HC Deb 11 March 1953 vol 512 cc1293-311

Amendment moved [10th March], in page 14, line 36, at the end, to insert: (3) For the purposes of verifying or amplifying any information or forecast furnished by an iron and steel producer to the Board or to the Minister under either of the preceding subsections of this section, the Board or, as the case may be, the Minister, may by notice in writing require that iron and steel producer to provide facilities for the inspection by any person authorised by the Board or, as the case may be, by the Minister, of any property of or under the control of that iron and steel producer, being property to which that information or forecast relates.—[Mr. I. Hynd.]

3.39 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

It is said that Mr. de Valera was arrested on one occasion when he was speaking in Phoenix Park, Dublin, and was incarcerated for a period of months, and that when he was released from prison he again addressed a meeting in the same park and began, "As I was saying when I was interrupted …"

I do not propose to repeat what I said last night when I was interrupted after I had risen to move the Amendment, except to say that since the Government have consistently rejected the proposals of the Opposition that the Iron and Steel Board should be able to exercise not only supervision but also control over the industry, we are hopeful that the Minister will at least concede that the Board will be entitled to powers of inspection in obtaining the information they are required to obtain under the Bill or to check it when necessary.

The House will be aware that the information which the Board require and which they are empowered to obtain under the Bill is very widespread and that the implications of the powers given them in this respect are extremely important. The information which may be obtained covers output and stocks including forecasts of production, capacity, consumption of stocks, raw materials and fuel, proposals for closing works and produc- tion facilities and costs of production for the purposes of Clause 7, and so on, in so far as that information is reasonably required for the purposes of their functions under the Bill.

These functions cover a very wide field. As the Bill stands we find it difficult to appreciate how the Board are to carry out these functions effectively unless they have some powers of inspection such as are proposed in this Amendment. The functions include the exercise of general supervision over the industry, promotion of general efficiency and adequacy of supply and, in particular, keeping under review such matters as capacity, procuring raw materials and the safety, health and welfare of the workers.

What we should like the Minister to tell us, if he is unable to accept the Amendment, is how the Board are to carry out these functions if, in obtaining the information necessary to carry out all these functions, they have no powers whatever for checking the accuracy of the information with which they are provided. The health, safety and welfare of the workers are generally covered by the Factories Acts, and factory inspectors have certain powers for inspecting the conditions in the factories in most industries. It seems clear that if that is necessary in these matters it is even more necessary in the much more important and significant matters referred to among the responsibilities given to the Board by this Bill.

If the Board desire to check the productive capacity of the industry for purposes of ensuring that that capacity is adequate and that the capacity available is being adequately and efficiently used, what are they to do if plant A, whose production capacity is well known to be about x tons, is only producing half that quantity and if, in calling for information, the Board obtain what they might consider an unsatisfactory or inadequate explanation from the firm concerned? How are the Board to find out whether the explanation of the firm is adequate and that the production facilities which should be available in that particular plant are being satisfactorily used?

On the question of raw material provision, if we had a rush of panic buying by America and stockpiling of essential raw materials which created shortages in other countries, particularly those short of dollars, it might be that some hoarding of such materials would take place in our own steel works. That is not unknown in the steel industry of this country. Would not some powers of inspection by the Board, or the Minister, be desirable to ensure that such raw materials as we were able to obtain and were seeking fairly to distribute among the firms were being fairly distributed and that an unfair distribution was not being made to firms which were hoarding those essential raw materials?

The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who is not in his place at the moment, agreed yesterday that such a situation might arise and that the allocation by the Government of scarce raw materials might be a very important factor in the situation in which our steel industry and the country might find themselves at any particular time. The Minister agrees and stated yesterday that the question of the fair distribution of scarce raw materials is a matter for the Government. Therefore, it would seem that if this function is to be properly administered by either the Minister or the Board, they should be entitled under the Bill itself to the necessary powers of inspection.

3.45 p.m.

When one looks at the Bill one finds that there are a great many cases in which this obviously would be desirable and necessary. In Clause 3 (1, b) it is provided that the Board shall keep under review the arrangements for procuring and distributing raw materials and fuel for use in the iron and steel industry; In Clause 10 it is provided that If the Board are satisfied, after consultation … that satisfactory arrangements do not exist and operate for securing … importation and distribution of … raw material … the Board shall make arrangements … to ensure importation or distribution of that raw material. Again, the question arises, how are they to carry out that function unless they are really satisfied, not only after consultation but after inspection, if necessary, that their intervention may be necessary?

In Clause 28 (4) we find that the responsibilities given to the Minister extend to authorising persons on the production … of duly authenticated document … to inspect at any reasonable hour, at the premises where they are kept, books, records and other documents relating to the undertaking, and penalties are laid down for any firm or person who fail to comply with that subsection. That, of course, is an admission in itself that one cannot entirely rely upon the firms themselves providing all the information and providing it accurately. In so far as it is admitted that there must be powers of inspection at least of books and documents, we submit that power is no less necessary in the matter of stocks, raw material, fuel and production facilities and all the other things provided for in the Bill.

In Clause 4 (2, b) it is provided that if the Minister is satisfied that production facilities are inadequate, he may provide production facilities himself and in subsection (3) if he finds facilities provided which would not otherwise be kept in use he is entitled to take action. Again, how is he to be satisfied unless he has this power of inspection of the available stocks?

I hope that the Minister will not simply reply that he cannot accept the Amendment because it is unnecessary in so far as the Government are prepared to rely on the honesty of the individual firms. The Minister cannot know who will be running the steel industry after the Bill has passed. He will not know who will comprise the firms owning the units. Even if he did know, it is provided in the Bill itself that in so far as documents and false information and so on are concerned, certain powers such as we ask for in regard to stocks and production facilities are necessary.

If this Amendment cannot be accepted, if it is not proposed to include in the Bill any powers of inspection at all, why have a Steel Board? How are the Board to promote efficiency unless they have these powers? If one considers the history of the industry, one finds the case for this Amendment is overwhelmingly supported by events during the last 35 or 40 years. One remembers the rush of capital investment during the 1914–18 war; followed in the 1930's by the semi-bankruptcy of the industry and by protective devices and hidden subsidies. It will be agreed that there was left a great deal of obsolete plant and undesirable and unsatisfactory conditions.

In 1939, on the eve of the Second World War, when more than at any time in our history the maximum efficiency of the steel industry was desirable in the national interest, the industry was found to have allowed itself to get into a state of semi-obsolescence. That could happen again. Certain firms may have obsolescent plant. They may have allowed themselves to get into a condition which was reported very fully in "The Times" in, I believe, 1945. I will read one sentence: There are too many works which 'sprawl'—there is no other word for it—works which are a tangled riddle of gaps, corners, adjacent shops alternately empty and over-crowded, illogical separation, unbalance, and tortuous routes and methods in the handling of materials. That is a tragic picture of conditions then. How are we to know that such conditions will not occur again? Can we expect that firms will, from time to time, report to the Minister that conditions in their shops are entirely unsatisfactory; that there is complete inefficiency? I can imagine only one occasion when firms would voluntarily report such things, and that would be when they were seeking some kind of protection or subsidy. Were that the only reason for such reports, they would be even more suspect and more likely to require very close inspection by the Board or the Minister.

We consider that this power of inspection is fundamental to the efficient operation of the Board and the supervision which the Board and the Minister are expected to apply to the industry. It is necessary not only to ensure that the steel industry is effective and economically efficient in every respect from the national point of view, but also to protect the public and the consumer. The consumers' council has now disappeared and there is no effective protection at all for the consumer.

There is also the necessity to protect responsible firms against irresponsible firms. Yesterday, the Minister went out of his way to say: Some foundries have excellent conditions; I have been very much impressed by some that I have visited, but others leave much to be desired. There is a wide gap between the best and the worst in the foundry industry."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th March. 1953; Vol. 512, c. 1218–9.] Responsible firms are prepared to carry out their responsibilities and involve themselves in the additional production costs which are sometimes inseparable from them. This may mean keeping shops well organised and cleared, providing adequate breathing space, and healthy arrangements for the workers. They may be penalised by other firms who may dodge their responsibilities and, while trying to economise at the expense of workers, find they are economising at the expense of production.

The Minister and the Government have rejected the old laissez-faire idea. They have agreed upon the need for public supervision combined with private enterprise in the operation of the industry. The present Secretary of State for the Colonies who, when the Conservatives were in opposition, was mainly responsible for their attitude in industrial matters, said in the last Parliament: On the one hand, we believe that the industry must have the benefit of a massive central organisation. On the other, we think that a great basic industry like the steel industry, employing a large number of men, and considering the widespread use of steel in other industries, and the power of the steel industry to contribute to our exports, is so important that it should have Government supervision. We do not believe that it would be right, where such large and vital interests are concerned, to permit competition to play over the steel industry without any Government interference or without Government approval."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 94–5.] I submit that this Bill means nothing, unless the Board and/or the Minister are to be allowed to exercise powers of inspection when they consider it necessary.

Mr. George Chetwynd (Stockton-on-Tees)

I beg to second the Amendment.

The Government have agreed that supervision is necessary because of the nature of the industry. We think that the best way to supervise it is to own and control it, though we cannot expect the Government to agree. But we insist that supervision must be a reality. In this Bill the Minister gives the Board certain responsibilities for supervision without adequate power to make a success of such supervision. This Amendment is one of the means by which we hope the Board shall have power to supervise the industry. In Committee the hon. Member for Esher(Mr. Robson Brown) said that this power was not needed, because no steel company would prevent the Steel Board from coming into their works to have a look round to see that everything was in order. I am not so sure about that. I do not think this industry can be run on the "old boy" basis—"Come along, old boy, have a drink, and after lunch we will look round the works. Everything will be all right, because we knew you were coming."

It may be necessary for a spot check to be carried out, not by the Board but by a team of experts who know what they are looking for, and are capable of getting the information they wish to obtain. As well as having access to books and figures, it is essential that the Board should have access to the works where they will be able to check the cost of production, efficiency, and so on. The supervision of the Board would then be a reality and would operate in the interests of both the industry and the public.

4.0 p.m.

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

Without repeating too much of what was said by the Solicitor-General during the Committee stage, I will try to answer the very full statement made by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) and the somewhat shorter but perhaps as relevant observation of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). This Amendment seeks to give the Board or, as the case may be, the Minister, power to inspect the property of iron and steel producers for the purpose of verifying or amplifying any information or forecast furnished to them under this Clause.

We start off by disliking any power to inspect other people's property, but we should not hesitate to introduce such a power if we thought it essential. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to give us the point that we are more anxious than they are to make a success of this Bill. We have studied the matter carefully. I remind the House that the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947, which was passed by a Labour Government and which provides for the collecting of information from industry, does not include any power to inspect property for the purpose of verifying or amplifying any information. I do not pretend that that is a complete answer, but it should be borne in mind.

Mr. J. Hynd

Does that Act provide for the kind of things already provided for in this Bill, such as the inspection of documents?

Mr. Low

The hon. Gentleman spoke for some time. I have been on my feet for two minutes. I hope that he will allow me to develop my argument.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that without such a provision as this the Board will be ineffective and, to use a metaphor employed on another occasion by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh), will be deprived of the use of their eyes. But no one can seriously argue that the Board will not frequently visit works in the course of their general duties.

In reply to what was said by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) when last we discussed this matter, I would point out that there is no power in this Bill to prevent the Board doing that. The right hon. Gentleman stressed the point—perhaps he overstressed it—that the Board were debarred from visiting works. They are not. What is suggested in the Amendment is that the Board need authority to inspect property without the owner's permission, presumably because, first, some producers might give inadequate or incorrect information and might then refuse permission for the Board to visit their works and, secondly, because an inspectorial power would be essential to enable the Board in those circumstances to fulfil their duties or enforce their powers under the Bill.

The Solicitor-General dealt with the question of enforcement during the Committee stage. I need not mention it now. I do not expect that it is likely that any iron and steel producer will refuse to allow members or representatives of the Board to visit his works in the normal course of any of the Board's duties of supervision. The industry has a reputation for open house. I see that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) indicates agreement. I doubt whether there is any steel works in the country which would not welcome the hon. Member for Rotherham if he cared to visit them.

Mr. Jack Jones (Rotherham)

That was true before nationalisation and denationalisation. We were welcome at all times in the past when we paid social and technical visits. We want to be sure that we shall be just as welcome when the Board are not satisfied and suspect that a company is not playing the game. I wonder whether we should be so welcome then.

Mr. Low

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the time before nationalisation. We shall soon be back to that situation with the industry under the supervision of the Board. I see no reason why there should be a change of attitude.

If we assume that the Board were refused access to a steel works, how would an inspectorial power help them to carry out their functions under the Bill? That is the kernel of this matter. Clause 14 enables the Board to secure all the information relating to production which they will want for their general duties. No one has denied that. The argument today has been that the information may be inaccurate or inadequate. Why should that be so? It is the very essence of this Bill that each company should manage its own detailed affairs subject to the supervision of the Board. Each company will want to see that the Board's supervisory policy is based on correct facts.

The Board's general duties cover a number of matters in which they will be able to influence the policy of industry by the standing and prestige which they establish. It will not help the Board, in seeking the co-operation of industry, to arm them with inspectorial powers. Not only will it not help the Board but, taking the points made by the hon. Member for Attercliffe, I very much doubt whether an inspection would add to the information available. The hon. Gentleman mentioned capacity. I doubt whether an inspection by an inspector sent to a works would add anything to the information already given to the Board by the company. It certainly would not in the matter of stocks. If a company really wanted to prevent the Board knowing what stocks of raw materials it had, it would presumably take action to prevent an inspector finding out about those stocks.

Either we assume that there will be cooperation between the Board and the industry, in which case this question does not arise, or we assume that there will be deliberate obstruction of the Board by the industry. I do not think that is an assumption we should normally make, although we make it for the purpose of this debate. But I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman's proposal would help in those circumstances.

The Board's functions include certain specific duties and powers for which accurate detailed information may be most important. In relation to their particular functions there are provisions in the Bill to secure that all the necessary information is accurate and adequate. On prices, there is a special provision in Clause 14 (2) that the Board may require information necessary for their price determining functions to be certified as correct by auditors. In relation to development, the Board have powers under Clause 5 to call for important schemes to be submitted to them for their consent.

No one can say that the Board are limited in respect of those schemes in the amount of information that they can acquire. The Board will wish to be satisfied about any proposals submitted to them before they give consent. If any producer refuses to allow them or their representatives to visit a works which they wish to visit when a development scheme is before them, it is unlikely that they will give their consent. That covers prices and development.

I now come to raw materials and the functions of the Board under Clause 10. I think that I can include training and education, because the same point applies. The Board have certain powers they can use if they are not satisfied with existing arrangements. Surely, the hon. Gentleman can see that a threat of action which those carrying out the existing arrangements consider contrary to their interests is bound to be enough to ensure that full and accurate information is immediately available to the Board. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says it is the other way round, but, surely, if one is threatened with action which one considers contrary to one's interests, and one could escape that action by giving the information wanted, one would give that information.

Mr. George Darling (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

What about escaping the threatened action by withholding the information? Surely that is more likely to happen.

Mr. Low

No, because I do not see how the Board could then be satisfied with the existing arrangements.

The Board have certain other duties in regard to health, safety and welfare measures. Under the Factories Acts inspectors have the right to enter works in connection with matters concerning those Acts. The Board is concerned with the collective arrangements inside the industry for the promotion of health, safety and welfare, and they will secure all the information required for carrying out these duties from their consultation with both sides of the industry.

Finally, on the last specific function mentioned in the list given in Clause 3, we can all agree that the inspection of property will not help the Board in relation to its duties regarding joint consultation. Therefore, in our view, the case for providing power to inspect property is not made out. As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said on 24th February: It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take wider powers, either for themselves or for a Board of this character, than they consider to be essential."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 1971.] We have, therefore, examined closely every suggestion put forward, and I think we are right in saying that this is not essential. Unnecessary snooping is bad in itself, and we do not wish to destroy confidence in the Board by giving them bureaucratic powers to snoop if we are satisfied that they do not need them. Nor do we wish to prevent the full and friendly exchange of information and ideas between the industry and the Board by labelling the Board's representative as an authorised inspector when he makes visits to works.

That is that side of the picture. On the other hand, we have sought to ensure that the Board can obtain all the information they need, and I give the House the assurance that we have examined the matter very carefully to see that Clause 14 does provide the Board with the means of getting all the information which they should have. Co-operation between the industry and the Board, on which this Bill is based, will enable the Board to visit the works they wish to visit and to consult the producers they wish to consult. The Board will neither be blind, nor, to extend the metaphor introduced into the debate by the hon. Member for Islington, North, will they be deaf. We have every confidence that we have made provision to ensure that the Board are able to do their duty, and we have as much interest as hon. Gentlemen opposite in ensuring that. We are satisfied with Clause 14 as it is, and I hope the House will also be satisfied.

Mr. Jack Jones

Would the hon. Gentleman make that point clear? He has made the statement that the Board will be able to visit the works they wish to visit, but, if they wish to visit a works and the management of that works do not wish them to visit it, will they still have the power to do so?

Mr. Low

I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening to the exact words I used. I said that the co-operation between the industry and the Board, on which this Bill is based, will enable the Board to visit the works they wish to visit and consult the producers they wish to consult. That is the spirit behind the Bill, and that is the spirit which we expect to exist in the industry. We have, as the hon. Gentleman knows, every justification for forming that view from our experience in the past, and the hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to that spirit on many occasions. We are satisfied that it will continue, and that it will be a better basis for ensuring that the Board secures full information.

Mr. Jones

That does not answer my question. It may be that a firm may not wish to be visited by the Board's representatives. In that case, will the Board still have the power to visit that works, regardless of that firm's wishes? May we have an answer?

4.15 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss (Vauxhall)

Obviously, the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) is that the Board will have no such power. This Amendment crystallises the different views of the two sides of the House of the sort of status and authority which the Board should and must have to carry out their duties. Throughout our discussions, we have argued that this Board, for one reason or another, will not have the authority and status they should have in order to carry out the duties of the supervisory authority over the industry.

I do not want to go over the other Amendments which we have discussed previously, but I suggest that, in this Amendment, we ask for a very simple thing—that the Board, which are to have wide supervisory responsibilities, should be permitted to have a look at works when they want to. If that Amendment is not accepted, the Government, obviously, do not mean business and do not mean the Board to be an effective body or that they should have—and I have used these words frequently, because they are at the root of the matter—the proper status with which they should be regarded by the industry if it is to follow the guidance and obey the directions which the Board may desire to give it.

The Parliamentary Secretary says that this is all right, and that the spirit of this Board will be such that they will get co-operation with the firms over which they will have authority, and that, in that spirit of co-operation, an inspector of the Board will always be welcome. How can the hon. Gentleman know that it will be possible to get that spirit of co-operation with 2,400 firms? I have no doubt that most of the firms will throw their doors open to the Board and their representatives whenever those representatives seek to visit those works; but, on the other hand, there may be many firms which, for one reason or another, and may be for a bad reason—because everybody in the industry does not possess a social conscience; some loathe the idea of having the Board over them at all—will be obstinate and say that the Board have not been given power of inspection by the Government. Therefore, they will say that the representatives of the Board shall not be admitted to their works.

It seems to us that this is a quite ridiculous situation for the Government to defend. The Government say that books may be examined, but, in regard to plant, the Board shall have no power to do that. It is surely self-evident that, if that Board are set up—and I must repeat the words I have used in the discussion of every Amendment—with the alleged purpose of having public or Government supervision over the industry, the Board should have the right to inspect such works as they like when they like and whenever they believe that they information given by that works needs verification or amplification. That is all that we are asking.

Let us take one other point. Under Clause 4, the Board can ask any firm for information about its capacity to produce for any purpose. Productive capacity is a matter of opinion, and a firm may well say that their productive capacity is so-and-so, that their furnaces can produce such an amount per week, and that, in fact, that is what they are producing. But it may be the opinion of the Board or of an expert that the productive capacity of that works is much greater than that. It may even be the opinion of the men working there, and it is surely right that the Board should be able to say "We should like to check up and have a look at your works." In all probability the works would say, "Come along and have a look." But some might not. Anyhow, as the Board have such full powers for the inspection of books, why not give them the power to inspect the works as well?

We are bound to be suspicious about this because that power was in the Bill when it was first printed. Someone must have brought pressure to bear on the Government to remove that power. It may be that was done by a section of the industry or of the Tory Party. I do not know. Why is that right denied by the Government who refuse to accept our Amendments on this matter? It seems to us that in refusing to accept this Amendment the Government are taking the "vision" out of the supervision which the Board are supposed to exercise over the industry.

The situation is ridiculous. We have certainly not been given an answer to our case despite the length, and. I thought, on this occasion, rather laboured arguments put up by the Parliamentary Secretary. We take the view that if the Board are refused this right, they cannot have the status, the authority or the power which they should have to exert control and influence over the industry. We look upon this matter as a cardinal point.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that I made a mistake when I stated that the Board would be debarred from visiting works. I may have said that, but what I meant to say was that the Board would be debarred the right of entering and inspecting the works. That crystallises the difference between us as to the status of the Board. The suggestion that such a power might lead to snooping is really ridiculous. Every public body that is charged with supervisory powers has to have inspectors. Though one may call them snoopers, the fact remains that they are doing their job. Local authorities and the right hon. Gentleman's own Government have a large number of people who look round to see what is happen-

ing. They are not necessarily evil people; they are merely doing what is right.

Is it suggested that this Board will be so irresponsible as to send people unnecessarily all over the country? Of course not. We feel so strongly on the matter that we propose to divide the House on this Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 248.

Division No. 120.] AYES [4.25 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Follick, M. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Adams, Richard Foot, M. M. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Albu, A. H. Forman, J. C. Mainwaring, W. H.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Freeman, John (Watford) Mann, Mrs. Jean
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Freeman, Peter (Newport) Manuel, A. C.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Gibson, C. W. Mayhew, C. P.
Awbery, S. S. Glanville, James Mellish, R. J.
Bacon, Miss Alice Gooch, E. G. Mitchison, G. R.
Balfour, A. Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield) Monslow, W.
Bartley, P. Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Moody, A. S.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Grey, C. F. Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Bence, C. R. Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Morley, R.
Benson, G. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Beswick, F. Hale, Leslie Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Bing, G. H. C. Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Mort, D. L.
Blackburn, F. Hamilton, W. W. Moyle, A.
Blenkinsop, A. Hannan, W. Mulley, F. W.
Blyton, W. R. Hardy, E. A. Murray, J. D.
Bowden, H. W. Hargreaves, A. Nally, W.
Bowles, F. G. Hastings, S. Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Hayman, F. H. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Brockway, A. F. Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E) Oliver, G. H.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Hewitson, Capt. M. Orbach, M.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hobson, C. R. Oswald, T.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Holman, P. Padley, W. E.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) Paget, R. T.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Houghton, Douglas Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Carmichael, J. Hoy, J. H. Pannell, Charles
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Parker, J.
Champion, A. J. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Paton, J.
Chapman, W. D. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Pearson, A.
Chetwynd, G. R. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Peart, T. F.
Coldrick, W. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Plummer, Sir Leslie
Collick, P. H. Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Popplewell, E.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Porter, G.
Crosland, C. A. R. Jeger, George (Goole) Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Grossman, R. H. S. Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Cullen, Mrs. A. Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) Proctor, W. T.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Johnson, James (Rugby) Pryde, D. J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Jones, David (Hartlepool) Rankin, John
Davies, Harold (Leek) Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Reeves, J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Reid, William(Camlachie)
Deer, G. Keenan, W. Rhodes, H.
Delargy, H. J. Kenyon, C. Richards, R.
Dodds, N. N. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Donnelly, D. L. King, Dr. H. M. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Kinley, J. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Edelman, M. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Ross, William
Edwards, John (Brighouse) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Royle, C.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Lewis, Arthur Short, E. W
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Lindgren, G. S. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Logan, D. G. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Fernyhough, E. MacColl, J. E. Sorensen, R. W.
Fienburgh, W. McGovern, J. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Finch, H. J. McInnes, J. Sparks, J. A.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) McLeavy, F. Steele, T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Thornton, E. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. Thurtle, Ernest White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) Timmons, J. Whitelay, Rt. Hon. W.
Stross, Dr. Barnett Tomney, F. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. Turner-Samuels, M. Willey, F. T.
Swingler, S. T. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn Williams, David (Neath)
Sylvester, G.O. Usborne, H. C. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Viant, S. P. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Taylor, John (West Lothian) Watkins, T. E. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Thomas, David (Aberdare) Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.) Winterbotlom, Richard (Brightside)
Thomas, Iowerth (Rhondda, W.) Wells, Percy (Faversham) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin) Wells, William (Walsall) Yates, V. F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) West, D. G.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) Wheeldon, W. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. K. Robinson.
NOES
Aitken, W. T. Fletcher-Cooke, C. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Alport, C. J. M. Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) McAdden, S. J.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell McCallum, Major D.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Gammans, L. D. McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Garner-Evans, E. H. Macdonald, Sir Peter
Arbuthnot, John George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd McKibbin, A. J.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Godber, J. B McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Astor, Hon. J. J. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Gough, C. F. H. Maclean, Fitzroy
Baldwin, A. E. Gower, H. R. Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Banks, Col. C. Graham, Sir Fergus MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Barber, Anthony Gridley, Sir Arnold Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Barlow, Sir John Grimond, J. Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Baxter, A. B. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Hall, John (Wycombe) Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Hare, Hon. J. H. Markham, Major S. F.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N) Marlowe, A. A. H.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Harris, Reader (Heston) Marples, A.E.
Birch, Nigel Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Maude, Angus
Bishop, F. P. Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Maclesfield) Maudling, R.
Boothby, R. J. G. Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Bossom, A. C. Hay, John Medlicott, Brig. F.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Heald, Sir Lionel Mellor, Sir John
Boyle, Sir Edward Heath, Edward Molson, A. H. E.
Braine, B. R. Higgs, J. M. C. Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythensnawe)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Hirst, Geoffrey Nabarro, G. D. N.
Brooman-White, R. C. Holland-Marlin, C. J. Nicholls, Harmer
Browne, Jack (Govan) Hollis, M. C. Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich) Nield, Basil (Chester)
Bullard, D. G. Holt, A. F. Noble, Cmdr A. H. P.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Nugent, G. R. H.
Butcher, Sir Harbert Hornsby-Smith, Miss M P. Nutting, Anthony
Campbell, Sir David Horobin, I. M. Oakshott, H. D.
Carr, Robert Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence Odey, G. W.
Cary, Sir Robert Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) O'Neill, Pheim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Channon, H. Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Ormshy-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L. Hurd, A. R. Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Cole, Norman Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) Osborne, C.
Colegate, W. A. Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.) Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Hylton-Footer, H. B. H. Perkins, W. R. D.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Jennings, R. Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Peyton, J. W. W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Jones, A. (Hall Green) Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Crouch, R. F. Joynson-Hicks. Hon. L. W. Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Kaberry, D. Pitman, I. J.
Cuthbert, W. N. Keeling, Sir Edward Pewell, J. Enoch
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Kerr, H. W. Profumo, J. D.
Davidson, Viscountess Lambton, Viscount Raikes, Sir Victor
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Rayner, Brig. R.
Rigby, S. Wingfield Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Redmayne, M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Remnant, Hon. P
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Renton, D. L. M.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm Lindsay, Martin Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Drewe, C. Linstead, H. N. Robson Brown, W
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Roper, Sir Harold
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M. Lloyd, RI. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Russell, R. S.
Fell, A. Longden, Gilbert Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Finlay, Graeme Low, A. R. W. Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Fisher, Nigel Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Scott, R. Donald Summers, G. S. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. Sutcliffe, Sir Harold Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Shepherd, William Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne) Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) Teeling, W. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Thomas, R. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford) Watkinson, H. A.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington) Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) Wellwood, W.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Soames, Capt. C. Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Spearman, A. C. M. Tilney, John Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Speir, R. M. Touche, Sir Gordon Wills, G.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.) Turner, H. F. L. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard Turton, R. H. Wood, Hon. R.
Stevens, G. P. Vane, W. M. F.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) Vesper, D. F. Mr. Studholme and
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) Wade, D. W. Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment made, in page 14, line 41, at end, insert: (4) The Board may by notice in writing require any iron and steel producer or any such person as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection, to furnish to the Board such information as may reasonably be required by the Board for the purpose of giving advice or information to the Minister on any matters referred by him to the Board under subsection (2) of the section of this Act (Consultation with the Board on matters concerning the European Coal and Steel Community).—[Mr. Sandys.]