HC Deb 12 November 1959 vol 613 cc595-8
49. Sir T. Moore

asked the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the present relationship between Parliament and the nationalised industries; and what plan he has in mind for bringing that relationship into line with the wishes of Members in all parties in the House.

The Prime Minister

I am aware of the concern felt in all parts of the House that hon. Members should have adequate opportunities in this House of expressing their views on the working of nationalised industries. The precise arrangements needed for this purpose have presented a problem to which no entirely satisfactory solution has yet been found. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House proposes to discuss the matter with those concerned—including, I understand, yourself, Mr. Speaker—and through the usual channels. In undertaking these consultations, he will take account of the Report of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries which was published in the last Parliament and also of any views expressed by private Members.

Sir T. Moore

I thank my right hon. Friend for that very full reply. Will he and the Leader of the House bear in mind that, nowadays, the Government and we who support the Government on this side of the House are largely identified in the public mind with the nationalised industries, and yet, as he himself has said, we can find out little about them, whether they are a failure or a success? Will the discussions which are to take place bring about a better state of affairs?

The Prime Minister

I realise that nationalisation is a rather sensitive subject at the moment, on both sides, and with so many hesitant angels about I must beware of the folly of any precipitate action.

Mr. Shinwell

Without entering into the merits of the question, because that does not arise at this stage, will the right hon. Gentleman say how his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House proposes to consult, apart from the usual channels, back benchers who are interested in this subject? Does he propose to approach them and ask for their opinion or are we to approach him and be received by him in order to express it?

The Prime Minister

I understand that it will be what is nowadays called a two-way traffic. My right hon. Friend has indicated to me that private Members have not been backward in coming forward.

Mr. Mellish

Is the Prime Minister aware that, apart from any political arguments on nationalisation, there are many of us in the House who feel that the time has really arrived when the interests of the consumer are the all-important factor here, and we, as Members of Parliament, have a right to put Questions and, whether they are nationalised industries or not, in this instance we demand the right to be heard?

The Prime Minister

I am very interested in that observation also. It seems to me that we are coming very close together. The "one nation" is being born.

Mr. M. Stewart

Does the Prime Minister remember that, a few months ago, in the last Parliament, he gave a supplemenary answer the effect of which was to say that none of the nationalised industries paid its way. Is he aware that that statement was untrue? Will he, therefore, include in the arrangements he is making provision to ensure that he and his colleagues are rather better informed about the nationalised industries?

The Prime Minister

I really do not remember the supplementary answers I may have given some months ago; I must, of course, look them up. It is true to say that very heavy charges fall upon the Revenue and the taxpayer through the nationalised industries.

Mr. S. Silverman

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many essential industries and services on which the economic prosperity and the future of the nation depend which are at present not nationalised? Will he consider in his arrangements devising a scheme to bring about some measure of accountability to the House of Commons for those industries?

The Prime Minister

I observe that upon industry in general many Questions—there have been some today on the Order Paper—are put down to the Board of Trade or to the Treasury. As I understand it, this is not a matter really of the merits or demerits of nationalisation. The Question is about whether we in the House of Commons can find a method, by general agreement, to have more informed debates or better information. We know that there are difficulties in this matter. I think that the procedure which I outlined is one which the House can use in order to reach a balanced decision on what is the best procedure for the House to be informed, without undue or improper interruption in the detailed management of these industries.

Mr. Bevan

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a general desire in all parts of the House that the nationalised industries should be much more narrowly interrogated in the House itself? That is a view which we all share. Will he take into account also the need to provide similar opportunities for questioning those private industries which receive far higher subventions from the public purse than those received by the nationalised industries?

The Prime Minister

I do not think that there is a general view that the nationalised industries should be subject to detailed Questions. As I remember it, when all this began, there was a formula laid down at the time, I think, when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office. We have now to consider whether that formula needs revision and whether it can be revised without interference with the effective management of the industries.

Mr. Gaitskell

Will the Prime Minister answer my right hon. Friend's further question about privately-owned industry? Is it not sound practice, when there are subsidies to private industries, that those private industries also should be made accountable to the House?

The Prime Minister

If there are subsidies, the matter can be debated when the subsidies are voted.

Mr. Bevan rose

—

Mr. Speaker

I do not think we can pursue this further now. Mr. Fernyhough. Question No. 50.