HC Deb 04 March 1953 vol 512 cc404-45
The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys)

I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, after "producers," to insert "and such other persons."

I should like to suggest that in conjunction with this Amendment we should consider, at the same time, the next five Amendments standing in my name.

The Chairman

I think that is perfectly satisfactory to the Committee.

Mr. Sandys

During an earlier debate in the Committee stage the Opposition moved an Amendment the purpose of which was to empower the Minister, if so recommended by the Iron and Steel Board, to undertake the provision of facilities for the development of overseas raw materials for the iron and steel industry in the event of the Board's having failed to secure provision of those facilities by the industry itself. That Amendment resulted in an interesting debate, and the general sense of the Committee was in favour of a provision of that kind being included in the Bill. Replying to the debate I gave an undertaking on behalf of the Government that we would examine this matter between then and the Report stage, and that we would then introduce an Amendment to give effect to the substance of that proposal.

The reason why I have had to move that the Bill should be recommitted for the consideration of these Amendments is that it does, or could in the event of this power being used, increase the expenditure which might be incurred by the Government. I hope that the Amendments which I have tabled meet the substance of the Opposition's proposal and meet the wishes which were expressed in all parts of the Committee during that earlier debate.

I should, however like to draw the attention of the Committee to three differences between the Amendments which I am proposing and the Opposition Amendment which was moved earlier. The first is that the new Amendments are confined to the provision of iron ore. We very carefully considered the desirability of including in these Amendments provision for the development overseas not only of iron ore, which is, of course, the basic requirement of the industry, but also of manganese, tungsten, and certain other alloying metals, some of which were mentioned during the earlier debate; but after very careful consideration we came to the conclusion that those other metals are used to such a very large extent by industries other than the iron and steel industry that it really would not be justifiable to include a provision for their development within the scope of this Bill. Iron ore is, of course, in a class by itself. and we felt that it was better to concentrate on the real essentials. That is why we have confined these Amendments to the provision of iron ore from overseas sources.

The second point of difference is that these Amendments cover to some extent a wider field than the original Opposition Amendment; they cover in particular the provision of facilities for transportation outside the United Kingdom. We envisage, if it should be necessary for the Government to undertake the development of iron ore resources overseas, possibly in some undeveloped country that it may well be necessary for them to provide in addition to the actual work of mining and quarrying, rail facilities between the mine and the sea; possibly to provide additional handling facilities at the port, and possibly also to provide special cargo vessels for the transportation of the ore from those overseas countries to the United Kingdom. For those reasons we felt it right to include that in the Amendments.

The third point of difference is a drafting one, but nonetheless important. It is that the original Opposition Amendment did not amend the definition in Clause 32—as it has now become—of production facilities which, if left unamended, would not have covered mineral rights and property overseas which may become an essential part of overseas raw materials development.

Also, during the debate, I was particularly asked to ensure that in any Amendment I brought forward I would make sure that it did not specify that the Government must necessarily undertake by themselves the whole or any development scheme which might be contemplated; in other words, that the Government would be able either to undertake the whole or participate either with the industry in this country or with foreign or Commonwealth industries in some joint scheme for the exploitation and development of overseas iron ore resources.

Under the Amendments with which I am dealing the Government will, of course, be able to take their share, if such be the terms of the scheme envisaged, with the iron and steel industry in developing overseas raw material resources. They would also, under these Amendments, be able to participate with foreign interests in the development of overseas resources. It is on this last point that it was necessary for us to introduce the Amendment at line 45, which makes it possible for the Government to participate in a scheme of overseas development notwithstanding the fact that some part of the raw materials which are obtained as a result of that development do not go to the iron and steel industry in the United Kingdom.

I wish to stress that these powers which we are moving to include in the Bill for participation by the Government in overseas development are inserted as a precaution against the possible failure of the industry by its own efforts to assure the supply of raw materials for the iron and steel industry. Let me say straight away that there is nothing in the present situation which gives cause for any fear or anxiety whatsoever that the industry is not at the moment doing all that is necessary to assure its supplies of raw materials from overseas. As I explained in the earlier debate, the industry have entered into important and far-reaching contracts and agreements, involving countries in all parts of the world, for the supply of iron ore over a period of years. I have no reason to suppose that the Government could do any better than the industry are now doing in this important respect.

I wish to emphasise also that, notwithstanding any Amendment which may be introduced into the Bill, the responsibility for providing raw materials, whether by purchase or by development overseas, continues and will continue to rest fairly and squarely upon the shoulders of the industry itself. These Amendments are not in any way intended to imply that the Government wish to become a kind of milch cow to which the industry can look for finance for overseas development. The Government would only participate if this should prove absolutely inevitable and necessary.

I wish also to stress that if the Committee approve of this Amendment we are not in any sense giving a blank cheque to this or any future Government to engage in overseas development schemes without Parliamentary approval. Any money which may fall to be expended in respect of these overseas development schemes will, of course, have to be voted by Parliament in the ordinary way through the annual Departmental Estimates. Therefore, the full and complete Parliamentary control over finance is quite unaffected by the introduction of these Amendments.

I hope that with these few words of explanation I may have satisfied the Committee that these Amendments meet the wishes expressed on all sides during our earlier debate and that this series of Amendments will be adopted.

Mr. Austen Albu (Edmonton)

It would be shabby if I were not to welcome from this side of the Committee the very full way in which the Minister has incorporated by this Amendment a great part of what we were asking for in the Amendment we moved during the Committee stage, and which received unanimous support. We particularly welcome the care with which the Amendments have been drafted, and especially the inclusion of the facilities for transport.

I do not feel entirely satisfied, however, about the question of alloying metals. I fully agree with the Minister that these metals are used in a variety of other industries and for a variety of other purposes. Nevertheless, they are of crucial importance in steel manufacture today. One could say that modern engineering would not be possible without them. It is quite possible that some of these metals may be in partial supply, or that new sources of supply may be much more difficult to discover and exploit than are sources of iron ore.

I think we would be happier if there were some safeguard that these questions were being fully looked at. It may be that this is really the responsibility of the Minister of Materials and that he has his eye continually on these problems, but I cannot quite see, in view of the extremely qualified way in which the Minister moved the Amendment, why he could not have included them. As the Minister pointed out, it will not be possible to carry out the principles of these Amendments without coming before the House for powers to do so and for the necessary financial sanction. I should have thought, therefore, that it would have been safer to have included these alloying metals among the other raw materials.

Another slight doubt is also raised in my mind by the extremely guarded way in which the right hon. Gentleman moved the Amendment. We fully understand—it would be ridiculous for us to expect otherwise from the party opposite—that they expect the industry to look after itself in the management of raw materials, and we do not argue on that. What is in my mind is that this is not just a question of dealing with a sudden shortage. When a sudden shortage arises it may be too late. This is a question of fairly long-term planning—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my using the word. We must have some idea of the requirements of the industry over a fairly long period. Development of this nature is, I think I am right in saying, a fairly long-term job.

4.30 p.m.

I hope that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's present Government to refrain from taking any action except that which will lock the door only after the horse has gone; and that this Amendment does not mean, and those who have put forward this Amendment do not mean, that the Board would not have the power to propose action to the Minister, and the Minister would not have power to take action, if he wanted to do so, well in advance of the shortage.

I would not have had these doubts but for the words of the Minister in introducing the Amendment. I hope that my doubts can be allayed. Apart from that, we on this side of the Committee welcome the Amendments, and we are glad that the Minister has been able to include them.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

To keep to horses, this is a gift horse and it is proverbially ungracious to look gift horses in the mouth. One may perhaps be allowed to do so for the purpose of seeing if they have any teeth. It is in that spirit that I consider the change which the Minister has made, and which he so clearly explained to us, with regard to what he called the alloying metals.

I can see that if there were any general obligation and if the powers that are sought in this Clause were to be used in normal circumstances there might be the difficulty which he foreshadowed. But I find it rather difficult to see why tungsten and these other materials should be excluded, having regard to what the Clause itself provides. First, the Board have to consult for a very general purpose and for that very general purpose they have to take into consideration iron ore. Surely they ought also to consider any other materials which are necessary for what we call the iron and steel industry, which is, in fact, a number of industries lumped together, and for some of which these alloying materials are absolutely vital. I do not speak as an expert, but I should have thought that these materials applied to most of the industries nowadays.

Next, when they have so consulted, they have to report to the Minister that additional production facilities are required and that they cannot get them by means of consultation, and even then the Minister is not bound to act—he is given power to act, and only with the approval of the Treasury. Really, these are the very last resources to meet what may be a very urgent situation.

I should like to put this to the Minister. Supposing that, after consultation, it was discovered that the shortage of tungsten—I am taking tungsten as an instance—was really acute and held up the efficient, economic and adequate supply of steel products, and, thereafter, the Board reported to the Minister that more tungsten was required in the national interest, or it might appear to the Minister to be in the national interest that more tungsten was required—and all this would precede any action under the Clause—and they could not get it in any other way.

If all that happened, is the Minister to be debarred from taking steps under this Clause to make up that supply of tungsten simply because the tungsten could or might be used largely in some other industry? Is it really intended that, because of lack of statutory powers, the whole iron and steel industry might be held up for lack of one of these alloys? The Minister said that these were not intended to be other than extraordinary powers to meet a real emergency. I should have thought that such a real emergency might arise in connection with these alloys, just as much as in connection with iron ore. From my slight knowledge of the subject, I would agree that that is perhaps a little less possible; but if it does arise, surely power ought to be taken to deal with it.

Surely there are more than sufficient safeguards in the Bill against any misuse of the power, and Tory doctrine, as I understand it, is preserved in almost complete inviolability. Surely it is not to be more limited by tungsten than by iron ore? These notions do not take so much regard for the type of material as some of us might if we had it thrown at us. I hope that the Minister will consider that point and let us know whether he can consider once more putting into the mouth of this gift horse just one more tooth [An HON. MEMBER: "Tungsten."] Yes, a tungsten tooth.

The next point is quite a small one. I really do not understand why this Amendment to Clause 32 is needed. This is an addition to a definition and the definition refers to premises, and so on, used—I will quote the words—for any activity … in the Third Schedule or … of any incidental activity. It does not say a word about that activity being confined to this country. The Third Schedule does not say a word about it either.

According to the Schedule it is necessary to limit the activities in that context to what is carried on in Great Britain, but if we do not include such limitations they would obviously apply anywhere. In those circumstances, I do not quite see the need for the drafting Amendment. It seems to me to do once more what I have already objected to, and limit the thing particularly to iron ore.

No one who sits for Kettering underestimates the importance of iron ore or the damage that can be caused to the countryside by mining. We have it well in view and we almost smell it. I would not exclude tungsten and the rest simply because they come to the steel works more quietly and with less demonstrative damage than does Northamptonshire iron ore.

Mr. Spencer Summers (Aylesbury)

I should like to add my word of appreciation to the Minister for bringing forward this Amendment to take care of the points raised earlier, to which I gave some support. I think that the arguments advanced now for including the other alloys as well as iron ore are largely theoretical, although I am prepared to agree that they are as vital or, indeed, more so than iron ore itself.

The reason that I think there was substance in the original point, namely, that this provision should be extended to raw materials, was that the Board would be encouraging people to expand their plant, and would in part be assuming responsibility for the expansion of plant in this country; and that unless they were a party to means of providing that expanding plant with raw materials, they would be inhibited in the discharge of their responsibility.

It was because finance might well play a very large part in the provision of iron ore for the expanding plant, as distinct from the other minerals, that I felt it right and proper to encourage the idea of the Government having these powers to help in the provision of raw materials. It was not so much because one thought that the industry would be so fast asleep as not to know of the need to provide for raw materials for a plant that they were going to build, but that they might not have the resources to ensure that an adequate flow of iron ore would follow, because the financing of the provision of iron ore is, obviously, a much greater matter than the financing of the provision of the very much smaller quantities of the other products.

Therefore, although in theory it is not too difficult to advance a case for saying that what is good for iron ore should be good for the others, the distinction is one which reasonably ought to be made between the two: namely, that iron ore should be specified on account of the financial considerations involved, which do not apply to the other materials. Although I do not feel particularly strongly about the matter, I should have thought that the Minister was right to confine the Amendment in the way that he has done.

Mr. Jack Jones (Rotherham)

While joining in the adulation of the Minister for bringing forward the Amendments, I suggest that he has not gone at all far enough. The Amendment provides for the event of the industry failing to furnish itself with sufficient iron ore, and the Minister is taking power for the Board to procure additional iron ore resources and supplies. Iron ore by itself is useless. It would be a hopeless proposition to bring an extra two million tons of iron ore into the country without bringing in and making certain that all the other ingredients were available. It would be rather like a housewife who fills her pantry with flour but has no salt, lard, currants, raisins or anything else.

Steel cannot be made with the additional iron ore unless there are with it all the other necessary ingredients—manganese, for instance. If any expert on the other side of the Committee can tell me of one known specification of steel which does not include a fairly high proportion of manganese, I should like to know what it is. Manganese is not produced in this country. It comes primarily from Russia, India and elsewhere. Unless the Minister takes powers for the Board to provide themselves pro rata with the necessary quantity of molybdenum, nickel, chromium and the rest—if I had time to go into detail I could give a list as long as my arm—the provision of the iron ore by itself will simply mean bringing into the country material which will be stocked and cannot be used.

If the Minister is forced into the position—we hope that he will not be, but he needs to take the power in case he should be—of procuring further supplies of iron ore, he should at the same time make certain that he has the power to get all the necessary ingredients to turn that iron ore into steel. If, when I was working, my boss had called upon me to turn a huge pile of iron ore into steel, I should have regarded him as a candidate for admission to a lunatic asylum.

We are grateful to the Minister for going so far as he has done, but he has not gone far enough to provide himself technically with the wherewithal to do what he aims to do; that is, to offset the failure of the industry to serve the public interest by creating sufficient steel, of a sufficient quality and at the right price.

Mr. Robson Brown (Esher)

The hon. Member is perfectly right with regard to manganese, but in the main it comes in the form of iron ore. If the Minister interprets "iron ore" as iron ore containing manganese, we are well protected in respect of the most important of the elements which we have been discussing.

Mr. Jones

That is an important interjection. If the Minister is prepared to submit that the term "iron ore" includes all the other metal-producing ores that one can think of, we shall be extremely happy. Manganese ore is not iron ore; it is the ore that makes manganese, which in turn gives steel its resilient power. In my time I have thrown many thousand tons of manganese into steel, and I should know a little about it. If the Minister is prepared once again to accept the useful interjection from a specialist on his own side of the Committee, that the term "iron ore" should include manganese, chromium, nickel and the rest, we should be extremely happy to accept the Amendment as it stands.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Sandys

I am glad that, by and large, the Amendment has met with the general acceptance of the Committee, and that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) regards it as a gift horse. It is not the only gift horse that he and his hon. Friends have received from us during the Committee stage; and if it has teeth of iron ore and not tungsten, the hon. and learned Member must make the best of it.

I should like, first, to say a word about the remarks of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), who has throughout taken a great interest in this question. I am sorry if I gave him the impression that, should the necessity arise, the Government would be in any way hesitant or half-hearted in assuming the responsibilities which the Bill will place upon them. This is a long-term problem, and I am glad that hon. Members opposite are looking upon the activities of the Board in that way. One or two of the remarks which they made in earlier debates rather suggested that they thought it might be merely a passing phase.

We accept, of course, that if the industry, the Board and the Government are effectively to discharge their duties under the Clause, a long view must be taken, and they must be prepared to anticipate shortage and not wait until it has overtaken them.

Mr. Jack Jones

The Minister's remarks about taking a long view are quite correct. Whoever is responsible for future procurement, we are bound to take a long view. Even though Socialism were back in the saddle in six months' time, we should want the Board to have made the necessary preparations to ensure that we made a success of re-nationalisation.

Mr. Sandys

I do not envisage the necessity of the Government intervening in this matter in the next six months. If the hon. Member is in office in six months' time, he will be able to look at it himself.

To return to the tungsten-tooth gift horse, I recognise that one can always gild the lily. One can extend the field and scope—

Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth)

One does not gild teeth, but paints them.

Mr. Sandys

Presumably, therefore, I should have said "paint the lily."

We carefully considered whether to include within the scope of this Clause the more important alloying metals which are used in the iron and steel industry. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) is quite correct in saying that these are an essential element in steel-making, but we cannot necessarily undertake to include within the scope of the Bill every factor, however important, which plays some part in the industry.

Tungsten has been particularly mentioned by all hon. Members who have spoken. About 50 per cent. of the tungsten which we use in this country goes into the making of iron and steel. The problem, therefore, is not so much one of supply as of allocation as between the various users. We would be going a very long way indeed if we were to make the iron and steel industry and the Board responsible in this constitutional and statutory way for the supply of tungsten for the country as a whole when only half of it is used in steel-making.

I remind the Committee that, when the previous Government set up the Ministry of Materials, they decided to leave the iron and steel industry as part of the responsibility of the Ministry of Supply; but they entrusted to the Ministry of Materials the responsibility for wolfram, from which tungsten is produced. It is a moot point whether tungsten is primarily used for iron and steel making or for other industrial purposes.

After serious consideration we came to the conclusion that it was better not to extend the scope of the Bill so far. However, as I indicated in the earlier debate which we had on this subject, the Government are at liberty at any time—as, for example, in the Volta aluminium scheme—to come to the House and propose some development scheme which would ensure supplies of tungsten if difficulties should arise.

Finally, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering expressed surprise that we had thought it necessary to introduce an Amendment to Clause 32 in which is provided a definition for the phrase "produc- tion facilities." I do not think he is quite clear about the position. What we are doing in introducing this Amendment is extending the definition of "production facilities"—which at present covers only premises, plant or machinery—to include the acquisition of property and mining rights, which we felt was necessary. We might otherwise have found that some important scheme was approved but that we just had not the power to go completely through with it and acquire the mining rights. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 27, leave out "by iron and steel producers," and insert "(a)."

In line 29, at end, insert: and (b) of such production facilities outside Great Britain for or in connection with the quarrying or mining of iron ore for use in the iron and steel industry as may be required for the purpose aforesaid, including facilities for the transport outside Great Britain or the importation into Great Britain of such iron ore. In line 32, after "Britain," insert: or additional facilities such as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection.—[Mr. Sandys.]

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom (Sheffield, Brightside)

I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, after "for," to insert: or that certain existing production facilities in Great Britain are not so used as to promote. In discussing this Amendment, it might be convenient to refer also to the subsequent five Amendments: In page 5, line 36, after "are," insert: or that the better use of certain existing production facilities in Great Britain is. In line 41, at end, insert: or, as the case may be, the better use of those existing production facilities. In line 43, after "those," insert: additional facilities or use those existing. In line 44, after the first "those," insert: additional facilities or the use of those existing. In page 6, line 4, after "use," insert: or that any existing production facilities in Great Britain ought in the national interest to be more efficiently used or used otherwise or for some other purpose than at present. These Amendments are very closely inter-related. I think the Minister will agree that at first glance they look like a printer's jigsaw puzzle, but I have no doubt that he has got the full text in terms of our proposed Amendments so that he can fully understand the implications of all the insertions which we propose. These insertions are very important to hon. Members on this side of the Committee as a principle. Indeed, I think we can say they are vital because they are designed to deal with what we consider to be an omission.

As I see it, Clause 4 provides for production facilities. Amongst the facilities vital to the national interest but seemingly forgotten by the Bill are the existing plant and equipment which will be in operation when the Bill becomes an Act, but which are not pulling their weight at that time in the interests of maximum production, which in the main could be attributed to inefficiency and bad management on the part of the people controlling the firm. Our Amendments are designed to include these within the supervisory capacity of the Board, which is at present limited to the new facilities under the Clause and to the acquisition of plant and equipment which might otherwise fall into disuse.

This Clause without our Amendments covers only new facilities and those which it is necessary to keep going in the national interests but which would otherwise be closed down. The Clause omits entirely existing plant and machinery which may be inefficiently run or badly managed, and it is that section of the industry with which these Amendments are concerned. It is vital that such facilities should be included in the Bill on precisely the same terms as either the new facilities or the plant which may fall into disuse, which are now covered by the Bill. The national interest demands this step, otherwise the steel production drive may be hopelessly retarded, because whilst we have confidence in many aspects of the steel industry, there are sometimes revealed to us employers in whom we have no confidence at all, who have neither social conscience nor an interest in the wider aspects of the industry.

What is the use of building new blast furnaces and steel works if we lose on the swings of inefficient existing plant what is gained on the roundabout of new installations? That is a very pertinent question which ought to be answered by the Government, because in spending a lot of money on new installations there is a danger of forgetting that which exists but is being run inefficiently as a result of bad management. What is the use of creating new plant and renovating plant which may fall into disuse and be closed down if we do not deal with the existing plant that is working inefficiently because of bad management?

As I read through this Clause, its smoke-screen seems to be the words "in the national interest." I wonder what they really mean. To me they mean nothing at all. If they mean that manufacturers who are indifferent and apathetic, who have no sense of the value of their contribution to the general wellbeing of the industry or to the national interest, are allowed, without any form of control at all, to undermine the maximum possible production of this industry, without any challenge from the Board, the Minister or the Government, then my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) was perfectly right when at our last Sitting he called attention to the fact that millions and millions of pounds may be spent on new installations and new plant when we might get the same type of production, with some form of control over existing machinery, at much less cost.

Unless an Amendment of this character is inserted in the Clause it will be a misuse of capital and of public money to carry the penny-wise and pound-foolish conception contained in the Bill through to its logical conclusion. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) in his place. We have appreciated very much his contributions to debates from time to time on the denationalisation of steel. I want to quote what he said during the Committee stage. I will read the words: Any stubborn or obdurate firm which refused to co-operate would be virtually put out of business in a short space of time and its competitors would develop at its expense." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1953: Vol. 511, c. 473.] 5.0 p.m.

Is that the conception of the Bill? I do not think it is the hon. Gentleman's conception, if it is closely analysed. His idea is that competitive elements will drive an existing plant out of business if it is not being run efficiently or is showing signs of bad management. I would put two arguments forward against that idea. The first is that it may take so long before the inefficient firm goes out of business that it will have done irreparable damage to the industry in the meantime. The second argument is that many firms have not in the past been altogether loyal to the industry of which they were a part. I am not speaking of the "bad old days" that we are constantly referring to, but to the very recent past.

I could refer to the scrap position and say that many of those people did not play the game with the industry in regard to scrap. If they will not play the game in regard to scrap, it may be that they will not play it in regard to the general national interest that is involved in the Clause.

Mr. Robson Brown

I wonder whether the hon. Member would elaborate the case he is making in regard to the use of scrap. It is a very serious thing to say.

Mr. Winterbottom

I say that many have held scrap from time to time to the advantage of themselves. The hon. Member for Esher was connected with the Federation; he probably knows of cases where supplies were limited by reason of the fact that people knew what was happening. If there is that mentality, although it may be found in only a small percentage of manufacturers in the industry, we must seek some means of protection for the national interest.

The industry will have to face the problem of inefficiency. The problem was covered in the old Iron and Steel Act but it is not covered by the Bill. We shall have to face the problem of co- relationship in the industry, not merely in regard to what was discussed on this Clause in Committee, namely, amalgamation, but methods of production. We shall not only have to develop the industry's capital, but to make the industry more efficient. Where the inefficiency is due to bad management someone will have to take power to check abuse. That power is not in the Bill, so we hope that the Minister will accept our Amendment and add it to the Bill for the benefit of our national life as a whole.

Mr. George Chetwynd (Stockton-on-Tees)

I wish to give two main reasons why I support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom). The first is that we cannot afford at any time to have inefficient plant in existence, whether in the steel industry or in any other industry. We ought to be as ruthless as we possibly can to get rid of inefficiency, whether in nationalised or in private concerns. Therefore, by not accepting this Amendment, the Minister would be omitting to take a weapon to himself which would enable him to get rid of inefficiency in the iron and steel industry.

The other reason is that when the industry is sold back to private enterprise over a long period, and if it is all to be sold, it is clear that any particular firm must have in its possession a good part and a bad part of the industry, if the State is not to be left with that which is wholly bad. It would be wrong to accept the argument used in Committee by the Parliamentary Secretary that the test of efficiency will be the profit-and-loss account, and that if a firm is showing a loss it will be because it is inefficient and the shareholders will insist upon improvements being brought about.

Of course, if a firm has a good part and a bad part of the industry, that will not be a test of the efficiency of the firm, because the good parts can be used to make tremendous profit to balance the bad parts which are run at a loss. Merely looking at the balance sheet of the company will not reveal the inefficiency of that concern. It is absolutely right to have an Amendment like this put into the Bill because it will enable the Board to put their finger on the inefficient part and possibly to do something about it.

It occurs to me that the Minister has no intention of making use of the powers in the Clause. I shall be very surprised if he or the Government set up a new steel industry to compete with the old, or take powers unto themselves, or lease powers to others, or whatever it may be, to modernise and extend the existing steel industry. With all the reservations which are in the Clause, I am certain that the position will not arise under which the Minister will have to contemplate taking that action. We are left with the one thing that he can do quite easily, which is to see whether existing industry is inefficient and to take steps to put it right. That is a far more common-sense approach than leaving matters to profit and loss or waiting until a firm has actually gone out of existence or is likely to do so, before action is taken. I believe that in the next few years we shall need all the steel we can get from new and old plants. It is obvious that we must have them at their most efficient. I therefore hope that the Minister will revise his views and will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Heeley)

I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendments, which show a complete clash of principle between hon. Gentlemen on that side and those who sit on this side of the Committee. The question has been posed how to get rid of inefficiency. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think it can be done by setting up a Government Board or Department, or by some sort of Government control. On this side of the Committee we believe that if there is inefficiency the people to root it out are those on the spot, the management and those responsible for management.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom

How if the management are inefficient?

Mr. Roberts

They are the first people. In Sheffield, the men are particularly proud of the management and of the efficiency of the steel industry of Sheffield. If there is a bad management the next line of defence is that the company board itself will deal with the management. If the company board does not deal with the management, the shareholders will deal with the company board.

I believe that is the right way to set about solving the problem. We want to see pride in the industry among those people who are engaged in it. From my experience, I believe sincerely that there is a great deal of pride among the work-people, among the management and among those who manage the management to see that the industry is efficient.

Mr. Chetwynd

If that is so, why is it that in the industry before the war, and even today, it has been allowed to get into a state where 30 per cent. is obsolete?

Mr. Roberts

I do not want to go into that now, because it would take me a long time to develop the argument. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that before the war the industry had production capacity greater than the demand made upon it. He knows that under the Socialist and Liberal Governments unemployment rose to 40 per cent. and that it came down as a result of Conservative policy. [Interruption.] Those are the facts.

Now I want to turn to the Amendment. The hon. Member spoke about the inefficient sections of the industry. At present, a great part of it is under a nationalised board. Is he suggesting that under that nationalised board there is inefficiency? If there is, what is the good of putting the board back again to watch its own inefficiency?

Mr. Winterbottom

We are asking for a board to watch over the industry which shall have power to deal with existing plant and, where inefficiency is revealed, power to act against the inefficient management.

Mr. Roberts

Will the hon. Gentleman say where the inefficiency is revealed at present? If he intervenes again in this debate, I hope he will tell us. I believe that under the Board as previously constituted, and under my right hon. Friend, the industry has been carried on as well as it could be under a nationalised board.

Mr. Winterbottom rose——

Mr. Roberts

I cannot be interrupted any more on this point.

Mr. Jack Jones

On the question of inefficiency in Sheffield— —

Mr. Roberts

No, I cannot be interrupted further on this point. There is obviously a clash of principle between both sides of the Committee. Hon. Members opposite have one way of dealing with inefficiency and I hope we have another.

I hope that the Minister will not accept the principle put forward from the other side of the Committee of control by a board in order to produce inefficiency. We believe that the right way is to leave the control in the hands of those who know and who are on the spot. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will resist this Amendment and the implications behind it.

Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)

I was rather surprised by the prescription for efficiency given by the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts). It seems that all one has to do is to set up a limited liability company and that, if once there is a board of directors and shareholders, they will see that the management is efficient. I suppose the various private companies and partnerships will take advantage of that suggestion and turn themselves into limited companies if that dictum has any relevance.

Obviously it is nonsense, because everyone knows that a shareholders' meeting in the case of most companies is an unsatisfactory way of exercising any control over the management of a business. In many cases the directors are there either with enough shareholdings of their own or with proxies in their pockets, to see that even if there is criticism they can see that it is not effective.

5.15 p.m.

I want to deal now with his serious reflection on the function of the Board in the Bill. If I understood aright, the hon. Member took the view that his right hon. Friend had been at fault in bringing in a board to supervise this industry. He made many references to the fact that it should be the men on the spot who should run the industry. I wonder whether there is a serious difference between the hon. Member for Heeley and his right hon Friend the Minister and the rest of his party on this point? I want to get it clearly from the Minister that he stands for the Board and for the need of it to supervise the industry.

While I do not want to enter into controversy as to the efficiency or otherwise of certain of the nationalised steel works at the moment, I would point out to the hon. Member that the Board envisaged in this Bill is to cover a much wider field of the steel industry than the present Iron and Steel Corporation. It is the firms which will be brought under the supervision of the new Board that we have in mind when talking of the inefficiency that needs to be considered, at any rate, if this Bill is to last for a long time, as hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to delude themselves that it may. If therefore, it governs the industry, we must make provision for all kinds of eventualities. Surely no one will be so bold as to say that at no time in the future there will not be one steel works or iron foundry that will be inefficient.

For those reasons my right hon. and hon. Friends have put down these Amendments and I ask that they shall receive the full consideration of the Committee.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon (Middlesbrough West)

The bon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) twitted my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) in a pleasant way, which was suitable between hon. Members representing the same great steel town, on suggesting the setting up of limited liability companies as a prescription for efficiency.

What is the prescription of hon. Gentlemen opposite? It is to set up a public board. We have had that before. Private enterprise did not produce sufficient food for us so a public board was set up. It was an infallible prescription for efficiency but, as a result, the country lost £36 million. Private enterprise hens were thought to be at fault and a large public enterprise was set up to produce public enterprise eggs, again at enormous loss. The answer is that no particular kind of organisation can be certain of producing efficiency, and certainly not a public board.

The difference of conception between the two sides of the Committee is quite simple. All of us here have our eyes on the efficiency of this great industry which we believe to be of importance for the survival not only of the industry itself, but of the country. The prescription of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, what we believe is fundamentally necessary to produce efficiency, is to pay someone to do it. If one makes it pay a person to be efficient, he is more likely to be efficient. If his profit is likely to be larger if he is more efficient, he is more likely to be more efficient. We do not believe that he can be made more efficient by appointing a central board or bureaucrat to tell him how to do his job.

Mr. Mitchison

Could the hon. and learned Gentleman answer one simple question? Let us suppose that in this industry there is a large plant employing many workers and that it is inefficiently run. What is to be done about that under this Bill?

Mr. Simon

What is to be done in the case of that enterprise is exactly what is done in the case of other enterprises in the country: ultimately, the persons whose profits are not sufficiently large, owing to the inefficiency, will stir up the management and it will become more efficient. If, however, there is merely a public board, there will be no incentive except, of course, the great public spirit, the great administrative efficiency, which we associate with our Civil Service. But surely none of us would say that a Civil Service, valuable though it is in its proper sphere, would give us the commercial aggressiveness required to develop our industry under competitive conditions.

Mr. Snow

How can the hon. and learned Gentleman deploy that argument if he considers the pre-war history of the industry? If profitability is to be the yardstick of efficiency, how can he say that it is efficient to rationalise the industry, reduce its production and throw thousands out of work?

Mr. Simon

I was going to deal specifically with the point of the pre-war history which was dealt with by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd).

The answer is two-fold. First, world demand for steel had dropped 40 per cent. during those disastrous years. It was purely a coincidence in time, but it was the period when the second Socialist Government were in power. With world demand running 40 per cent. lower, it was natural that the more efficient plants should be used.

The second part of the answer is that efficiency is only a relative term. There being competitive conditions in the world, what happened was that the United States, under its intensely competitive and enterprising system, went right ahead with the replacement of plant and left us behind. The pre-war history of our steel industry was the result partly of external conditions and partly of the relatively greater efficiency of the American industry; that was the reason for the closing down of obsolete and inefficient plant. That is something we have all to contemplate. Whatever system is set up to govern the industry, we shall gradually get a closing down of obsolete plant and its replacement by more efficient plant.

What is the real purpose of the Clause? It is not to give the Board or the Minister a chance to take over industries and enterprises and run them in exactly the same way as the Corporation is doing at the moment, or, indeed, with very much greater control and very much greater interference. The idea behind the Clause is that the basic industries are of such importance to the general economy of the country, in that a fall in investment in them has repercussions which are far wider than a fall in investment in consumer industries, that it may be necessary for positive steps to he taken by means of a central board to ensure that an expansion takes place where the normal economic trend is to slow down expansion.

Our conception of the Bill is that its purpose is not to let nationalisation and the bureaucratisation of the industry in by the back door. Because we do not for a moment believe that we get efficiency merely by setting up a public Board or that the gentleman in Whitehall necessarily knows best, and because we believe that we get efficiency by paying someone to be efficient, I hope my right hon. Friend will resist the Amendment.

Mr. Jack Jones

Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, might I put this to him? I have followed his arguments, and I must admit that he deploys them with care and sincerity and with a certain amount of knowledge now coming into his possession as the representative of part of the great steel centre of Middlesbrough. If it is true that private ownership automatically brings efficiency and that public ownership as we now have it in the form of the Iron and Steel Corporation brings inefficiency, will he tell us where inefficiency has been proved in the case of companies which have now come under public control and ownership?

Mr. Simon

I did not say that private enterprise necessarily promotes efficiency; I said that private enterprise is more likely to promote efficiency than is a public board. I do not believe that one can argue one way or the other from the present state of the iron and steel industry because nationalisation has not really impinged on the running of the industry. But one can look at other nationalised industries with considerable misgiving in judging whether the running of a large basic industry by a public board is to the national advantage.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom

Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Robert Boothby (Aberdeenshire, East)

My hon. and learned Friend has already sat down.

Mr. Winterbottom

I know the hon. and learned Gentleman has sat down, but I want to get him up again. I want him to realise that we have not been arguing about what constitutes efficiency. We have been talking about the inefficiency and bad management which occurs in every industry. In so far as efficiency in the steel industry is so vital to our economy, will he tell me how it is proposed to control inefficiency or bad management in the interests of the national economy if it occurs in a certain firm, short of remote control by some shareholders who may not even know the name of the company in which they have shares?

Mr. Simon

I do not think I am justified in taking much more of the time of the Committee. I endeavoured to answer that point when it was put to me by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). Our conception of the way to cure inefficiency is not to clap on a public board which has no chance of judging, but to rely on normal economic forces and normal incentives to make a profit on the part of those concerned in the enterprise, both workers and shareholders, to stir up the management which, in its own interests, will then be prompted to seek greater efficiency.

Mr. Snow

We join issue with the last words of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon), for we do not trust the normal processes of private enterprise to maintain and stimulate the demand for steel. The Committee has been characterised by a certain amount of common sense and give-and-take. It is a pity to try to reduce to complete white and complete black the desirability of a board on the one side or old-fashioned laissez-faire on the other. The argument is really whether a board can be fitted in to a system so that we get the best of both worlds.

I was working in the Colonies in the fateful years 1931–32, and as a result of my experience I regard the pre-war history of the steel industry as a monument to the inefficiency of the private enterprise steel industry. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really think that the industry as it was then organised could in any way stimulate the global demand for steel? I do not see that it could. We must try to puzzle out an organisation which will stimulate markets or find other markets when traditional markets begin to die.

Mr. Summers

The hon. Gentleman criticised conditions in the steel trade in the 'thirties. Will he agree that for years the industry had been crying out for protection by means of a tariff without which it was impossible to rectify the defects which the hon. Member no doubt has in mind?

Mr. Snow

To argue that a tariff is needed to protect one's industries is a curious argument to come even from the hon. Gentleman. We were certainly up against Far Eastern steel production which was developing in those years. Then we had production on the continent which we ought to have been able to meet if all the claims about efficiency were legitimate.

The real point I want to make is that we on this side of the Committee do not trust private enterprise to find the new markets and stimulate demand in the way it should be done. We do not wish to be more controversial than is necessary, but we think that we should use the Government Agency to obtain production and to stimulate demand.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Robson Brown

At this time of the afternoon we seem to get into a little political flurry and hear certain political theories. I do not propose to take up any time in answering some of the things we have heard which could be easily answered. I want to bring the Committee back to the Amendments. I have studied them carefully and I would refer the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) to Clause 4 of the Bill, where it states that it will be the responsibility of the Board to secure the provision and use by iron and steel producers of such production facilities in Great Britain as may be required for the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products. The operative word is "use." The purpose of these Amendments seems to reiterate the obvious. It is the principal duty and responsibility of the Board to see that the plants in the country are used to the best advantage. Let us very quickly analyse what is being suggested. As I understand it—and I shall be quite happy, if I misunderstand the general sense of these Amendments, to give way to be corrected—there is a series of situations that might arise. Let us, first of all, take the situation of a plant which, under all the evidence presented to the Board, is completely inefficient, obsolete and out-of-date. Is it suggested that in that case the Board should take it over?

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom

In this case it is provided for if it is falling into disuse.

Mr. Robson Brown

It might be absolutely in the national interest that such a plant should fall into disuse. There is no other answer to that.

Then we might get the situation where the management is open to criticism. This is an imperfect world, and I would not advance the argument that there could not be such a situation in the steel industry or any other industry. It is sought in this Amendment to exercise discipline—I do not know of what kind or sort—over inefficient management. I can assure the Committee that the owners of these particular companies will have a great deal to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "OH."] Yes, that is the legitimate and Conservative approach to all these matters. The owners of these companies will have a great deal to say and there is a double support in the fact that the Board's attention can be drawn to them by the owners.

In practice, in the industry this matter is dealt with section by section and product by product, and everyone in the industry knows very well the standard of efficiency of each and every company in the particular sections of the industry. Any bad management would be very quickly removed for obvious reasons which I do not want to burden the Committee with at this juncture.

Mr. Mitchison

I am most grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, but I do not think he has quite understood the purpose of the Amendments. If he will look at them, he will see that the Board is first to be consulted in order to secure that existing production facilities are properly used, and then the Board is to report that the proper use of certain existing production facilities is required and that it cannot be obtained in any other way. It is only in those circumstances that the Minister may take the steps provided by the Clause. It is a question of using what is there, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there are abundant safeguards in the consultations, in the Board's report and in the fact that the Minister's powers are discretionary and subject to Treasury approval.

Mr. Robson Brown

The hon. and learned Gentleman, in his interjection, endorses everything I have said and more powerfully than anything that I have been able to say so far. All the provisions are really necessary and are those which anyone would reasonably want. The only way in which there is a difference here is that in the Amendment the emphasis is on the word "compulsory." There is to be compulsion upon the Board and upon the individual company, and we on this side of the Committee repudiate that and want no part in it.

May I for one moment deal with the second matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Brightside—scrap. I can say sincerely that I know of no company in the iron and steel trade which are substantial users of scrap which could be indicted in any way for giving false information, or withholding scrap, or in any way contravening any regulation or the spirit of any regulation that existed in the industry dealing with supplies of scrap. Any firm which thought it was exceptionally smart in accumulating scrap beyond the standard of the level held by the rest of the industry would find that the appropriate committee is well seized of that and would regulate subsequent supplies.

Mr. Winterbottom

Is it not true that the subsequent supplies were regulated accordingly, and that the regulating of the supplies proves my claim that in many cases the accumulation of scrap was irregular?

Mr. Robson Brown

Oh, no. The hon. Member is reading into my words things I have never said or implied. The consumption of scrap in various plants varies in different ways. I could give dozens of technical explanations for that, each of them satisfactory and beyond criticism. The main concern of the Committee this afternoon is the question of inefficient plants. [An HON. MEMBER: "The use."] Use is a qualification not made by the hon. Member for Brightside. He dealt largely with inefficient management of plant. I do not want to take up more than a moment or two on this subject, but the best judges of the inefficient management of a plant are the profit and loss accounts of the particular company. How else can it be measured? There is no other measurement that I know of that can properly and reasonably apply. We may get a situation of degree, but there is degree in every company in the industry.

In conclusion, may I just say this on this matter of competition, which has reared its head many times and on which we on this side of the Committee lay such great emphasis. Let us bear in mind that there is no monopoly of steel in the country. We cannot command consumers to use steel and steel only. A competitive element exists all the time with products of steel. In the last few years the competition of aluminium products for structural purposes and the like has increased in a remarkable way. In the canning industry more and more substitutes are appearing for steel, and that is one of the most powerful economic influences upon efficiency or inefficiency in any particular part of an industry. That is the first thing I want to say about competition.

The second aspect of competition which I want to mention is that between company and company within the industry. Even if the price is fixed on a certain basis, there is the whole competitive element of management against management, which is a powerful lever. There is pride in one's craft, and the ability of the management of one particular company as against another, which is one of the finest motive forces in any industry. We must keep it alive in this country. The varying degrees of competition that exist between one company and another is the best guarantee of efficiency.

All these factors must be taken into consideration. If the suggestions contained in these Amendments were carried, the position would be that the Board from time to time would be expected and required to take under their wing one after another of these inefficient plants and inefficient works. In the end they would finish with a whole conglomeration of works that perhaps might be put out of operation and more efficient and more modern plant put in their place. We do not want to perpetuate inefficient plant, but to take a balanced view and get an overall picture; and, so far as possible, modernise and bring up to the highest degree of efficiency every section of the industry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low)

We have had a long and interesting debate on a matter of obvious importance. There is no dispute that we wish to see maximum efficiency in the industry. The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) did not go into a detailed explanation of how all these Amendments fit into Clause 4, and I understand why. However, I think it would be a good thing if I analysed that because it would remove misunderstandings which appear to exist in the minds of some hon. Members.

The purpose of these Amendments is to secure that within the framework of Clause 4 the Minister may use existing production facilities, or make arrangements for other persons to use them, if the Board think those facilities are not being used in an efficient way. That efficient way is defined either—in the case of the Board—as the promotion of an efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products, or—in the case of the Minister—if he thinks better use of existing production facilities is required in the national interest.

Subsection (2) covers only the permission given to the Minister to provide and use particular facilities. It is in subsection (3) that the Minister is given the power to acquire facilities. To round off that point I think it should be made clear we are not taking into account a later Amendment, not to be considered now, relating to compulsory acquisition.

We are concerned here only with inefficient use, and not with inefficient plant as such. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) made a point about that which I do not propose to answer. Nor are we concerned with the question of demand which was referred to by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). We discussed in Committee the inefficient use of production facilities. We cannot advise the Committee to accept these Amendments for reasons similar to those which I advanced in resisting Amendments to subsection (3) proposed by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) in Committee. I thought I had satisfied hon. Gentlemen opposite and that they would not press the matter further. But as they have done so, I will endeavour to explain our reasons once again.

5.45 p.m.

The test of efficiency and inefficiency used, or assumed, in these Amendments is the opinion of the Board or the Minister as the case may be. We may all have our opinions about the efficiency or inefficiency of this or that undertaking, or person, or Member of Parliament, or even Minister.

Mr. Jack Jones

Or even a junior Minister.

Mr. Low

Or even of anything. The hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), who is an expert in these matters of efficiency in industry, would agree, as I think would some hon. Members opposite, when I say that it is no easy task to decide, merely by investigating what is happening in a company or undertaking, whether that organisation is efficient or inefficient. It can be done only by a thorough investigation which would involve a degree of interference in the affairs of individual companies which we do not wish to see. It would be contrary to the spirit of the Bill which aims at free enterprise for this industry, subject to the supervision of the Board——

Mr. Jones

Let them do as they like.

Mr. Low

The hon. Gentleman says, "Let them do as they like." That is not the spirit in which I am dealing with this matter and I should be grateful if he would listen to the rest of my argument.

Surely the best test is the far more simple test, the normal test of free enterprise and competition in industry—which hon. Members opposite allowed to operate over 80 per cent. of the industry in this country—of whether a company is running at a loss or at a profit.

Mr. Arthur Palmer (Cleveland)

I am puzzled at the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Surely one of the chief duties of the Board, as proposed in this Bill, is to promote efficiency. If the Board is not competent to do that, and has no standards by which to judge, how will the thing work at all?

Mr. Low

I asked the hon. Membet for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) to be good enough to wait to hear what I was about to say. If the hon. Member would also wait, I think I can satisfy him that the Board has a part to play. But we do not think that the part which the Board will play is that of examining each company and deciding on their own whether the company is efficient or not.

The best test is whether a company is running at a profit or a loss. It may be said that if there is no competition in prices, if prices are fixed for one reason or another, that test may not be satisfactory. For that reason the Board have the price determining power under Clause 7. They can fix maximum prices and one would suppose they would fix them on the basis of efficient production. In that case surely the best evidence of inefficiency would be whether a company, operating with those prices, made a loss or a profit. I cannot see any difficulty in accepting that argument. I would go further. If the Board thought that greater efficiency might be obtained by reducing prices they have the power to do so.

What happens inside a company when a loss is being incurred? Several of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts), the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) and the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown), have covered this point. The immediate reaction is that the top man takes an interest, then the board of the company and then the shareholders take an interest.

The hon. Member for Brightside made a false assumption in one of the questions he posed. He asked what was the use of building new plant if existing plant is not properly used. We want the existing plant to be properly used. In the circumstances envisaged in this Bill it will be properly used. The false assumption is that those who own plant will want to go on incurring a loss. That is an assumption we cannot accept. It is a human characteristic that those who invest their money in undertakings like to see them faring well. They object when the undertakings do not fare well. That is as good a guarantee as any that steps will be taken to see that companies which appear to be running at a loss are urged to improve their efficiency.

It is always open to the Board, when they hear that companies are being run inefficiently, to lend their advice and influence to improve efficiency. If efficiency cannot be improved, the company will stop using the works. The company can sell the works as a going concern, but they may be unable to find a buyer. Obviously, if they can sell the works they will do so because they will get more money in that case. If they cannot find a buyer, it is open to the Minister, under subsection (3), to acquire the works, or to lease them by voluntary arrangement and use them himself or make arrangements for others to do so. Further, if the Minister hears that the works are likely to close down and he makes up his mind to keep them open, he can avoid any stoppage of work by using them at once. It will not be a case of closing the stable door after the horse has run away.

In fact, not only do these Amendments provide a test of efficiency and inefficiency which is not the best test, but they add nothing to the Bill which would help the Board to secure efficiency.

There is a small drafting point in connection with the Amendment, in page 6, line 4, after "use," to insert: or that any existing production facilities in Great Britain ought in the national interest to be more efficiently used or used otherwise or for some other purpose than at present. The words: used otherwise or for some other purpose than at present could mean that the Minister could use works for some purpose other than the making of iron and steel products as defined in the Bill. I cannot believe that that was the object of the Opposition. Even if we were to recommend the acceptance of that Amendment, those words would not be satisfactory.

For the reasons I have given, I hope that the Committee will reject this Amendment without a Division, just as they rejected a similar Amendment during the Committee stage.

Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh (Islington, North)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could help us by elucidating one matter. I draw my definitions from entirely within his own speech, without saying whether they are good or bad. He erected the whole of his argument on the assumption that the profit and loss account was the criterion of the efficiency of an industry. I do not say whether that is right or wrong. I base this point purely on the definition given by the Minister. As the plants in the iron and steel industry have shown a higher profit since nationalisation, cannot it be assumed, on the Minister's own argument, that they are much more efficient than they were under private enterprise? If the hon. Gentleman's logic is correct, why does not he take his wretched Bill away and leave the industry as it is?

Mr. Low

It would take me a long time to answer those questions fully. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are special factors affecting the profits of the Iron and Steel Corporation. Secondly, developments planned long ago by private enterprise have come to fruition.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

The Parliamentary Secretary is always very clear in the answers he gives to our Amendments, but sometimes he is a little simple. I do not say that in any derogatory sense. Perhaps it would be better to say that he is a little naive in his conception of the industry or indeed of the working of capitalism and industry generally. He showed some of that naiveté by the way in which he dealt with this Amendment.

He was very fair in stating simply the limited purpose of this Amendment. It seeks to ensure that where, on the advice of the Board, the Minister finds that certain production facilities are not being used in the best way for the promotion of efficient production, he may use them himself. The position is that if the Minister thinks that the production facilities of the country are insufficient for national requirements, he is given power to build new facilities after receiving advice from the Board and consulting everybody who ought to be consulted. My view is that he will never do that. In fact, the Minister has told us that it is most unlikely But he is given power to build new production facilities if he thinks that those in existence are inadequate.

Surely before he would consider spending millions of pounds of public money and devoting large sections of our resources to this purpose, the Minister would want to insist that existing production facilities were being used 100 per cent. in the best interests of the nation. He would not contemplate spending millions of pounds on new facilities if he had reason to believe that there were existing facilities which were not properly or fully used. We say that if the Minister finds that existing facilities are not being properly or fully used, then rather than build new ones he should be allowed to use the existing ones.

Against that, we have had arguments by the Parliamentary Secretary and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They ask how can the Board interfere in a matter of efficiency, and how can the Minister make use of facilities of this sort. That argument has been put forward by the hon. Member for Heeley and others. It is that, if we want efficiency, all we have to do is to leave the industry in the hands of private enterprise, and somebody or other—management, directors or shareholders—will sooner or later see that the industry is properly run, and that it is quite ridiculous for anyone else to be brought in.

6.0 p.m.

If that were true, it would never happen that companies are reconstructed, lose large sums of money, are in danger of becoming bankrupt, and are then bought up by new people. We cannot afford to waste our resources in the iron and steel industry. The building of production facilities is exceptionally expensive, and we have to be sure that all these facilities are being used in the best interests of the iron and steel industry and are producing to their full capacity.

May I remind hon. Members opposite how important was Government interference of this sort during the war? One could give a good many examples. I was working in the Ministry of Aircraft Production at the time, and I know how constantly the Government found that works were inefficient and were not showing the output commensurate with their potential.

An outstanding example was Short's, the aircraft firm. There, it was found that, under the existing management and ownership, the firm was not producing the goods in the quantity and in the way which the Government required, and it became necessary, after several attempts had been made to make the organisation more efficient to meet the needs of the nation, for the Government to step in, buy the company up and take steps to effect a reorganisation. That happened in war-time, and the same situation may well happen in peace-time, not only to an aircraft firm, but to an important firm in the iron and steel industry if that firm is not doing its job, properly.

The firm may be making a profit at the time. I am unaware, and I cannot remember, whether Short's were making a profit at the time; they probably were, but that has nothing to do with it. A firm can become grossly inefficient and be making profits; they do not necessarily go bankrupt because they are inefficient. It may take five or 10 years before they reach that stage, but we cannot afford to wait 10 years.

Again, the firm may have huge reserves behind them, enabling them to keep going for a long time, or they may be using only 50 per cent. of their capacity, and yet making a profit on it. Therefore, the argument put forward by the Government, saying that it is all right, because, if a firm are not using their production facilities properly, they will go bankrupt, and that, therefore, at that stage, the Government can step in——

Mr. Low

May I put to the right hon. Gentleman a point with which he has not dealt? The Board have price-fixing powers. Surely, with the aid of these price determination powers under Clause 7, they can at least cover the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Strauss

Not a bit. It is quite possible for a company to be producing and making a profit, and using only 75 or even 50 per cent. of their capacity; or they may be running their plant in such a way that they are certainly producing well below capacity and still making a profit at the maximum prices fixed by the Government or the Board. It may be a company with new and efficient plant and good machinery, and they will not necessarily be running at a loss, even if they sell either below or at the maximum prices fixed by the Government or the Board. All the arguments which suggest that there is some automatic control over the efficiency of the industry, either by maximum prices or by firms going bankrupt, are just nonsense.

Everybody here appreciates that the profits or losses of a firm do not necessarily have any relation to the efficiency of the firm. There are many firms, including new firms working for five years or more at a loss, which may be exceedingly efficient, and there may be other firms making substantial profits while exceedingly inefficient. Therefore, to say that we have to wait for the automatic working of the profit and loss accounts to show that a firm is going bankrupt and then buy it up is sheer nonsense.

We say that, exactly for the same reason that the Government found it necessary during the war to take over Short's, which may have been working at a profit, so it is necessary to give the Minister power so that, when he has obtained all the information he requires, when this independent Board of high-powered and able people have advised that any particular works are not playing their proper part in the production of iron and steel products, or can do better, the Minister ought to be able to say that, rather than build new works costing millions of pounds, he would take over the existing works and see that they are run more efficiently, just as the Government saw that Short's was run more efficiently when they took that firm over.

It is ridiculous to put forward the argument that the Government cannot run these works efficiently, because that was their argument and the argument of the hon. Member for Heeley. If that is so, then let us not have this Clause in the Bill at all, because it gives the Minister the power to build works and run them in association with other people.

Mr. Robson Brown

A very good suggestion.

Mr. Strauss

That is the purpose of this Clause, and the Minister has insisted that it should be he who should have the power to run them, not necessarily himself, but through other people. We wish to give him exactly the same authority and power to run existing works efficiently, in association with other people.

For all these reasons, we say that the arguments put up against this proposition do not stand examination. The Board has a responsibility for maintaining efficiency, and it is no use hon. Members opposite saying they ought not to have, because the Board has this responsibility for the efficiency of the industry clearly stated in Clause 3. In view of the importance of this industry to the country, in order to make sure that it is contributing all that it can contribute to the prosperity of the British economy, it is somebody's duty to see to it not only that its total capacity is sufficient to meet all needs but that the existing facilities are being properly used.

Therefore, if, after the most careful scrutiny and examination suggested in this Clause, independent people, sitting in a position of responsibility and chosen by the Minister, after consultation with goodness knows how many people, recommend that a certain works is being inefficiently run we say that he should have power to take over such works and see that it is run in the interests of the nation.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

If the right hon. Gentleman's case is that the profit and loss account of an industrial undertaking is not to be a criterion of efficiency, would he explain why, to cover last year's heavy losses and in anticipation of this year's further losses, the National Coal Board have regarded their profit and loss account as the most important criterion of all and why, to cover all those losses, they have bounced up the price of coal by 5s. 6d.?

Mr. Strauss

Had the hon. Member been listening, he would have realised that I said nothing of the sort. I said that the profits and losses of a company are not necessarily a criterion of either efficiency or mismanagement.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 266.

Division No. 114.] AYES [6.11 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Plummer, Sir Leslie
Adams, Richard Hamilton, W. W. Poole, C. C.
Albu, A. H. Hardy, E. A. Popplewell, E.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Hargreaves, A Porter, G.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hastings, S. Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Hayman, F. H. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) Proctor, W. T.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh) Pryde, D. J.
Awbery, S. S. Herbison, Miss M. Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Bacon, Miss Alice Hewitson, Capt. M. Rankin, John
Balfour, A. Hobson, C. R. Reeves, J.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A.J. Holman, P Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Bartley, P Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) Reid, William (Camlachie)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J Houghton, Douglas Rhodes, H.
Bence, C. R. Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Richards, R.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Benson, G. Hughes, Emrys (S Ayrshire) Roberts, Goronwy (Carnarvon)
Beswick, F. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Blackburn, F Hynd, H. (Accrington) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Blenkinsop, A. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Ross, William
Blyton, W. R. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Shackleton, E. A. A.
Boardman, H. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G Janner, B. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Bowden, H. W. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T Shurmer, P. L. E.
Bowles, F. G. Jeger, George (Goole) Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Brockway, A. F. Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Jones, David (Hartlepool) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Snow, J. W.
Burton, Miss F. E. Keenan, W. Sorensen, R. W.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Kenyon, C. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Carmichael, J. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Sparks, J. A.
Champion, A. J. King, Dr. H. M. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Chapman, W. D. Kinley, J. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Chetwynd, G. R. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Clunie, J. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Coldrick, W. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Stross, Dr. Barnett
Collick, P. H. Lewis, Arthur Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Lindgren, G. S. Swingler, S. T.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Sylvester, G. O.
Crosland, C. A. R. Logan, D. G. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Crossman, R. H. S. MacColl, J. E. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. McGhee, H. G Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Darling, George (Hillsborough) McGovern, J. Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) McLeavy, F. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Davies, Harold (Leek) MacMillan, M. K. (Westeren Isles) Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Thomson, George(Dundee, E.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Delargy, H. J. Mann, Mrs. Jean Thornton, E.
Dodds, N. N. Manuel, A. C. Thurtle, Ernest
Donnelly, D. L. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Timmons, J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Mellish, R. J. Tomney, F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Messer, F. Tourner-Samuels, M.
Edelman, M. Mitchison, G. R. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Edwards, John (Brighouse) Monslow, W. Usborne, H C.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Moody, A. S. Viant, S. P.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. Weitzman, D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Morley, R. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Evans, Edward (Lowesteft) Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Wells, William (Walsall)
Fernyhough, E. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) West, D. G.
Fienburgh, W Mort, D. L. Wheeldon, W. E.
Finch, H. J. Moyle, A. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) Mulley, F. W. Wigg, George
Follick, M. Murray, J. D. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Foot, M. M. Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Wilkins, W. A.
Forman, J. C. Oliver, G. H. Willey, F. T.
Freeman, John (Watford) O'Neill, Michael (Mid Ulster) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Orbach, M. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Gibson, C. W. Oswald, T. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gooch, E. G. Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield) Palmar, A. M. F. Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Pannell, Charles Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Pargiter, G. A. Wyatt, W. L.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Parker, J. Yates, V F
Griffiths, William (Exchange) Paton, J.
Hate, Leslie Pearson, A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Pearl, T. F. Mr. Wallace and
Mr. James Johnson.
NOES
Aitken, W. T. Graham, Sir Fergus Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Allan, R. A (Paddington, S.) Gridley, Sir Arnold Medlicott, Brig, F
Alport, C. J. M. Grimond, J. Mellor, Sir John
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Grimston, Hon. John (St, Albans) Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Hall, John (Wycombe) Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Arbuthnot, John Hare, Hon. J. H. Mott-Radclyffe C. E.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) Nabarro, G. D. N.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Harris, Reader (Heston) Nicholls, Harmar
Astor, Hon. J. J. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Baldwin, A. E. Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Nield, Basil (Chester)
Banks, Col. C. Harvie-Walt, Sir George Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Barber, Anthony Hay, John Nugent, G. R. H.
Barlow, Sir John Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Nutting, Anthony
Beach, Maj. Hicks Heald, Sir Lionel Oakshott, H. D.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Heath, Edward Odey, G. W.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Henderson, John (Cathcart) O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Higgs, J. M. C. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Hinohingbrooke, Viscount Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Birch, Nigel Hirst, Geoffrey Osborne, C.
Bishop, F. P. Holland-Martin, C. J. Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Black, C. W. Hollis, M. C. Perkins, W. R. D.
Bossom, A. C. Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich) Peto, Brig C. H. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Holt, A. F. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Boyle, Sir Edward Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Pitman, I. J.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Powell, J. Enoch
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Horobin, I. M. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Profumo, J. D.
Brooman-White, R. C. Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Raikes, Sir Victor
Browne, Jack (Govan) Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Rayner, Brig. R.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Remnant, Hon. P.
Bullard, D. G. Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. Renton, D. L. M.
Bullock, Capt. M. Hurd, A. R. Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) Robertson, Sir David
Burden, F. F. A. Hutchison, Lt.-Corn. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. Robson Brown, W.
Campbell, Sir David Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Cary, Sir Robert Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Roper, Sir Harold
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Jones, A. (Hall Green) Russell, R. S.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Cole, Norman Kaberry, D. Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Colegate, W. A. Kerr, H. W. Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Lambton, Viscount Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr, Albert Lancaster, Col. C. G. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Langford-Holt, J. A. Scott, R. Donald
Cranborne, Viscount Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R
Crookshank, Capt. RI. Hon. H. F. C. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Shepherd, William
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Crouch, R. F. Lindsay, Martin Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Linstead, H. N. Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton) Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Davidson, Viscountess Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Snadden, W. MoN.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Soames, Capt. C.
Deedes, W. F. Longden, Gilbert Spearman, A. C. M
Digby, S. Wingfield Low, A. R. W. Speir, R. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S) Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Donner, P. W. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Stevens, G. P.
Doughty, C. J. A. McAdden, S. J. Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm McCallum, Major D. Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M. Macdonald, Sir Peter Storey, S.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Fell, A. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Finlay, Graeme Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Studholme, H. G.
Fisher, Nigel Maclean, Fitzroy Summers, G. S.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Foster, John Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Teeling, W.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hareford)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Gammans, L. D. Markham, Major S. F. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Garner-Evans, E. H. Marlowe, A. A. H. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Glyn, Sir Ralph Marples, A. E. Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton) Tilney, John
Gough, C. F. H. Maude, Angus Touche, Sir Gordon
Gower, H. R. Maudling, R. Turner, H. F. L.
Turton, R. H. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Vane, W. M. F Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. Wood, Hon. R.
Vosper, D. F. Wellwood, W. York, C.
Wade, D. W. Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Walker-Smith, D. C. Williams, R. Dudley (Exator) Mr. Drewe and Mr. Redmayne.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) Wills, G.

Amendment made: In page 5, line 45, at end, insert: Iron ore produced outside Great Britain by means of production facilities provided under this subsection shall not be required to be used wholly in the iron and steel industry.—[Mr. Sandys.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.