§ (1) The Board in order to perform their duty and for the better exercise of their functions under this Act shall from time to time or whenever so required by the Minister consult with such iron and steel producers and such representative organisations as the Board consider appropriate and prepare and submit to the Minister the Board's development plans for the iron and steel industry.
§ (2) Any such development plan may relate to the whole or to part of the iron and steel industry and to the whole or to part of the Board's said duty and functions.
§ (3) The Minister may approve any such development plan with or without modification and a development plan so approved shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall be published.
§ (4) The Board shall perform their said duty and exercise their said functions so as to conform with and promote the execution of development plans approved under this section. —[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Speaker
In connection with this new Clause, I see an Amendment to Clause 15 in the name of the Minister, in page 15, line 9, at the end, to insert:(2) The Board shall, from time to time, include in their annual report to the Minister a summary prepared in the light of their consultations under subsection (1) of section four of this Act, of the proposals of iron and steel producers for the future provision and use of production facilities, and the summary shall cover such period and such parts of the iron and steel industry as the Board think fit and it shall state the effect which the said proposals will, in the opinion of the Board have on the supply of iron and steel products.Perhaps the new Clause and this Amendment can be taken together, as they seem to me to cover the same subject matter.
§ Mr. Strauss
I fully agree with your suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be convenient to take the two together, and I hope to show that the Amendment in the Minister's name does not in any way meet the point which we have in 471 mind. Our purpose in moving this new Clause is a simple one. We want to give to the Board a duty to prepare a development scheme for the industry or for part of the industry and to submit it to the Minister. The Minister, of course, would publish it. We say further that the Board should prepare such a scheme whenever the Minister directs them.
During the Committee stage of this Bill we sought on many occasions in very many Amendments to give the Board a status which we thought they ought to have in the industry, and we also sought to give them authority in regard to a number of important matters, but we did not succeed. Beyond certain functions, which are mostly negative ones such as fixing maximum prices and vetoing development, we found when the Bill emerged from the Committee stage that the authority and the status of the Board were in our view wholly insufficient to enable them to carry out the important duties and functions which are imposed upon them in Clause 3 of the Bill.
We suggest that one of the duties which the Board ought to have is the important one of drawing up from time to time the development plans for the industry or for any part of the industry. We are moving this new Clause on the Report stage for two reasons. One is that we think it essential that this Board should have these functions; and, the second is that when we raised the matter in the Committee stage we got no reply whatsoever from the Government.
The Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the Amendment on 29th January, and if he wants to refer to his speech he will find it in c. 1306-8 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He answered the preliminary part of the Amendment which I moved, and which suggested that the Board should be empowered to get the information necessary to put forward development plans, but as to the crux of the Amendment—that the Board, having got the information and prepared the development plan for the industry, then presented it to the Minister—all that the Parliamentary Secretary said was that the Government saw no necessity for it. Otherwise he did not refer in any way at all to the Amendment.
§ Mr. Low
The right hon. Gentleman ought to be fair to me and fair with the House. If he will read the speech in question he will see that I pointed out that the Bill already provides that the Minister can get from the Board all the information he needs for his functions in connection with development; and he will see that I met that point quite clearly.
§ Mr. Strauss
I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has heard what I said. I said that our Amendment on the Committee stage asked that the Board should, as one of their functions, prepare the development plan and, for that purpose, should get information from the industry. The Parliamentary Secretary's sole reply was that under the different Clauses of the Bill the Minister could get all the information that was wanted. As to whether it was right or not for the Board to do what we asked, to prepare the development plan for the industry, the Parliamentary Secretary was entirely silent and said not one word. I hope to show to the House that this function should rest on the Board. I believe that our case is simple and unanswerable.
I do not think anyone denies that if the industry is to play its proper part in our national economy it must conform to some broad development plan which is conceived in the interests not only of the iron and steel industry but of the nation. The question arises, Who should draw up that plan? The need for a plan arises from the fact that we have to see that the total quantity of products of the industry is adequate to the nation's requirements for home use and for export purposes, and that, within that total, the total products of various categories is similarly adequate.
In addition a national development plan must ensure that the industry is properly balanced and that its capacity for the production of basic products is roughly equivalent to and not getting out of balance with the productive capacity for the finishing side of the industry. Finally, we need a plan to make sure that there is no waste of our national resources.
One plan of this kind was produced by Steel House after 1945. It was not very difficult to produce this plan, because the industry had not been able to develop 473 during the war years and big development was necessary. This plan received Government sanction. The next plan would have been produced by the Iron and Steel Corporation, if it had had time to do so, upon information provided by Steel House. It is clearly the responsibility of the public corporation to produce the second iron and steel plan. Further plans may have to be thought out, not only plans covering the industry as a whole but smaller development plans covering certain parts of the industry.
If the Bill becomes an Act and operates over any length of time, who is to be responsible for development plans in the iron and steel industry? I should have thought that responsibility must rest squarely somewhere, and that the opinion of the Minister and of many hon. Gentlemen opposite would be that from the technical angle it is desirable that that responsibility should rest on the Board. The only other possible body upon whom it could rest would be Steel House, that is, the Iron and Steel Federation.
The reason why I say it should rest on the Board rather than on the Iron and Steel Federation is that the Board will to some extent stand outside the industry. In the development plan, a great many conflicting interests are brought together. The demands of some of those interests have to be eliminated and favourable replies given to other interests—and there may have to be compromise among conflicting interests and units—in the interests of the industry and of the nation as a whole.
The body that can best draw up a development plan is not Steel House, where conflicts might affect the balance of the plan, and where jealousies and suspicions are likely to arise when one interest is turned down in favour of another. It is surely better to take a problem of that sort right out of Steel House and to put the responsibility for dealing with it on a Board that will look down upon the industry from on high and in which nobody, we hope, will have any personal or direct interest in any plant.
Such a body could say: "It is in the interests of the industry as a whole that 474 there should be an expansion of x million tons during the next few years. This and that plant have to expand, and other plants must either not expand or must contract." That is a development plan. The last development plan was along those lines, and somebody has to produce further development plans.
We urge in the Amendment that it should be the Board. On technical grounds it is much better that it should be the Board, but no power is given in the Bill to the Board to do it. The Board are able to veto a particular development plan put forward by a company but that is a very different matter from considering a development plan for the industry as a whole. The Board are also able to report to the Minister if they consider that production facilities, are insufficient, and the Minister can then take steps to build those facilities.
Under the Amendment which the Minister has on the Paper, and which we are considering, the Board are able to give information to the Minister and to publish in their annual report the conclusions that they have come to after consulting with various sections about the productive capacity of the industry. That is something quite different. It is not a question of publishing in the annual report a summary of the conclusions which the Board have arrived at after consultation with the industry about general productive capacity. We want the Board to have the special technical job of producing a development plan for the industry. Therefore the Minister's Amendment does not meet our point of view at all. We require something much more positive and definite.
§ Mr. Sandys
I should like to be quite clear about what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. He referred to the post-war plan prepared by the Federation. Do I understand that he would like the Board instead of the Federation to carry out the duties in regard to the preparation of a plan such as were previously undertaken by the Federation? In other words, instead of the Federation preparing the plan for the industry as a whole and publishing it the Board would henceforward do what the industry had done?
§ Mr. Strauss
Certainly. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I thought 475 I had been arguing that way all along. The Board should prepare a big plan such as was produced by the Federation in 1945, or smaller plans for the minor parts of the industry, rather than the Federation. Technically it is desirable that the Board should do this job because they stand outside the industry in an independent position, and moreover it will give the Board some authority in the industry and a constructive and positive job to do.
The point of view of the Government is that it is not the duty of the Board to interfere more than is necessary and that we must leave all these things to be decided by the industry, in this case the Federation and Steel House. I think the Government are entirely wrong to stick to that principle. This is a question of supreme national importance. Decisions about the future size and shape of the iron and steel industry will determine the welfare of the whole British economy.
We are not referring to the day-to-day management of the industry. There we do not want any interference by the Government; but in the broad matters upon which so much depends the Board should step in and take responsibility—should interfere, if anyone likes to put it that way. They should take the responsibility on their shoulders and on a national basis, upon data supplied to them by the various units in the iron and steel industry. They should draw up a plan and submit it to the Minister. On technical and psychological grounds it is appropriate and desirable that the Board and no one else—certainly not Steel House—should do this job in the future.
§ Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)
I wish to support this new Clause principally on the ground adduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), that we on this side of the House believe that responsibility for the development of this major industry should rest primarily upon the Board. It is true that the steel industry has been in the habit of producing development plans from time to time. Best known to the public was the immediate post-war plan. Following discussion, that was a considerable modification of the plan originally put forward by the Iron and Steel Federation. But that is not the end of the story, because I understand that 476 what one might call the second post-war development plan is now under discussion, and has, in fact, been prepared by the Federation.
I have before me several quotations from the "Financial Times" and the "Manchester Guardian" referring to this plan as it was first adumbrated in June of last year. I believe it was presented to the Government about November. It deals with the expenditure of some £300 million during the next five years of development and is a Federation plan. I admit that, owing to political circumstances, the Iron and Steel Corporation have never been able to exercise that authority over the Iron and Steel Federation which we on this side of the House believe they should have been able to do; but the point, so far as this Bill is concerned, is surely that we on this side of the House—holding the principles that we do—should make it very clear that we think the responsibility for a development plan for this great industry should be most firmly laid upon the Board, and not upon a voluntary association, however powerful or intelligent it may be.
When these matters are discussed in what is, after all, a glorified trade association, there is bound to be an atmosphere of, "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." There is bound to be a certain amount of, shall we say, friendly accommodation between people associated in the same industry. But the conclusions to which they may come for reasons of their own, including sometimes personal reasons, may not necessarily be the best possible conclusions when viewed objectively. I believe it is the intention of the Government to take some measure of responsibility, but we wish to make it clear that that responsibility should be laid upon the Board.
We also wish to make it clear that the Minister, having considered proposals put forward by the Board, and not by a private association only, and when those proposals have been discussed and modified if need be, shall lay the development plan before Parliament; that it shall be published, so that the public may have some idea of what is proposed for one of our basic industries.
It is suggested by the Minister's Amendment in Clause 15, which we were told we may discuss with this new 477 Clause, that all that is required is that in the annual report the Board should provide a summary of the proposals for future provision: and that the summary should cover.such period and such parts of the iron and steel industry as the Board think fit and it shall state the effect which the said proposals will, in the opinion of the Board have on the supply of iron and steel products.I have no doubt that it will be most useful to have a summary of those proposals in the annual reports. But we all know the kind of time-table of annual reports. They provide useful material for general discussion of principles, but they usually appear anything from six to 18 months after the period under discussion. The suggestion of the Minister, therefore, is useful so far as it goes, in supplying us with information which may be of great value to historians. I am not suggesting that we should not do all we can to assist those who like to study these matters, but it is absolutely irrelevant from the point of view of having any practical effect upon whether or not a development plan should be approved. It is neither here nor there.
We cannot possibly pretend that the Minister's Amendment is in any way relevant to the point we are making in this proposed new Clause, that the function of preparing and presenting development plans should be laid upon the Board; that plans, having been laid before the Minister and discussed by him, should thereupon be laid before Parliament. I hope that we shall have some discussion on this point, because extremely important development plans are now being discussed. They have not yet been vouchsafed to the public, as I understand, but presumably something will emerge sooner or later.
I hope that this new Clause will be considered very carefully. We do not think the situation is satisfactory when the programme for such a very important industry is left virtually in the hands of a private trade association.
§ Mr. Fienburgh
If the Board is not given the right to formulate development plans for the industry we shall have to try to discover who is to formulate those plans—if, indeed, they are to be formulated. The first possibility is that there will be no long-term development plans at all. That would lead to chaos, not 478 only within the industry, but in the economy generally. I doubt whether investors in this industry would be prepared to invest unless there were a longterm plan within the framework of which they could invest. Otherwise, they would be in the position of people placing large sums of money on the gambling table when the roulette wheel is spinning.
There could be no certainty about plans in the industry and, therefore, there would be every likelihood of complete chaos reigning in a very short time. I am sure that the Minister does not desire or expect that. He obviously expects, as was made clear in his interjection to my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) that the British Iron and Steel Federation will itself formulate the long-term development plans of the industry as on the pattern to date. The interjection of the Minister, when he took up the point made by my right hon. Friend, gave the impression that he rather expected that the Federation would, as before, formulate the development plans——
§ Mr. Sandys
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I was asking for information. I asked what the right hon. Gentleman opposite had in mind. I expressed no personal opinion.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Fienburgh
Then we are still in doubt. Unless this new Clause is accepted, the Board will not be given the duty of formulating a development plan. The Minister certainly does not think that it is his duty to do so. I am sure that he would not want the industry to remain in chaos in its development plans. I hope that he will elucidate when he replies to the debate. But if it is in his mind at all that the Federation should be regarded as an instrument of longterm planning in this industry, we might look rather more closely at some of the development plans which have been put forward.
We should remember that the Federation was formed in 1934 with the duty and objective of drawing up a development plan for the industry. Up to the outbreak of war in 1939, after five years, no plan had been forthcoming. We do not make too much of the fact that no plan was produced during the war because most of the officers of the 479 Federation were employed at that time as officials of the Ministry of Supply. Not until June, 1945, when the Caretaker Government were in office was a letter sent from the Government to the Federation asking that their post-war development plans should be outlined.
Within a short period of three months apparently the Federation were able to survey, to calculate, to weigh and to look at all the details within this enormously complicated industry and to produce a plan. The first plan was produced in August, 1945. In the meantime, the Labour Government had been elected with the item of steel nationalisation in their mandate from the electorate. It became clear, in those circumstances, that a hasty hotch-potch of a thrown-together development plan spun out of practically nothing within three months would certainly not be satisfactory to a Labour Government even though it had been anticipated that it might be satisfactory to a Conservative Government.
So the plan was taken away—buried, scrapped—and in another four months we had a further development plan. In December, 1945, the plan which we now know as the post-war development plan of the steel industry was finally produced. It postulated a target of 15 million tons production. It was very strongly criticised at the time by economists, steel masters and politicians on the line that the production target envisaged in the plan was certainly not high enough.
Then two other interesting developments happened in this train of careful and logical planning based upon deep thought and research. When the Labour Government produced a White Paper reiterating their intention to nationalise the industry this plan, which was supposed to be a long-term plan, was immediately amended, and the target for the industry was increased from 15 million to 16 million tons. Later, when we went further in the Labour Government and the Bill to nationalise the industry was first introduced, this carefully thought out plan was once again amended in a very short time. This time a target of 18 million tons was put forward.
Here we have no long-term planning at all. This increase in the prospective target of the industry was obviously a bid for absolution against nationalisa- 480 tion. It was clear to us that the Federation had not really been planning at all but had been putting down target figures based not on an overall survey of the industry, but on an agglomeration of the separate development plans put forward by the individual steel-making firms. One can have a kind of development plan if one simply takes all the plans of the separate firms, adds them together, puts a rule underneath, tots up the total and says that it is a plan. But in realistic, economic terms that is not a plan at all.
In realistic economic terms one development proposal must be weighed carefully against the other. That was never done in the writing of development plans by the Federation. That task had to be done later when some of these competitive plans began to impinge one upon the other. At that stage the exercise of supervision and control by the Ministry and by the Corporation had to be introduced to make the plan work at all. But this planning in the hands of the Federation, when it began to impinge upon the plans of the individual firms—when indeed to some small extent it indicated that firms might not be able to go ahead just as they had wished—created the most violent opposition within the industry.
We recall that it was reported in the "Financial Times" of 24th May, 1946, that the Chairman of the South Durham Steel Works, addressing his annual meeting, said:We have continually opposed the Federation's proposals as affecting our works—we take the view that we ourselves know best the particular necessities of our own plant.The Skinningrove Iron Company, in a letter read by the Minister of Supply of that day to the House of Commons, on 27th May, 1946, said:We entirely disagree with the implications…in the report as to the future of these works,…and the Chairman of this Company—has already written to the British Iron and Steel Federation—to this effect." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 847.]Clearly, the component firms within the industry were only prepared to accept the long-term planning when it did not impinge on the proposals that they themselves had in mind for their own companies and concerns.
There is within the Federation, within the proposed powers of the Board and 481 within the powers of the Minister no direct authority whereby any firm can be made to adhere to a general plan if it does not feel that it is desirable in its own interests. Of course, the Federation has some power and sanction. Of course there is a high degree of organisation in the iron and steel industry. They have always been prepared to organise on prices and on the creation and use of a central fund. They have always recognised the need to co-operate on raw material supplies. They have always recognised the need for restrictive co-operation, but they have never recognised the need for expansive co-operation along the lines which will be needed if a development plan is, first, to be realistic and, second, to be put into operation.
What we suggest in this new Clause is simple. The Board should have the power, first, to obtain the information and secondly, to draw up a comprehensive plan for the whole industry. We know full well that within this emasculated Bill as it stands the Board will have no power to do anything once a plan has been formulated. They will not have any power to make any of the companies or the Federation take any special line of action. But one thing at least will be done, and that is that the plan for the development of this most vital industry will be drawn up objectively, in the light of the national requirements, and it will serve as a touchstone against which we can measure the actual performance of the industry.
§ Mr. Aubrey Jones (Birmingham, Hall Green)
Nobody would dispute the need for a development plan in this industry. Nobody would dispute the need to publish such a plan. That is common ground. The question is, whose development plan should it be? The speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite have tended to argue that it must be the product of a double influence—the companies' plans and the Board's plan. I suggest, on the contrary, that it should be the product of three agencies—the companies, the trade association and the Board.
In the last resort the ultimate responsibility is on the Board, because it is the Board who can report to the Minister that the plan envisaged is inadequate in certain respects. Therefore, they have the last word. The one reason of any 482 apparent cogency advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite for cutting out the trade association was—in the phrase of the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White)—that there would be a lot of back-scratching. I think that she went on to use the word "accommodation." Members of the trade association would know each other and instead of the plan being designed to meet the real needs of the industry, it would be designed in the light of the personal friendships and prejudices of the people concerned.
That is a negative argument. I do not think that there is much in it. It seems to me that these plans have been drawn up by the central association in a spirit of neutrality and of objectivity. The negative reason apart, there seems to me to be an important practical and positive reason why we should still include the trade association. The hon. Lady opposite mentioned that a second development plan is in course of preparation. Quite clearly, one of the first tasks of the new Board will be to review that plan and come to certain decisions on what is proposed, but, if this new Clause is approved and is incorporated in the Bill, the Board would have to begin the preparation of this plan afresh and de novo, and that would certainly delay the completion and execution of the plan. I should have thought that it would have been very wasteful to disregard the accumulated experience of the trade association.
§ Mrs. White
I do not think that the argument which the hon. Member is now putting forward is a valid one, because, after all, under the proposed new Clause, the Board will be under an obligation to consult such iron and steel producers, and that does not rule out that they should consult through the trade associations. Therefore, the work of the trade associations would not be wasted.
§ Mr. Jones
I think that the tenor of the argument advanced by the party opposite was to cut out the trade association altogether and to establish a direct relationship between the Board and the companies. If I am wrong in that understanding, I quite willingly apologise. It seems to me that the trade association, however malign we think its influence may be, by the very fact that it has an accumulation of experience in this matter, could make a valuable contribution. 483 It could study the schemes submitted by individual companies and put forward suggestions of its own, with the result that a plan would evolve which the Board would amend in its turn according to its own light.
I would have thought that it would have been very useful, even for hon. Members opposite, to know exactly where the Board diverged in their views from the trade association; if the new Clause is accepted, they would have no such information at all, the plan having been entirely decided in direct relationship between the Board and the companies, with nobody else in it. I should have thought that there was some point in knowing what differences of view existed between the industry and the Board, and I therefore think that the new Clause goes too far.
On the other hand, I must admit that what proposes to be the alternative Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend seems to me not to go far enough. It seems to provide for company plans, but for no plan over and above those of the individual units, if my understanding of it is right, and I hope I am wrong. That seems to me not to be going far enough, and—perhaps as usual—I would therefore myself favour something in between, something going not quite as far as the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman opposite but going a little further than the Amendment of my right hon. Friend.
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Mulley
I am rather surprised at the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), who usually speaks with such conviction and knowledge on this subject, and whose objection to this new Clause is that we should be able to tell where the Board and the Federation fall out. If the hon. Gentleman thinks they will fall out so often that this information is of great significance, that is probably a very good reason for not proceeding with this Bill at all. It is a very curious reason to advance against the new Clause that, unless the Board is kept out of the ring and the trade associations and the companies are allowed to do the planning first, that might mean that the Board would have to start studying the subject afresh.
§ Mr. Aubrey Jones
I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I am not saying that the companies and the trade associations should do the planning first and that the Board should come in after. The way I envisage it is that the companies should put forward certain schemes and that the trade associations and the Board should study them together. The trade associations might make certain amendments and additions and suggestions of their own, and, similarly, the Board could do so, with the result that the ultimate scheme would be the product of all three.
§ Mr. Mulley
I rather thought that the hon. Gentleman envisaged the position of the Board as that of the Minister of Housing and Local Government in regard to schemes submitted by a local authority for approval. If he will read the new Clause he will find that we specifically include representative organisations, and we say:The Board…shall…consult with such iron and steel producers and such representative organisations as the Board consider appropriate. …I want to commend the new Clause to the Minister very strongly, and, since I know that perhaps my own words will not carry very much weight, I want to back them with the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, which reported on the existing position and future developments of the iron and steel industry in 1937. I have here the recommendations of that committee, which were highly esteemed by the party opposite. They were, I think, referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who quoted them from a pamphlet issued by the party opposite.
On the question of development, the report, referring to the very critical situation of the industry in the 1930's, says. in paragraph 44:We nevertheless think it unfortunate that there were not in existence at the time the proposals were under discussion any arrangements for ensuring that they—and any schemes of development of the like nature—should be considered in relation to the structure and organisation of the industry as a whole, and to the national economy, and with a fuller regard for all the social considerations involved than either the local concerns whose co-operation was sought, or even the Federation itself, were competent to give. The desirability of such arrangements is in our view the outstanding lesson to be drawn from the Jarrow episode, and is a matter with which we deal fully later in this Report.485 In paragraph 46, which is headed "Development and Planning," the Report says:we start from two broad propositions. The first is that there cannot be a return to the unorganised conduct and almost casual development and the largely unrestricted competition at home and from abroad which characterised the industry until 1932.The second quotation from this paragraph, and this has been quoted by the party opposite in commendation of this Bill, is:The State cannot divest itself of all responsibility as to the conduct of an industry so far reaching in its scope, so vital to the national well-being, so largely dependent on State fiscal policy for its prosperity, and now being brought into a closely knit organisation.The same paragraph goes on to say:We shall refer in several places to the desirability, in our judgment, of the policy of the British Iron and Steel Federation and of the various associations, whether affiliated to the Federation or not, being subject to some oversight by a body wholly independent of the industry in so far as that policy affects the general public interest.I do not think I need to add any words of mine to the recommendations of that distinguished Committee, which reported in 1937, and I believe their views are worthy of being taken into consideration in discussing the future development of the industry today.
§ Mr. Low
I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and some of his hon. Friends have sought to exaggerate the difference between us on this matter. One of the reasons why they may have exaggerated that difference is that they have not taken into account the functions of the Board, and, in particular, the Board's duties as laid down in this Bill. I shall refer to them as I try to answer the points put from the opposite side of the Committee and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), and as I try to analyse the new Clause which we are now discussing, and the Amendment proposed by the Government to Clause 15, which we are also discussing at the same time.
As I understand it, the new Clause really covers three points. The first is that the Board shall, after consultation with producers and representative organisations, prepare and submit to the Minister development plans for the industry. The right hon. Gentleman said that was 486 the main point; I certainly think it was the main point on which he concentrated his speech. The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) attached a little more importance than did the right hon. Gentleman to the two further points.
The second point is that the Minister would then consider the plans and, if he approved them, would lay them before Parliament and publish them. The third point is that the Board would then perform their duties and functions under the Bill so as to conform to, and promote the execution of, those plans which the Minister had approved. I think that is a fair summary of the three points covered by the new Clause.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall sought to make as a point against me the way I had dealt with a similar Amendment during the Committee stage. He inferred that I attached no importance to it at all and said that I did not bother to answer what the Opposition consider to be the crux of their case in this matter, which is that someone ought to prepare a development plan for the industry. As I tried to indicate to him in an interruption, I thought I had dealt with that point, albeit briefly, in the course of the last debate. Perhaps I can deal with it now.
The argument was that the someone preparing the development plan for the industry ought to be the Board. We did not argue in the previous debate, and are not going to argue now, that development programmes for the iron and steel industry ought not to be made from time to time. Indeed, as the House well knows, the 1946 plan was produced by the industry as the result of a request made by the Caretaker Government of my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister in May, 1945. That plan was made by the industry through the Federation.
In the course of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear in answer to a question put by my right hon. Friend that what he was envisaging at the moment was that the Board should act in exactly the same way as the Federation had acted in the case of that earlier plan. I see no reason at all why the Board should not so act. Under this Bill they have all the authority of a trade association, and much more. In addition to such influence—"sanctions" was the word used by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh)—as the 487 Federation may have, the Board have the power to veto under Clause 5 of the Bill, which no hon. Gentleman who has so far spoken in this debate has mentioned.
It should be clearly understood on both sides of the House how the development plan is to be made. Clause 4 (1), of the Bill really covers this point. The Board are to consult producers and representative organisationswith a view to securing 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.Specific proposals for development in individual works are to come upwards—as I think they have always come upwards under the Federation system—from the manufacturing units of the industry.
The Board's consultation will ensure that their ideas on development are fully considered by the industry and that the industry's proposals will not be uncoordinated. The primary duty in this respect is to consult industry in order to secure the best proposals for promotingthe efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products.That is the primary duty and the thing which, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman wants to achieve by his plan.
In the course of the previous debate some Opposition Members spoke as if the Board's primary duty was only to make a plan. But, surely, the plan is the means to the end. Even the proposals of the individual producers are only means to an end. What we in this House want to see, and what the Board will want to secure, is that proposals are made and carried out for the best development of the industry according to the terms I have used.
There cannot be anything between the two sides of the House on that point. and I do not think there is quite so much between my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green and myself as he may think. I hope we can examine the matter in that spirit. I sought to point out, during the Committee stage on 29th January, that the Board should report general development proposals to the Minister. We thought then, as I have said, that the Bill as drafted 488 enabled the Minister to force the Board to make such a report on general programmes if the Board did not do so voluntarily. That was the case I put and the effect I meant to convey in the last paragraph of my speech, though I must apologise if the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not see it in that way.
After further consideration, we came to the view that it would be right to lay down in the Bill that the Board should from time to time include in their annual report a summary of future development proposals of the whole industry or parts of it—this summary to be prepared in the light of their consultations under Clause 4—and that they should state what in their opinion would be the effect of such proposals on the supply of iron and steel products.
That provision was criticised in somewhat derisory terms by the hon. Member for Flint, East. I think it is important that the Board should give their view of the effect of such proposals on the ingot tonnage, on the increase of rolling and strip capacity and on other parts of the industry. That, I believe, is a matter on which the House, when it read the report, would expect to have the Board's opinion.
§ Mrs. White
The hon. Gentleman is surely not suggesting that this information can have very much practical effect if given in the form suggested, because of the time factor. I have in my hand the report of the present Corporation for the period ended 30th September, 1951, the latest report available. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Board under the new set-up agreed some proposals and made certain forecasts based on those proposals in, say, November of any year, that information would not be available to the public until August, not of the year following, but of the year following that.
That means, as I think the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, would agree, and as I tried to point out, that as a matter of some historical interest it might help us in debating a principle in this House, but it would be of no practical effect in helping the planning of the industry, unless development of the industry is going to be even slower than we expect.
§ Mr. Low
I see the point, but surely the hon. Lady is forgetting that what we are considering here is a periodical development programme, covering a number of years well ahead. I do not think that that would get out of date in the course of a few months. Indeed, the points made by one of her hon. Friends was that these programmes last some time and, of course, are changed as conditions change.
But I see the piont, and we will consider it if there is time between now and the time when we have to move the Amendment to Clause 15. The difference is between putting such a proposal in an annual report and making a special report. But I should like to stress again that we are dealing here with development programmes covering years ahead and that such a report will not be out of date in a few months.
I will admit that our Amendment does not cover the second and third points which are raised in this new Clause, except that it ensures that the proposals will be published and brought before Parliament. Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall may remember that a provision that the programme of development should be laid before Parliament was not included in his Act. But the Minister's approval and the requirement that the Board should act only in conformity with the Minister's approval are not covered in our Amendment.
The reasons for our not wanting to cover those two points are, firstly, that in our opinion it would confuse the functions of the Minister and the Board—functions which we have tried to keep separate throughout this Bill. It is the duty of the Board to secure the best development proposals for the industry, best, that is, in the light of the industrial test of the promotion of an efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products. I have no doubt that when programmes are being prepared there will be consultation between the Board and the Minister as regards the national interest, but the test which the Board will apply will be that which I have just mentioned. Indeed, the Minister will look to the Board to work on that basis. So we think that it is not the right procedure for these development programmes to be brought 490 forward subject to the Minister's approval and published, as it were, with his approval.
We have an even stronger objection against the third and last point of this new Clause. Surely the House must agree that over a large and complex industry like the iron and steel industry, in times of technical progress such as there is today, there can be no rigid planning for a period of years ahead. By rigid planning I mean the insistence upon a plan approved by the Minister in 1950, for example, and to which we would have to work whatever might come afterwards.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall shakes his head and appears to be thinking that I am making too much of the point. But his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, who attached importance to the certainty of planning ahead, would take the point that we want to avoid rigidity. I think that even the right hon. Gentleman himself would agree with many of the amendments made to the 1946 plan and would agree—although I know that he will not commit himself on all of them—that many of them were rightly made in the light of new conditions. It is only reasonable that that sort of thing should happen in the future.
In our opinion the new Clause seems to fall into the error of assuming that a plan, once made and approved by the Minister, must be rigidly adhered to unless the Minister approves of a change.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I have read too much into the Clause I apologise. I was not really supposing that that was what hon. Members opposite intended; I am merely saying that I am advised that that might be the effect of the Clause if it were accepted as it is.
It may interest the House to be reminded that in 1946, although the Labour Government published the development plan, they never approved it in detail. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in the Ministry of Supply—now Lord Wilmot—said:… the Government accept much in these reports as a sound basis for industrial reconstruction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 844.]The right hon. Member for Lewisham. South (Mr. H. Morrison) said:We cannot be committed to every detail of it, but it is an able and valuable contribution to the discussion of this problem."— 491 [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 1108.]On their past practice, therefore, I should think that right hon. Gentlemen opposite would not have insisted on the second and third points in this new Clause.
So we come back to the first point. We have to satisfy ourselves whether or not there is the big difference between us that the right hon. Gentleman tried to make out at the beginning of his speech. We say that if the House will bear in mind the Board's duty under Clauses 3 and 4 and also the Board's powers of veto with regard to certain development schemes under Clause 5—and if they will then consider the Government's Amendment to Clause 15, we have got all that we need to ensure that the Minister, Parliament and the country are made aware of the general programme of development of the industry, or part of the industry, over a period of years.
What everyone will wish to know is what are the actual proposals which are likely to be adopted and proceeded with. That is what it is desirable to publish, and it is exactly that point which is covered in the Government Amendment. For that reason I hope the House will reject the new Clause and, when the time comes, will decide to adopt the Government Amendment to Clause 15.
§ Mr. Strauss
If the House will permit me, I should like to tell the Government that we do not agree with the Parliamentary Secretary's conclusion that there is no difference between our proposals and the Government's proposals. The Government's proposals are concerned with the publication, in the annual reports, of certain consultations which the Minister has had—I do not know how long previously.
Then he relies on a certain general authority which the Board have for supervision and consultation in connection with the productive capacity of the industry. We are asking for something quite different, which has no relation to the Government Amendment appearing later on the Order Paper. We say that the Board should be given the specific duty to prepare and submit to the Minister a development plan for the iron and steel industry.
From time to time they should realise that it is their job and should work to 492 that end, should collect the information and prepare the plan. It is a big job. The plan should then be submitted to the Minister and should be considered by Parliament. It need not be a rigid plan which cannot be altered; no one has suggested that at all. But someone should have the job of carrying out this important task in the industry which will affect the prosperity of different parts of the country and greatly affect the productive capacity of the country. We say that it should be the duty of the Board to do that work.
§ Mr. Sandys
Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, I should like him to make quite clear what the differences are between us. I know that there are certain differences, but I do not believe they are as wide as he suggests. There is no question of our changing our mind on the point; we are not prepared to have the development plans submitted to the Government for their approval and then, presumably, submitted to Parliament for their approval.
What I do not understand is where the right hon. Gentleman sees such a great difference between our proposals. It may be that our Amendment is not worded in such an attractive and spectacular way as his new Clause, but I should like to know where he sees this great difference between what we suggest should be the functions of the Board in connection with development plans and the functions which he would like to see the Board given. I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman earlier in order to be quite clear what function he wanted to see given to the Board.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)
I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is not the Committee stage of the Bill.
No, but the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) is in possession of the House.
§ Mr. Sandys
I was anxious to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman before he had committed himself too far. He was about to invite his right hon. and hon. Friends to go into the Division Lobby, 493 and that is why I thought this was the right moment for me to intervene. I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman earlier with the specific object of asking what in his opinion should be the function of the Board in relation to the preparation of development plans. He made it clear that in his opinion the Board ought in future to carry out the duties which have previously been carried out by the Federation. As I understand it, that is precisely the function which the Board will be able to carry out under the Bill.
One hon. Member opposite has said that there is no objection to the Federation or other trade associations continuing to do their work but that the Board is the body which should finally assemble the proposals of the various sections of the industry, as the Federation have done, and attempt to hammer out between them a satisfactory development plan. The Federation have no power to compel, nor have the Board. The only important additional power which the Board have is the power of veto. We feel that there is no difference between us about the functions of the Board in this connection.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) asked a question about timing. We are quite prepared to consider whether the Board's report should be an annual report or a special report which could be produced earlier. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider these points before he urges his hon. Friends to go into the Division Lobby. I will give him an assurance that I will take into account some of the points which have been made before we reach our Amendment to Clause 15.
§ retary put forward very carefully, and I have considered, and so have my hon. Friends, the wording of the Bill very carefully, and, in our view, whereas the Board would, no doubt, come somewhere into the picture at some stage when a development plan was being thought out, they are not given the specific task, to which they would have to devote a good deal of their attention, of preparing every few years, may be, a development plan for the industry or part of the industry.
§ I do not accept for a moment that the wording either of Clause 4—I do not want to waste time discussing it line by line—or Clause 3 specifically gives this task to the Board, and we say that if the Board are to be any use at all they must have this specific function of themselves devising—on information supplied by others, being above the battle, so to speak, by Steel House and the Federation—a development plan in the interests of the industry and of the country.
§ We say—and here there is plain disagreement between the Government and us—that the plan should be considered by the Minister and submitted to Parliament, so that Parliament can know what is happening, what is to happen in each iron and steel district, and ask the Minister Questions and, if necessary, make a row about it, and say it ought to be much bigger, or much less, or that it is out of balance, if it thinks so.
§ For these reasons I can only advise my hon. Friends to vote in favour of the new Clause and say that the alternative offered by the Government is unacceptable.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 258.497
|Division No. 115.]||AYES||[8.44 p.m.|
|Achland, Sir Richard||Blackburn, F.||Collick, P. H.|
|Adams, Richard||Blenkinsop, A||Corbet, Mrs. Freda|
|Albu, A. H||Blyton, W A||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Boardman, H||Crosland, C. A. R.|
|Andersen, Alexander (Motherwell)||Bottomley, Rt. Hon A G.||Grossman, R. H. S.|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Bowden, H. W.||Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Bowles, F G||Darling, George (Hillsborough)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Brockway, A F||Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Davies, Harold (Leek)|
|Baird, J.||Broughton, Dr A. D. D.||Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)|
|Balfour, A||Burton, Miss F. E.||Deer, G.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J||Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Delargy, H. J.|
|Bartley, P.||Carmichael, J.||Donnelly, D. L.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J||Champion, A. J||Dugdale, Rt. Hon John (W Bromwich)|
|Bence, C. R.||Chapman, W. D||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C|
|Bann, Hon. Wedgwood||Chetwynd, G. R.||Edelman, M.|
|Benson, G||Clunie, J||Edwards, John (Brighouse)|
|Beswick, F||Coldrick, W||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly).|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Logan, D. G.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||MacColl, J. E.||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||McGhee, H. G.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Fernyhough, E.||McGovern, J.||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)|
|Fienburgh, W.||McInnes, J.||Snow, J. W.|
|Finch, H. J.||McLeavy, F.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Follick, M.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Foot, M. M.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Steele, T.|
|Forman, J. C.||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Manuel, A. C.||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|Freeman, John (Watford)||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Stress, Dr. Barnett|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N||Mellish, R. J.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Gibson, C. W.||Messer, F.||Swingler, S. T.|
|Gooch, E. G.||Mitchison, G. R.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Monslow, W.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Moody, A. S.||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.||Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Morley, R.||Thomas, David (Aberdare)|
|Griffiths, William (Exchange)||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Mort, D. L.||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)||Moyle, A.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Mulley, F. W.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Hannan, W.||Murray, J. D.||Thornton, E. (Farnworth)|
|Hardy, E. A.||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Hargreaves, A.||O'Brien, T.||Timmons, J.|
|Hayman, F. H.||Oliver, G. H.||Tomney, F.|
|Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)||Orbach, M.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Oswald, T.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Hewitson, Capt. M.||Paget, R. T.||Usborne, H. C.|
|Hobson, C. R.||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Viant, S. P.|
|Holman, P.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Wallace, H. W.|
|Holmes, Horace (Homsworth)||Palmer, A. M. F.||Weitzman, D.|
|Houghton, Douglas||Pargiter, G. A.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Parker, J.||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Paton, J.||West, D. G.|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Peart, T. F.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John|
|Hynd, H.(Accrington)||Plummer, Sir Leslie||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Popplewell, E.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Porter, G.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.|
|Janner, B.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Wigg, George|
|Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Proctor, W. T.||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.|
|Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)||Pryde, D. J.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)||Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Willey, F. T.|
|Johnson, James (Rugby)||Rankin, John||Williams, Renand, (Wigan)|
|Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Reeves, J.||Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)|
|Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Reid, Thomas (Swindon)||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Reid, William (Camlachie)||William, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Rhedes, H.||Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)|
|Keenan, W.||Richards, R.||Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)|
|Kenyon, C.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Wyatt, W. L.|
|King, Dr. H. M.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Yates, V. F.|
|Kinley, J.||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Ross, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Shackleton, E. A. A.||Mr. Pearson and|
|Lewis, Arthur||Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley||Mr. Arthur Allen.|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Shurmer, P. L. E.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Cary, Sir Robert|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Birch, Nigel||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Bishop, F. P.||Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.|
|Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Black, C. W||Cole, Norman|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.||Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Colegate, W. A.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Boyle, Sir Edward||Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Crouch, R. F.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Brooman-White, R. C.||Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)|
|Banks, Col. C.||Browne, Jack (Govan)||Davidson, Viscountess|
|Barber, Anthony||Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.||Deedes, W. F.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Bullard, D. G.||Digby, S. Wingfield|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Bullock, Capt. M.||Dodds-Parker, A. D.|
|Beach, Maj. Hicks||Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Burden, F. F. A.||Donner, P. W.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Butcher, Sir Herbert||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm|
|Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)||Campbell, Sir David||Drewe, G|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Leather, E. H. C.||Roberts, Peter (Heeley)|
|Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Robertson, Sir David|
|Elliot, Rt Hon. W.E||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersheld)||Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Fell, A.||Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A T||Robson-Brown, W.|
|Finlay, Graeme||Lindsay, Martin||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Fisher, Nigel||Linslead, H. N.||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)||Russell, R. S.|
|Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.|
|Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)||Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W)||Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Low, A. R. W.||Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.|
|Gammans, L. D.||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)||Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas|
|Garner-Evans, E. H||McCallum, Major D.||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)|
|Glyn, Sir Ralph||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.||Scott, R. Donald|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col A||Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R|
|Gough, C. F. H||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Shepherd, William|
|Gower, H. R||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Graham, Sir Fergus||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Gridley, Sir Arnold||Maclean, Fitzroy||Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)|
|Grimond, J.||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)|
|Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Snadden, W. McN.|
|Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Soames, Capt. C.|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Spearman, A C. M|
|Hare, Hon. J. H.||Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)||Speir, R. M|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E||Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)|
|Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Markham, Major S. F.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Stevens, G. P.|
|Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Marples, A. E.||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Harvie-Watt, Sir George||Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Hay, John||Maude, Angus||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M|
|Head, Rt. Hon. A. H||Maulding, R.||Storey, S.|
|Heald, Sir Lionel||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)|
|Heath, Edward||Medlicott, Brig. F.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Mellor, Sir John||Studholme, H. G.|
|Higgs, J. M. C.||Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Summers, G. S.|
|Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Moore, Lt. Col. Sir Thomas||Sutcliffe, Sir Harold|
|Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Hinchingbraoke, Viscount||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Teeling, W.|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Nicholls, Harmar||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Holland-Martin, C. J||Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Hollis, M. C.||Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)||Nield, Basil (Chester)||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Holt, A. F.||Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)|
|Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry||Nugent, G. R. H.||Thornton- Kemsley, Col C. N.|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P|
|Horobin, I. M.||Nutting, Anthony||Tilney, John|
|Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence||Oakshott, H. D.||Touche, Sir Gordan|
|Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Odey, C. W.||Turner, H. F. L|
|Howard, Hon. Greville (St Ives)||O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Torten, R. H.|
|Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.||Vane, W. M. F|
|Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Vosper, D. F.|
|Hulbert Wing Cdr N. J||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Wade, D. W.|
|Hurd, A. R.||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)||Osborne, C.||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M||Perkins, W. R. D.||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Pickthorn, K. W. M||Wellwood, W.|
|Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Pitman, I. J.||Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)|
|Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)||Powell, J. Enoch||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Jones, A. (Hall Green)||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Kaberry, D.||Preforms, J. D.||Wood, Hon. R|
|Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)||Raikes, Sir Visitor||York, C.|
|Lambert, Hon. G.||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Lambton, Viscount||Redmayne, M.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Remnant, Hon. P.||Major Conant and Mr. Wills.|
|Law, Rt Hon. R. K||Renton, D. L. M.|