes of below-the-line expenditure, perhaps defence expenditure or for some other purpose? I agree that at present, as the Bill is drawn, this may not be possible.

4.30 p.m.

It may very well be that it is the right thing to do to use the proceeds, or part of the proceeds, from the sale of these companies, from their profits, the capital revenue as well as the income revenue—if I may put it that way—to make loans for the further expansion of the industry. Equally, it seems to me, the opposite may be the case, and it may be advisable to increase taxation to provide the necessary savings for investment.

These matters could be much more clearly dealt with, and would be much less of a hocus-pocus, if the financing of the development of the steel companies were done by more orthodox methods of direct Treasury loan, or better still—as I happen to believe that many of these companies will remain in public ownership for a very long time—by the raising of long-term stock, which will certainly be much less inflationary. This present method cannot in any way assist in increasing the savings required for this investment for development purposes, and can only have the effect of confusing the issue, which I believe it is intended to do.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I will endeavour to answer the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu). The hon. and learned Member for Kettering asked what checks there were on the expenditure of this money. The two main checks are the responsibility of Ministers to the House and the publication of accounts as provided in this and the following Clause. There are, no doubt others, but those strike me as the main ones.

The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether the words exercise and performance of their functions under this Act, which, as he pointed out, are used in the earlier subsections, were limited or general. The answer, as I thought he himself construed them, is that they are general; and, I submit, appropriately general, because this is, as I shall hope to make clear at a later stage of my observations, largely a banking procedure, and the Realisation Account is very largely the main banking account, as it were, of the Holding and Realisation Agency. In such a relationship the words have to be general or the whole nature of the transaction is vitiated.

He further asked one or two questions about the operations of this account, and, in particular, whether it was proposed to leave substantial sums in the hands of the Agency. The intention is that the proceeds which come into the Agency—that is the capital sums arising from the sale of the companies and the revenue sums which come in as a result of the profits of the companies—shall, in general, be paid into the Realisation Account, and the Agency will only retain in its own hands the comparatively small sums needed for the payment of salaries of staff and administrative expenses. That, I think, reinforces what I said a moment ago, that it seems to me that the appropriate way to look at this Realisation Account is as if it were the main banking account of the Agency.

The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to ask for a little further explanation of the operation of the system. As, from what he said, I think he apprehended, the intention, which I think is made clear in subsection (2), is that, so far as the revenue incomings are concerned—and in this context I can confirm the assumption of the hon. Member for Edmonton that the revenue sums are almost, if not quite. exclusively, the profits of the companies—it is intended that the surplus at the end of the year shall be paid into the Exchequer.

It will be used in the first place, obviously, for the service of debt, either of the old compensation stock or other stock, because it will be appreciated that we are taking over full liability for the service of the old Iron and Steel Stock—now Treasury Stock 1979–81, as provided in the previous Clause. Therefore, in the first place, provision has to be made for the service of that or equivalent stock. That is the way it will operate. Subsection (4), as the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly apprehended, is mainly in contemplation of large capital transactions.

He then asked a number of questions about the figures involved, and in particular, about the figure I gave to the Committee last night for the liabilities which would be involved, and which amount in all, as I then said, to the sum of £85 million. The break-down of that £85 million, in round figures is substantially as I gave it last night. Forty-five million pounds are F.C.I. loans. He asked if the F.C.I. had given notice under the 1949 Act to demand repayment.

The answer is that, so far at any rate, they have not done so. It is equally clear that in making financial arrangements for the transfer of these enterprises to the Agency it is proper to take that liability into account, and it would, indeed, be extraordinarily rash and foolish not to do so in computing the total figure.

Mr. Roy Jenkins (Birmingham, Stechford)

As the F.C.I. was specifically set up with the intention of providing capital for large-scale private industry, it would be very extraordinary if the F.C.I., having allowed the money to go on, rather surprisingly perhaps when the industry was publicly owned, demanded its repayment when returned to private ownership.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

When the hon. Gentleman conducts, as I am sure he will at one time, financial enterprises of great magnitude, he will not allow arguments of that sort to prevent him from making proper provision for a liability which could arise at six months' notice. It would obviously be extraordinarily foolish not to make that provision merely on a guess or gamble on the probabilities of the action of a third party.

Mr. Jenkins

May I finish that point?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I think it is finished. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have an opportunity to deploy his views in due course. So far as I am concerned, that particular item is complete, and to preserve the coherence of my argument I should like to deal with the other items in the £85 million.

The next item was £20 million of loans from the companies to the Corporation. The position is—as I indicated with perhaps undue brevity last night—that the companies have lent spare liquid reserves to the Corporation which used them to finance the development of other companies. The companies making those advances will need them back from time to time for their own development, or for use as capital, and it is therefore proper to take that factor into account when, under Clause 1, we are taking over all the liabilities of the Corporation. The final item was the sum, in round figures, of £20 million obtained on overdraft by the Corporation, and also used as advances to the companies.

Therefore, the total figure of £85 million which I gave is the potential liability. I use the word "potential" because, as the hon. Member for Edmonton will recall, when he was good enough to allow me to interrupt him earlier, when he referred to the £65 million as the maximum, I pointed out that it is only the maximum if the full £85 million is demanded. I do not say that it will necessarily be essential to make that provision in fact, but it certainly is necessary to cover it as a possibility.

Mr. Mitchison

We were told yesterday that £20 million was the anticipated overdrawing. It was not an existing over-draft.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The relevant figure will be the one at the moment of take-over. It would be wrong to take a figure today when the take-over has not taken place. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me.

Then he asked, "Why is it desirable to provide up to £150 million to lend to the iron and steel industry?" The answer is very simple. It is the desire of all of us that the processes either of nationalisation or of denationalisation shall not interfere with the development of the industry. It is within the knowledge of all of us that there is a great need for further development in this industry so that it may be able—I borrow now the approach of the hon. Member for Rother- ham (Mr. Jack Jones)—to maintain its lead as the best steel industry in the world.

It is, therefore, essential to provide that during the process of transition from public to private ownership there is no interruption of the flow of investment necessary to carry through such development plans as may be desirable. I should have thought that that was ground on which hon. Members on both sides found themselves at one. One must calculate this figure on the basis of two conflicting considerations. Those considerations are the desirability of seeing that development is not handicapped and, equally, the desirability of not asking Parliament for a figure which is absurdly large. Those two considerations which are in some degree conflicting are reasonable. We have to make a forecast on the basis also of the most pessimistic possibility, from our point of view, as to the rate of disposal.

It is in the light of these considerations that we have come to the view that this as a maximum is reasonable. Of course, this is a maximum: it does not mean that it will be spent. There is no reason to fear that the industry will be handicapped in its development.

Mr. Mitchison

Does the Financial Secretary realise that on the explanation of subsection (3) which he gave earlier, it is open to the Treasury to advance to the industry not merely £150 million, or some part of it, but, with trifling exceptions, every penny it receives from the sale of iron and steel shares? It can hand the money to the Realisation Account and the Agency may then advance the whole lot back to the industry. Public property can be sold and the proceeds loaned to the buyer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

In substance, the hon. and learned Gentleman's interjection may be accurate, but I do not see the point that he is trying to make on it. He must apprehend that, at the same time, we have assumed liability for the service to the old iron and steel stock and that unless an equivalent amount of stock is redeemed, as it is intended that it shall be in general, out of the proceeds of the sale of the industry, the Exchequer will have to carry without any compensating factor the increased interest charges on the Budget.

There is, therefore, a good reason for securing that in general moneys obtained on sale are used as the Clause provides for the reduction of debt.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

Do I understand that the Financial Secretary is now saying that while the State is, with one hand, selling these previously publicly-owned assets, it will, with the other hand, be acquiring new assets in the industry by lending? When some of this £150 million of public money is lent to a privately-owned, or partly privately-owned company, what sort of security will come into the hands of the Government in respect of the loan?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The right hon. Gentleman corrected himself in mid-flight. This can apply only to a partly privately owned company. From the point of view of security, the usual precautions when public money is lent will be taken. The right hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience that when public money is loaned to private companies perfectly satisfactory techniques have been worked out which provide a high degree of security. I do not think that we need treat this as if it were a sudden and new departure in Government finance. It is one which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have experienced for a good many years. [Interruption.] I do not think that it lies in the mouth of the hon. Member for Rotherham to grumble, as he appears to do, at public investment in this industry. I thought that it was the withdrawal of public investment which he regarded as unsound.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas (The Wrekin)

rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I am in the middle of an argument.

The Chairman

If the Financial Secretary does not give way, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) must resume his seat.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I am willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman at an appropriate point.

Mr. Thomas

This is the appropriate point.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his frankness. I am trying to deal with the argument put up by one of his hon. Friends who deployed it at adequate though not excessive length. I told the hon. Member for Edmonton that revenue account means, in substance, the moneys accruing from the profits of the companies in public ownership. The hon. Member for Edmonton went to the core of this matter when he asked why we should have this Realisation Account at all. I assure him at once that it has none of the abstruse economic implications which he, and apparently certain people outside, have sought to attribute to it.

It is, in fact, a convenient banking arrangment. We are concerned with the handling of considerable sums of money arising from different sources. We are concerned with dealing in the beginning with the profits of the whole of the industry, among other matters. We are also concerned from time to time with moneys accruing from the sales of different parts of the industry. As a matter of convenience it seems to us that this is a good system. It has the additional advantage, from the point of view of hon. Members, that there being this separate account under the control of the Treasury, accounts have to be prepared and submitted as provided in the Clause. It has that considerable practical Parliamentary and constitutional advantage. In that way it constitutes one of the checks to which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering referred.

I should like to deal with the seeming paradox which one or two hon. Members sought to discuss as to why at the time of a policy of denationalisation further public moneys should be put into this industry. The answer is one which I have already given. We are all concerned to secure that the development of this industry goes on unchecked. I do not want to discuss the past, but it seems to us a pity that the industry was ever nationalised, just as no doubt it will seem to hon. Gentlemen opposite a pity that we are now denationalising it. Those are matters of honestly and strongly held political conviction which perhaps do not concern us specially on this Clause.

The necessity for making this provision for investment in the industry is dictated, not by any theoretical or dogmatic approach, but the practical necessity of having something in our hands in a period of transition in an industry vital to the economy of this country if there is a great need for development. It would be utterly wrong, whether nationalising or denationalising, if one allowed an interim period during which that process operated to be a period of stagnation. That is the overwhelming justification of these provisions, which are not dictated by any theoretical, dogmatic, ideological or political considerations, but by the simple and very practical necessity of securing continued development of the industry.

Mr. Mitchison

I quite appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. Do I understand him rightly to say that this industry is to have capital investment at this stage which it cannot get otherwise than by public investment? Is that right?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The hon. and learned Gentleman is less clear in either thought or statement than I habitually find him. The justification for this is that it is necessary, whatever other sources may, and in due course will be, available, to provide that a source of public investment shall be available so that there can he no question of a check to its development. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea (Mr. Jay) thinks that that is what his hon. and learned Friend said, then I would advise him to consult his hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Jack Jones (Rotherham)

I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has told the Committee. Boiled down, does it not mean that it is the Government's intention to carry on one of the greatest virtues of nationalisation, that is, to use the moneys accruing from the lucrative part of the industry to help the weaker and inefficient parts? That was an essential part of our nationalisation programme.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

That may be, but that is not the arrangement as I have described it.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

I do not think we can allow this Clause to he disposed of quite so easily, because it is the cornerstone of what we suspected earlier was the most scandalous abuse of the financial arrangements for dealing with £250 million of public money which was ever put before this House. That suspicion is now confirmed by some remarkable admissions from the Financial Secretary. He has had other points to make this afternoon while dealing with this financial Clause, and he has shown all the normal lucidity which we came to expect from him during our debates on last year's Finance Bill, with today a little bombast which we did not experience then.

He has given us no indication, however, that he has considered the whole financial structure which is being enshrined in this Clause, and in answering particular points he has shown no indication that he has considered the matter as a whole and not merely in relation to certain detailed points. We should look at the position and see what we should be doing by passing Clause 20.

The position is that the Holding and Realisation Agency has most remarkable powers, and attempts to restrict those powers have been resisted by the Government. They can completely change the capital structure of the industry, the equity capital of which can be sold, leaving the fixed interest capital under public control. They can sell the more profitable private companies and leave the less profitable companies under public control.

There is no guarantee, however, that the money which is received for selling even the most profitable companies will be used to reduce the public liability which already exists in the iron and steel industry. There is nothing to prevent a position in which the more profitable companies will be sold, and the money obtained by selling off the securities of these companies may not be paid into the Treasury to redeem debt, but may be lent by the Agency to the less profitable companies which remain partly in public hands. The money could be lost by these companies and there would be nothing we could do about it. The hon. Gentleman does not give us any guarantee against a position such as that.

The extraordinary thing, so far as we can see at the present time, is that so far as concerns the sum of up to £250 million which may be raised by selling off parts of the industry, and the other sum of £150 million, less certain specific liabilities which have to be met, part of the privately-owned iron and steel industry will, after denationalisation, be able to get public money far more easily—with less need for the sanction of this House—than the wholly nationalised industries.

If the Financial Secretary does not deny that—and he has not so far—is it not a very extraordinary state of affairs that we are passing back the profit from this industry into private hands, and yet we are making it easier for it to get public money than will be the case with gas, electricity or other publicly-owned under-takings.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

Will the hon. Member tell the Committee how the Electricity Authority, or the Gas Council for that matter, comes within the control of this House in the matter of new issues of capital? Is it not a fact that recently the Electricity Authority wanted £150 million, and that it did not come anywhere near this House for it? It went through the usual process of applying to the Capital Issues Committee.

Mr. Jenkins

It went to the market. And why, therefore, cannot the privately-owned steel industry not go to the market and get money there?

Mr. Nabarro

The hon. Member is confusing two issues. What he said earlier was that the nationalised industries had to come to this House for sanction to raise this capital. [HON. MEMBERS:."He did not."] That is exactly what he said. In fact, they do nothing of the kind..All the nationalised industries do is to apply to the Capital Issues Committee for permission to raise the money required, and then they go to the market for the funds required.

Mr. Jenkins

The hon. Member should have listened more carefully. I did not say anything of the sort. What I did say was that it was possible under this arrangement—and the Financial Secretary did not deny it, and if it is not true I should very much like to hear him deny it—for the privately-owned iron and steel industry to get public money more easily than the publicly-owned nationalised industries can get it. There is no denying that at all, and that seems to me a most extraordinary state of affairs.

I would suggest to the Financial Secretary that, instead of looking at the detailed points, which he is very clever in replying to, he should consider the whole position, and he would see as a Treasury Minister that that is a most scandalous state of affairs. The position is that if we allow this provision to go through we are going to have in the iron and steel privately-owned industry a great deal of public money and a great deal of public risk.

Mr. I. O. Thomas

I have listened to the very interesting and revealing debate, and I think it is generally accepted that this Clause is the crux of the Bill. Fortunately for the Committee and for the country, we have now a little more information which enables us to go behind the scenes. I myself put some questions to the Minister about the real meaning of the Clause and the Government's intentions about it. The Minister says that the Treasury will utilise their powers under this Clause in connection with the moneys which are paid into the Realisation Account from the sale of some of these holdings by the Holding and Realisation Agency.

5.0 p.m.

A national liability was created whereby those who were bought out of the iron and steel industry received certain Government securities at a fixed rate of interest. One would think that in the process of selling out this industry under the powers granted by the Government in this Bill, those proceeds would be devoted to the liquidation of those specially created national bonds which were utilised for buying out the former owners. But when we read the wording of Clause 20 (7), doubts are immediately stimulated as to the intention of the Government about what the Treasury shall do with those funds paid into the Realisation Account on the sale of the iron and steel concerns.

Subsection (7) says: Any Government securities from time to time coming into the hands of the Agency shall be transferred to the Treasury or to such nominees as the Treasury may appoint. and shall be cancelled or shall be applied by the Treasury in such manner as the Treasury think fit in redeeming or paying off debt of such description as they think fit. The question arises to what part of the National Debt other than the iron and steel issues those moneys are to be applied. Are they to be utilised as part of a general liquidation process of any part of the National Debt or strictly—as in my opinion they should be—applied to the liquidation of those bonds specially issued for the purchase of the former holdings of the industry? The Financial Secretary has done nothing to clear up that point. It was specifically put to him from these benches. During the whole of his reply, he has not faced the question of what is to be done by the Treasury with these finances which come into their hands from the sale of the present nationally-owned iron and steel concerns.

He has done nothing to reply to another point. The Agency will put on the market, or make it known that there is on the market, presumably, any part of the present nationally-owned undertakings. What will be competed for in the market are those parts which look the most prosperous, leaving in the hands of the Agency those parts which are the least prosperous. Presumably that is one of the conditions which are causing the Government to set up this special fund by which the Agency may utilise certain sums for granting loans to certain parts of the industry.

As was made plain by my colleagues, those loans made by the Agency will inevitably be directed to the least prosperous existing parts of the iron and steel industry. I presume that immediately the Agency starts operations the more prosperous parts of the industry will be gradually liquidated by being put on the market and sold. The Financial Secretary has entirely failed to face these vital, fundamental issues. He has made it clear, if it needed to be made clear, that the whole financial structure behind the Bill is merely a large lump of Tory hocus-pocus.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I do not know whether the last part of the observations of the hon. Member call for a reply, although no doubt they gave him great

satisfaction, but I should like to deal wit' subsection (7). I have dealt with it before but the hon. Member has asked me to do so again, and if I have to inflict the explanation on the Committee he must share responsibility with me.

The position with regard to the redemption of debt under subsection (7) is that the moneys will not necessarily be used for the redemption of old stock but for the redemption of such parts of the National Debt as it is in the interests of the taxpayer at the time to redeem. It would be quite arbitrary and artificial to tie the money to one particular stock. It has to be tied to the redemption which in the best interests of the nation.

I really rose to reply to the excitement of the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who worked himself into a state of great indignation as well as. indulging in what I might call the Old Bailey technique of challenging me to deny something or other. The particular point was his declamation on several occasions that no nationalised industry could borrow as easily from the public as would steel companies which were partially privately owned. That was the burden of what in this context I may describe as his song.

The hon. Member appears to have overlooked one or two things. In the first place, the Colonial Development Corporation, in precisely the same way as the Agency will be able to do, can borrow from the Consolidated Fund to lend to private firms. If the hon. Member wants another and more conspicuous example it is the position of the National Coal Board, which can borrow from the Consolidated Fund just like this without Parliamentary control. I do not recall that when the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill went through the hon. Member protested very strongly.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 269:Noes, 244.

Division No. 107.] AYES [5.8 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Beach, Maj. Hicks
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Astor, Hon. J. J. Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Alport, C. J. M. Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Baldwin, A. E. Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Banks, Col. C. Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Barber, Anthony Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Arbuthnot, John Barlow, Sir John Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Baxter, A. B Birth, Nigel
Bishop, F. P. Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Odey, G. W.
Black, C. W. Hay, John O'Neill, Phellm (Co. Antrim, N.)
Boothby, R. J. G. Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Bossom, A. C. Heald, Sir Lionel Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Heath, Edward Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Boyle, Sir Edward Henderson, John (Cathcart) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Braine, B. R. Higgs, J. M. C. Osborne, C.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Peake, Rt Hon. O.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Perkins, W. R. D
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Hirst, Geoffrey Peyton, J. W. W.
Brooman-White, R. C. Holland-Marlin, C. J. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Browne, Jack (Govan) Hollis, M. C. Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich) Pitman, I. J
Bullard, D. G. Holt, A. F. Powell, J. Enoch
Bullock, Capt. M. Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Burden, F. F. A. Horobin, I. M. Profumo, J. D.
Butcher, Sir Herbert Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Raikes, Sir Victor
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. Rayner, Brig. R
Campbell, Sir David Hurd, A. R. Redmayne, M.
Carr, Robert Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) Remnant, Hon. P.
Channon, H. Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Renton, D. L. M.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Hutchison, James (Scotstoun) Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. Robertson, Sir David
Cole, Norman Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Colegate, W. A. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Robson-Brown, W.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Jennings, R. Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Roper, Sir Harold
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Jones, A. (Hall Green) Russell, R. S.
Cranborne, Viscount Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Kaberry, D. Sandys, Rt, Hon. D.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Keeling, Sir Edward Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Crouch, R. F. Kerr, H. W. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Lambert, Hon. G. Scott, R. Donald
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Lambton, Viscount Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Cuthbert, W. N. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Shepherd, William
Davidson, Viscountess Langford-Holt, J. A. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Deedes, W. F. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Digby, S. Wingfield Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Linstead, H. N. Soames, Capt. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Llewellyn, D. T. Spearman, A. C. M.
Donner, P. W. Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton) Speir, R. M.
Doughty, C. J. A. Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Drayson, G. B. Longden, Gilbert Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Drewe, C. Low, A. R. W. Stevens, G. P.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Duthie, W. S. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Storey, S.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M. McAdden, S. J. Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Macdonald, Sir Peter Studholme, H. G.
Fell, A. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Finlay, Graeme McKibbin, A. J. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Fisher, Nigel McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Teeling, W.
Fletcher-Cooke, C Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Fort, R. Maclean, Fitzroy Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Foster, John Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Turner, H. F. L
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Turton, R. H.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Tweedsmuir, Lady
Gammans, L D. Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Vane, W. M. F.
Garner-Evans, E. H. Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. Vosper, D. F.
Glyn, Sir Ralph Markham, Major S. F. Wade, D. W.
Godber, J. B. Marples, A. E. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Maude, Angus Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Gough, C. F. H. Maudling, R. Walker-Smith, D. C.
Gower, H. R. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Graham, Sir Fergus Medlicott, Brig. F. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Gridley, Sir Arnold Mellor, Sir John Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Grimond, J. Molson, A. H. E. Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Morrison, John (Salisbury) Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Nabarro, G. D. N. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Harden, J. R. E. Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hare, Hon. J. H. Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Wood, Hon. R.
Harris, Reader (Heston) Nield, Basil (Chester) York, C.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) Nugent, G. R. H. Mr. Wills and
Oakshott, H. D. Mr. Richard Thompson.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard Hastings, S Poole, C. C.
Albu, A. H. Hayman, F. H Popplewell, E
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh) Porter, G.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Hewitson, Capt M. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Hobson, C. R. Proctor, W. T.
Awbery, S. S. Holman, P. Pryde, D. J.
Bacon, Miss Alice Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) Pursey, Cmdr. H
Baird, J. Houghton, Douglas Rankin, John
Balfour, A. Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Reeves, J.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A..J Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Bartley, P. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Reid, William (Camlachie)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Rhodes, H.
Bence, C. R. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Richards, R.
Bernn, Hon. Wedgwood Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Benson, G. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Beswick, F. Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Blackburn, F. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Blenkinsop, A. Janner, B. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Blyton, W. R. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Ross, William
Boardman, H. Jeger, George (Goole) Shackleton, E. A. A.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Jager, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Bowden, H. W. Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) Short, E. W.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Johnson, James (Rugby) Shurmer, P. L. E.
Brockway, A. F. Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Jones, David (Hartlepool) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Keenan, W. Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Burton, Miss F. E. Kenyon, C. Snow, J. W.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W Sorensen, R. W.
Callaghan, L. J. King, Dr. H. M. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Kinley, J. Sparks, J. A.
Champion, A. J. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Steele, T.
Chapman, W. D. Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Chetwynd, G. R. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Clunie, J. Lewis, Arthur Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Collick, P. H. MacColl, J. E. Stross, Dr. Barnett
Corbet, Mrs. Freda McGhee, H. G. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E
Cove, W. G. McGovern, J. Swingler, S. T.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) McInnes, J. Sylvester, G. O.
Crosland, C. A. R. McLeavy, F. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Crossman, R. H. S MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Cullen, Mrs. A. McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Daines, P. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Dalton, Rt. Hon H Mainwaring, W. H. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Mann, Mrs. Jean Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
de Fraitas, Geoffrey Manuel, A. C. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Deer, G. Mayhew, C. P. Thornton, E.
Delargy, H. J. Mellish, R. J. Thurtle, Ernest
Dodds, N. N. Messer, F. Timmons, J.
Donnelly, D. L. Mikardo, Ian Tomney, F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Mitchison, G. R. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Monslow, W. Viant, S. P.
Edelman, M. Moody, A. S. Wallace, H. W.
Edwards, John (Brighouse) Morgan, Dr H. B. W. Watkins, T. E.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Morley, R. Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Weitzman, D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Morrison. Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Mort, D. L. Wells, William (Walsall)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Moyle, A. West, D. G.
Fernyhough, E. Mulley, F. W. Wheeldon, W. E
Fienburgh, W Murray, J. D. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Finch, H. J. Nally, W. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Follick, M. Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Wigg, George
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. Willey, F. T.
Freeman, John (Watford) Oldfield, W. H. Williams, David (Neath)
Gaitskell, Rt, Hon. H. T. N. Oliver, G. H. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Gibson, C. W. Orbach, M. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Glanville, James Oswald, T. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Padley, W. E Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) Paget, R. T. Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield) Paling, Will T (Dewsbury) Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Palmer, A. M. F. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Pannell, Charles Wyatt, W. L
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Pargiter G. A. Yates, V. F.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Parker, J. Younger, Rt. Hon. K
Hamilton, W. W. Paton, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hardy, E. A. Pearson, A. Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Hannan.
Hargreaves, A. Peart, T. F.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Plummer, Sir Leslie