Clause 1.—(ISSUE OF SUMS OUT OF CONSOLIDATED FUND FOR THE PROVISION OF CAPITAL.) (Hansard, 22 March 1960)

§ Mr. John Diamond (Gloucester)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out "and".
This is perhaps accurately described as a modest Amendment. It has to be read in conjunction with my further 243 Amendment to line 2, at the end to insert "and the appointment of an assessor". Perhaps, therefore, the two Amendments could be taken together, Sir Gordon.

§ The Chairman
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Diamond
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide what both sides of the Committee are so anxious to provide, namely, a watchdog over the expenditure which will be incurred out of money supplied by the Government on the authority of the House of Commons. The Amendment is simple in its terms. It is perhaps not very precise as regards the word "assessor", but it is a matter of common experience with most hon. Members that the Treasury from time to time, when allotting sums to be spent by other bodies, appoints a person who will attend at meetings of the relevant committees, boards of directors, and so on, which are expending the money, to ensure that it is being spent in accordance with the wishes of those who provide it, in this case the Government.
The way in which the assessor would carry out his duties, therefore, is simply to sit in at meetings of the board of directors, of Colvilles in this case, because as the other concern is already nationalised there is ample opportunity for exercising control there—

§ Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
On a point of order, Sir Gordon. I have no doubt that you will have considered what I am about to mention, but would it not help to facilitate business if we considered several of these Amendments together?

§ The Chairman
The two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) are being considered together.

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
But there are a number of Amendments on the Notice Paper which appear to me to be similar. Rather than have repetition, would not hon. Members be able to make out the case better if those were taken together, voting on them separately if necessary?

§ The Chairman
I understood that it was the desire of the Opposition that the Amendments should be taken separately.

§ Mr. Diamond
I am grateful to you, Sir Gordon. These two Amendments are rather different from some of the others in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
As I was saying, it is the purpose of this Amendment that there should be someone who has the opportunity of sitting in at the relevant committees, be it a board of directors or, at a slightly different level, a committee of officials, who are exercising their function in expending the money which has been provided by the Government. To make it clear what this gentleman will do, let me say first what he does not do. He does not interfere with the day-to-day activities, or in the policy-making activities of the board of a company. He does not share in the responsibility of that board of directors or of that company. He is not responsible to the shareholders of that company; he is responsible to the Government which appoints him.
Therefore, there is no ambiguity in his appointment, as there might be in the case of a director who is nominated by the Government and then has to be appointed by the shareholders of a particular company, so that his appointment can be validated. A person in that capacity inevitably has to look two ways. He has to look to the Government which nominated him, he has to look to the general body of shareholders to whom he is by law responsible.
In this case, there is no such ambivalence, no ambiguity of any kind. He is responsible to one person and one person only, namely the Government, since presumably it will be the Treasury who will appoint him to watch the expenditure of the money which has been provided by the Government. I have tried to explain what he will not do. He will not interfere, he will not be a director. As I say, this is a modest suggestion.
Now I will attempt to say what he will do to show the useful influence he will bring to bear. That is perhaps the first thing he will be, a helpful influence. By his presence there at the relevant times when expenditure of the money is being considered, he will be able to see what is going on, and those spending the money will be aware that he is in their 245 presence, seeing what is happening at first hand.
This person will be a channel for communication between the companies spending the money and the Government which provides the money. He will be a channel for two-way communication. He will be a link to enable each to understand the problems of the other. There may come a time when the companies spending the money ought to be made aware of the political aspects of some of the problems associated with the action they are about to take. It would be right, therefore, that an assessor should point out the political aspects to whichever body was concerned with the spending of the money in a particular way, or which was avoiding doing something which might make expenditure more acceptable generally.
To put it another way, the Government might need to be informed of some of the commercial difficulties, the managerial and administrative difficulties, of which they might not naturally be aware if they only had the advice of those who were not necessarily concerned directly in an industry. Therefore, this would be a method by which both sides would learn something of the problems of the other.
Of course, this would enable a much earlier intervention by the Government, if that proved to be necessary, if the expenditure were not being wisely incurred. If, for example, things were going wrong in some unexpected way, this proposal would enable earlier intervention to take place than would otherwise be possible. Otherwise, the Government would have to rely upon the passage of many years before it would be entitled to take action through the nonpayment of interest.
Under the heads of agreement, which is all we know about at the moment, there is provision for interest to be delayed, and to be still further delayed, at the option of the borrower if it is not convenient to pay the interest at the given date. Therefore, there would be a passage of many years before the Government would be entitled to intervene if its intervention was to be based on the non-payment of interest.
Alternatively, the Government might be able, by publication of the annual accounts of a company, to perceive that 246 things had gone in a very different way from what had been expected, but, there again, accounts come out once a year and sometimes after the end of the year, and a great deal of damage may have been done by the time the Government have been made fully aware of what has been taking place. But if there were an assessor sitting in currently being aware of what was being planned and what was going ahead, the Government would be enabled to intervene if necessary—not if it is not necessary, of course—much earlier and long before things had gone very far wrong.
I have been dealing generally with the duties of an assessor, but in this case the heads of agreement themselves provide the need for somebody to help the Government in understanding and in deciding whether the company has carried out the terms of the agreement. In January, 1959, in a Written Answer about the heads of agreement on the loan to Messrs. Colville, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, Sir Ian Horobin, said of Clause 4 of that agreement: The total actual advances will not in any event exceed the actual expenditure incurred by the Company in relation to these developments as certified by the Company's auditors." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1959; Vol. 598, c. 38.] I would be the last person to say that great reliance should not be placed on a certificate of the company's auditor as to what expenditure had been incurred. I would also be the first person to say that it is often very difficult to decide precisely what the expenditure is and to what extent overheads have been included or not included, when we have a sum of this kind being spent by an existing company with its organisation, including a number of subsidiary companies and a number of works. It is a very difficult circumstance indeed, and one in which an assessor could be of great help by reporting to the Government on the background of the circumstances which led the auditor to base his figures in the way in which he had done. Under Clause 4 of the heads of agreement an assessor would be of great help, and even more so under Clause 15 of the agreement, which says: The Company will not during the currency of the loan carry out any other major development (except those which have already been approved by the Iron and 247 Steel Board) or effect any major investment without the consent of Her Majesty's Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1959; Vol. 598, c. 40.] How will the Government obtain the necessary information to give or withhold their consent? They would have to be very fully informed and one could well say that there might be arguments put which nicely balanced one another. Having an assessor sitting in from the moment the loan was made, seeing how the company was developing, and being satisfied as to the bona fides of all those concerned in spending money provided by the Government, would have very considerable value in carrying out Clause 15 of the agreement.

§ Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)
Perhaps the hon. Member would clear up one point. Does he mean, by assessor, a Government-appointed director?

§ Mr. Diamond
No. I went so far as to say that the one thing I did not mean was a director. He would not be appointed by the shareholders and he would not be responsible to them. He would not have the enforced ambivalent attitude of a director nominated by one party and appointed by another. He would not interfere as a director. I spent a considerable part of my earlier remarks in making it plain that the last thing he was there to be was as a director. He would be a person sitting in and could shortly be described as a watchdog.
I hope that I have made clear the sort of beneficial influence that he could bring to bear in the carrying out of this particular loan. I hope that nobody will ask whether a watchdog is necessary. Surely the Committee is in the mood, especially at the present time, to give support to the general feeling that the House has expressed, and, indeed, the Government, that a good deal of money is being spent with far too little attempt to see where it is being spent.
This is a sentiment which cuts across the Floor. In this case, the size of the sum is not without relevance. We are considering a loan of £50 million to Colvilles, on top of £14 million already owed to the Government—that is to say, £4 million of preference shares and £10 million of debentures held by I.S.R.A., making a total, therefore, of £64 million. 248 That would be the amount that this watchdog would be watching. Indeed, it is a very considerable responsibility and would call for a very considerable person to watch the expenditure of sums of that magnitude. They are very great, both absolutely and relatively. They are very great in relation to the rest of the money Colvilles is spending.
I do not know the names of the directors of Colvilles. I am assuming that they know their job and are as anxious to make a success of this as the Government are and, indeed, all of us here. But I am aware that the amount of capital they are looking after, provided by private sources, is £16 million —£10 million of ordinary shares and £6 million of debentures. They regard themselves as fitted, as do their shareholders, to supervise the expenditure of sums amounting to this total of £16 million.
We are now proposing to bring up the amount provided by the State to £64 million—four times as much. The capital distribution will be four-fifths by the State and one-fifth from private sources. Surely it is asking little that we should suggest, modestly and humbly, that the Treasury should have the right to appoint an assessor, a watchdog, to watch the expenditure of this sum by directors who have experience of expenditure which is one-fifth of this amount.

§ Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)
The hon. Gentleman is persuasively making his case, but he could push it rather too far in the sense that, whereas capital might be provided in that proportion at this time, the "know-how" and experience have been provided by the directors. Similarly, in any company the money may well be provided by individual shareholders, but the initiative, "know-how" and experience are. in many cases, provided by the management and the directors.

§ Mr. Diamond
I accept that completely. Of course, the "know-how", experience, initiative and administration are provided by the directors. What we are doing is to provide an additional £50 million. I am not suggesting that any additional "know-how", or these other things, is needed, but it is the duty of Parliament, when providing four-fifths of the sum of money which the board 249 of directors is to handle, to provide one watchdog, without a single vote.
I do not know how many directors there are at Colvilles—probably ten or more, but I am only making a guess. We are not suggesting one additional director, but merely someone to sit in and watch and interpret the problems of one side to the other, and help to see that Parliament once more establishes its practice of supervising the expenditure of large sums of the taxpayers' money.

§ The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) for having clearly explained what he intended by his Amendment, because so modest was it that I had very little idea of what it might contain when I first saw it. It made no attempt to define what should be the duties of an assessor, but I make no complaint of that because the hon. Member clearly defined what he thought should be the functions of an assessor. He made it perfectly clear that he did not have in mind that this gentleman should be an assessor with powers comparable to those of a director. He said that several times and we shall later have a chance to examine the case for appointing a director or directors.
However, that is not the case which we are now examining. What the hon. Gentleman has asked us to do now is to agree to the appointment of an assessor without powers, what he calls a "watchdog" to fulfil various functions, including, as he said, to be a helpful influence on the Board and in various respects to be some sort of two-way channel between the Government and the company.
My difficulty in agreeing to such a suggestion is that the loans which the Government have made to the companies —perhaps in this case I should deal particularly with that made to Colvilles— are already adequately protected by the formal legal agreements. The purposes of the loans are clearly specified. There are provisions for the repayment of principal. There is provision for the securing of the loans on the assets of the companies. There are adequate sanctions in case of default, and, much more important than any of those because it reflects closely on what the hon. Gentleman 250 had to say, there is power at any time to obtain and require information, if I need it, for seeing that all those purposes are being carried out.
The hon. Gentleman was clearly aware that such an Amendment would first need a codicil to the agreement, which would have to have that amount of negotiation, and the only ground on which I could ask Colvilles to agree to that codicil would be the ground that, frankly, I did not have sufficient trust and confidence in the firm's willingness and capabilities to carry out the agreements to allow it to do so under the present arrangements, which give me power to request any information to see that they are being carried out.
Therefore, the request for such a power to appoint an assessor would be tantamount to an expression of mistrust about the degree to which the agreements were to be carried out. There is the further matter of my power to veto any new project, worth more than £100,000, which might be carried out by Colvilles. That is a perfectly clear power which I am quite prepared to use unless I am completely satisfied of the necessity and wisdom of any further project which may be undertaken.
Lastly, there is the function of the Iron and Steel Board itself—in fact, it is a statutory duty—of watching the development projects of the company. Therefore, my conclusion must be that I am convinced that not only Parliament but I myself have adequate powers of watching the developments which take place connected with this loan. Therefore, I cannot agree to the suggestion that the appointment of an assessor in this case is necessary.

§ Mr. Harold Finch (Bedwellty)
Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is public money and that the Government are entitled to a voice in the control of an industry in which public money has been spent?

§ Mr. Wood
That is in our minds. The Government are entitled to that voice and have it under the agreements and intend to use it. What I am suggesting to the Committee is that I should not be helped in my solemn duty of exercising those powers by the provision of the kind of assessor which the hon. Member for Gloucester has suggested.

§ Mr. Nabarro
I am very dissatisfied with my right hon. Friend's choice of words. I very carefully wrote down what he said. He said that Parliament and he himself had power over the control of these loans after they were made from the Consolidated Fund. My right hon. Friend may consider that he has powers, but let him be under no delusion, Parliament has no powers whatever. Once this sum of £120 million is voted from the Consolidated Fund, that will be an irrevocable act. Let me say exactly why it will be irrevocable.
I wonder whether the learned Clerks at the Table, once the Bill is passed, will accept from me a Parliamentary Question challenging the purposes for which sums in respect of capital projects under this Act of Parliament, as it will then be, are being applied. Of course, the Clerk will not take them and I shall have the fob off which I have had a thousand times before—that this is an autonomy enjoyed by nationalised industries, or is a day-to-day commercial consideration and—

§ Mr. Finch
It is private industry.

§ Mr. Nabarro
On the contrary, £70 million out of £120 million—

§ Mr. Finch
rose—

§ Mr. Nabarro
Let me finish. [Interruption.] It is still a nationalised— [Interruption.] If the hon. Member wants to interrupt, will he rise to do so and not remain seated?

§ Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)
There are two firms, one of which is nationalised and the other of which is denationalised. My hon. Friend the member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) was referring especially to the firm that was not nationalised.

§ Mr. Nabarro
I am very grateful. My knowledge of Colvilles and Richard Thomas and Baldwins is at least as great as the hon. Gentleman's. I have two Richard Thomas and Baldwins works in my constituency, and it is still a nationalised concern—

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
And doing well.

§ Mr. Nabarro
—and doing well. However, £70 million out of £120 million is in respect of a company which is still nationalised and I am endeavouring to 252 address to my right hon. Friend a severe censure about his choice of words. He said that he himself and Parliament had full powers of control.

§ Mr. Wood
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Nabarro
I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend is now nodding assent. He may have powers, but Parliament has no powers.

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
rose—

§ Mr. Nabarro
I want to continue for a moment.
I have no power to put down a Parliamentary Question. As part of my general argument and as part of the fabric of my case, may I allude, Sir Gordon, to your intervention in our Second Reading debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill last Wednesday, when you ruled my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) out of order for talking about investment in nationalised industries during that debate?
I wish publicly to apologise to you, Sir Gordon, for my intervention on that occasion. You were right and I was wrong. Mr. Speaker has supported you and said that I was wrong and that you were right. It is of great interest to the Committee to know that it is strictly out of order to talk about—

§ The Chairman
Order. This is getting somewhat out of order on the Amendment.

§ Mr. Nabarro
I will relate it to the Bill. It is strictly to the Amendment. It is strictly analogous.
Once the Bill is through there will be £70 million invested in a nationalised industry, Richard Thomas and Baldwins. We cannot challenge anything in regard to that investment by Parliamentary Questions. We cannot challenge anything in regard to that investment under the Consolidated Fund Bill debates. We cannot challenge anything in regard to that investment under the appropriate Section of the Finance Acts of 1956, 1958, or 1959.
Though my right hon. Friend may have powers to challenge individual investments within the Bill, will he tell me please how Parliament has powers? It 253 is no good my trying to ask him a Parliamentary Question. The learned Clerk of the Table will fob me off. Would my right hon. Friend therefore correct what he said a few moments ago? He, as Minister of Power may have powers, but the House of Commons—ordinary, insignificant hon. Members such as myself, the vast body of private hon. Members— has no powers whatever. This is a continuation of the "Hinchingbrooke Exercise" of last Wednesday, except that today it will be a "Nabarro Exercise" of accountability to Parliament of sums vested in nationalised industries.
Sir Gordon, you will have read the Bill. The Consolidated Fund is providing this sum of money. I want full accountability.

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
I find myself in great sympathy with the Amendment and the reasoning of the hon. Gentleman, but he raises a serious issue. If the Chair accepts the interpretation of what is in order, and what is out of order, is the hon. Gentleman saying that in future it will be impossible, either on the Consolidated Fund Bill or the Appropriation Bill, to raise any question about these loans?

§ Mr. Nabarro
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help. On 18 th February he said something which is strictly relevant to this intervention by an hon. Member. He said: I hold the view very strongly that we should vote against this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 1477.] I hope that on the ground of Parliamentary accountability the hon. Member will vote against the Bill, and keep on voting against it.

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
The hon. Gentleman has not answered the point I made.

§ Mr. Nabarro
I will answer it in a moment.
Sir Gordon, with your consent, as Chairman of our Committee, I propose to intervene on many of the Amendments on the Notice Paper and it might, therefore, be inappropriate if I read the letter I received this morning from Mr. Speaker I shall read it in the course of our debates. It is a letter giving a Ruling upholding your Ruling on the Consolidated Fund Bill debate last Wednesday. It is a very grave issue for all 254 Members. The letter gives a very clear Ruling. This is a great constitutional issue, as about £800 million of the taxpayers' money every year is going into nationalised industries. The predecessor to the present Mr. Speaker ruled that we could not debate those matters on a Finance Act. Mr. Speaker has now ruled that we may not debate those matters on a Consolidated Fund Bill debate. I am informed, though, that I may seek, through Private Members' Motions, to do so. What a disgraceful state of affairs.
My right hon. Friend is ensnared this afternoon in the first of the Amendments. I repeat that he is ensnared into using thoroughly faulty words by saying that he himself and Parliament will have powers to control these loans once they are made. Will my right hon. Friend read Clause 1 (6) which says: The Minister of Power shall, as respects each financial year, prepare in such form and manner as the Treasury may direct an account of sums issued to him under this Act…"? It is only a presentation. It is not a Parliamentary Vote that we can challenge. It does not give me the power of control over my Ministerial colleagues' activities in this context, which is what I want.
My right hon. Friend seems to think that he is a law unto himself, with or without an assessor, but I suggest that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power should be the servant of Parliament. I happen to be a Member of Parliament, and I will exercise my constitutional rights to control his activities on every occasion in regard to the use to which these moneys are put.
I repeat that I shall probably wish to intervene again on these Amendments. There is no limit to the number of times that we may speak. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reply to this point and will not deny using the words that I have attributed to him. He said that he himself, as Minister, had full powers of control, and Parliament also had powers of control. Will my right hon. Friend tell the Committee exactly what powers Parliament will have, once the Bill is through, to challenge the application of any sums under it in respect either of Colvilles or of Richard Thomas and Baldwins.

§ Mr. Walter Edwards (Stepney)
Cheer up.

§ Mr. Nabarro
I am very happy, thank you.

§ Mr. G. R. Strauss (Vauxhall)
I gather that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) wants the Minister and Parliament to have power in respect of these loans. Presumably that means the way that the money is spent, quite apart from the question of repayment. Is he not, therefore, logically asking that these companies, one of which is already nationalised and the other is not, should come under Parliament for control? They can only come under Parliamentary control if they belong to the Government. Surely that is a plea for the nationalisation of the company.

§ Mr. Nabarro
It is not an argument for complete nationalisation, but I will tell the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) what it is an argument for. So long as there are State moneys vested in any sector of industry, nationalised, de-nationalised, or privately owned, there should be proper Parliamentary accountability. That is the point that I am after. I am an outright denationaliser.

§ The Chairman
Order. The hon. Member is covering a much wider point. We are discussing the question of an assessor.

§ Mr. Nabarro
I agree, Sir Gordon, that we are discussing the matter of an assessor, which is associated with accountability to Parliament. Under the Bill large sums of money are to be vested in these still nationalised steel concerns. For Richard Thomas and Baldwins there is to be £70 million, and there must be full Parliamentary accountability in respect of that sum.
I do not believe my right hon. Friend when he says that Parliament already has accountability in respect of these sums. Once the Bill is through it is an irrevocable act that none of us can challenge in future in regard to the expenditure of sums under the Bill as a result of your Ruling last Wednesday, as reinforced by the confirmation by Mr. Speaker, and the fact that we can no longer debate them within the context of a Finance Act. Thus, Parliament 256 and I have no power whatever in regard to this State investment once the Bill goes through.

§ Mr. W. Edwards
But Parliament has power to prevent repetition by the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Nabarro
I hope that the Committee will realise that salient fact. I intervene at the beginning of the debate to emphasise to every Member of the Committee that this is an irrevocable act with no accountability in future if we pass the Bill in its present form.

§ Mr. Lawson
I understood that Acts were normally irrevocable until new Acts were passed. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) keeps talking about £70 million. The Bill is concerned with £120 million. The other £50 million relates to Colvilles.
I take it that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) is more concerned that an assessor should be appointed in the case of Colvilles than in the case of Richard Thomas and Baldwins. Although I support the Amendment, on the principle that we must try to get as much as we can as we go on, I take it that what we have in mind subsequently goes much further. If there is a possibility of appointing an assessor to keep watch on the way money is spent in Colvilles, however, I am very much in favour of it.
I take it that there is no thought of paying over this £120 million out of love of the two companies. I take it that there is no great love for the shareholders of Colvilles which would lead us to make it as easy as possible for them to obtain extra income. The object of the exercise is surely to enable Colvilles and Richard Thomas and Baldwins better to fulfil their obligations to the country. I assume that there will be no thought of this £50 million going to Colvilles unless the need is clearly recognised for the building of an additional strip mill in Scotland, and a clear recognition of the fact that unless something very special is done Colvilles will not build the strip mill. This is an inducement to the firm to undertake the work.
The initiative did not come from Colvilles, but eventually the pressure of all shades of public opinion in Scotland forced the Government to give way on 257 this point. I assume that Steel House —the Iron and Steel Federation headquarters—had no desire to build a strip mill in Scotland, but that the political demand was such that the decision had to be taken. That means that this money is being put up to enable the company to carry out that which the Government and the people consider to be necessary.
So that Parliament and the people— especially the people of Scotland— should have a clear idea whether or not the intentions of Parliament are being carried out, we must be able to get the information that is being asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. It is not merely a question of safeguarding ourselves against the loss of an odd pound, or a thousand pounds or so; it is a question of putting ourselves in a position in which we can carefully watch what is happening and ensure that the nation's interests are safeguarded.
I represent the constituency in which the firm of Colvilles is established, and where the strip mill is to be built, and I am led to the conclusion that we must constantly have in mind the public interest in this matter. The first phase of the Ravenscraig scheme, of which the strip mill is now to form a part, was decided when the company was still nationalised in 1954. I shall not attempt to argue that if the company had been denationalised in the first part of 1954 the scheme would not have been decided upon, but there is no evidence of that. At any rate, it was decided when the company was nationalised, and if the concern of the Government and the House is to see that this money is used in the interests of the nation we must have the fullest information about the day-to-day activities of the company. The least that we can ask for is the appointment of a person such as the one described by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, to act as a watchdog, in order to give us, in time, the information necessary to enable us to see that the interests of the nation are put first.

§ Mr. Gower
I am sorry to find myself at issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). First, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) seemed to think that the answer to this question was to extend the field of nationalisation, whereas my hon. Friend's remarks seemed to include a 258 criticism of the extent of Parliamentary control over the nationalised industries. The two speakers seemed to be adopting completely divergent approaches to this topic.

§ Mr. Strauss
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) wanted complete Parliamentary control over the expenditure of this money—

§ Mr. Nabarro
In the public sector.

§ Mr. Strauss
In the public sector only? I was assuming that the money was as much the taxpayers' money, and needed just as much safeguarding, if not more, if it went to a private company as if it went to a public company. If that is not the hon. Member's argument, and he is interested in the safeguarding of public money only when it goes into public companies, all I can say is that it is very interesting to have that information.

§ Mr. Nabarro
There is a contradistinction here.

§ Mr. Herbert Butler (Hackney, Central)
On a point of order. Can we be told who has the Floor?

§ Mr. Gower
I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster.

§ Mr. Nabarro
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I was endeavouring to say that there is clearly a contradistinction here. I advocate accountability to Parliament in respect of public moneys voted by Parliament to nationalised industries. When public moneys are voted to private industry there must similarly be accountability —and I shall develop that point later— but when private sums are subscribed to private companies on the Stock Exchange the appropriate safeguard is through the Companies Acts. That is the difference between the two.

§ Mr. Gower
I am sorry to find myself still at issue with my hon. Friend. It may be that the kind of accountability and Parliamentary control that he advocates are most desirable. I do not disagree about that. But I cannot see how such accountability or control can be ensured by the modest proposal contained in the Amendment; by the appointment of a person with very modest powers, which largely overlap existing 259 powers. Some of the powers to which the hon. Member referred are already possessed by my right hon. Friend, and other powers and functions to which he referred already repose in the Iron and Steel Board.
We must not underestimate how different this industry is from any other existing industry. Although part of it is at present privately owned and the other part State owned, it is a fact that some years ago Parliament set up a Board which has very important supervisory powers, powers of control over prices, and also power to seek information. In addition to all those powers my right hon. Friend has extensive powers to require the most complete information with regard to this industry to be made available.
Despite the fact that the Amendment was put forward in a very reasonable way, and that there was force behind many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), I would have thought that the person he suggested is not the appropriate person to exercise these functions. I think that the answer to what he wants may well be what my hon. Friend wants, that is increased power for Parliament to examine not only the nationalised industries as they now exist, but moneys advanced by the authority of Parliament, whether to nationalised or other industries. But I do not think that the mere addition of an assessor, or some such person, to the board of Colvilles or Richard Thomas and Baldwins, nationalised or not, would achieve the result which the hon. Member so much desires and which many of us would cordially support.

§ Mr. Jack Jones (Rotherham)
As I see it, the issue is simple. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) is seeking to appoint an assessor. He has in mind a simple thing. I do not suggest that my hon. Friend is a simple fellow. He happens to know more about the intricacies of high finance than most of us. But simple people like myself, brought up in the steel industry, can understand what my hon. Friend wants to do.
Here is a company, Colvilles Ltd., which, in effect, is being told to get on 260 with the job of putting in a new strip mill, which was something the company did not want to do. In effect, the Government are offering to the company £50 million of the taxpayers' money. Had the company been extremely anxious to have the use of the money it might have been a different picture, but it was not anxious. Here is a company with a £14 million equity shareholding, looked after by ten, or twelve, or any number of directors, and my hon. Friend is seeking to add to that number not another director, but a person who will watch carefully how this public money is spent for and on behalf of those who are providing the money. What is wrong with that?
The Minister said he is satisfied that the directors of the company are all that they purport to be. But the Minister is only one person in this universe. Millions of other people are suspicious about the handing out of public money to this extent. Through my hon. Friend, and through Parliament, they seek the appointment of one person to keep an eye on what is going on. I have seen much money spent in the steel industry. I have seen a lot of it spent usefully and I have seen millions of pounds wasted. There have been projects which have proved to be "white elephants".
I have known money allocated for a certain project to be used for something completely different when it has been left in the control of persons who are not accountable to Parliament. I do not want to go into details, but in South Wales one of the biggest companies seceded from the Iron and Steel Federation because of what went on in connection with easy money paid out too easily. I could give details if I had the time.
My hon. Friend seeks to appoint to the company what he terms a "watchdog". For the most part the watchdog would sit quietly on his tail, but would wag it occasionally and perhaps show his teeth occasionally in the interests of the public—perhaps bark, if need be, and bite if necessary. There is nothing wrong with that. If my right hon. Friends decide that this matter should be taken to a Division, I hope that hon. Members opposite who, like ourselves, are not happy about it, will seek to have more Parliamentary control and will see to 261 it that we get this additional supervision over the spending of John Bull's coppers.

§ Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)
An assessor is not what we are looking for. Presumably, an assessor would be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, or by the Treasury, and that is not what we want. We desire that information should be passed to the House of Commons from time to time about the spending of this money over the years ahead. Two strip mills are to be erected. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) pointed out clearly how inhibited will be hon. Members from discussing in the House of Commons how this money is spent. After the Bill becomes law we shall have finished with the matter.
The Minister may have powers, but we have none, and the appointment of an assessor by the Minister will not add in any way to the facilities which we have for examining and controlling the situation. This is a grave comment in the Bill on the paltry position which the House of Commons has come to occupy in these affairs. It was once said of the House of Lords that it had become Mr. Balfour's poodle. It seems to me that now the House of Commons is in very grave danger of becoming the Administration's Pekinese. It may snarl and snap a bit after the event, but is never possessed of that current knowledge which is so essential if we are to have any chance at all of performing the function of the taxpayers' watchdog.

§ Mr. Nabarro
Well done.

§ Mr. Frederick Lee (Newton)
May I, first, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) not only on the able way in which he deployed his argument, but the manner in which he has looked at the Bill and brought to our attention something which I confess had escaped the notice of myself and my right hon. Friends. Having heard the argument as deployed by my hon. Friend, and the reply by the Minister, I am extremely impressed with the need for an assessor.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and one or two of his hon. Friends have long been telling us how worried they are about the expenditure of public finance on private enterprise. Today, I think that the hon. 262 Member for Kidderminster back-pedalled a little on that by referring to the fact that Richard Thomas and Baldwins is still a nationalised industry.

§ Mr. Nabarro
Well, is it not?

§ Mr. Lee
Certainly, despite the efforts of the hon. Gentleman to prevent it from being so.

§ Mr. Nabarro
I readily admit that all my efforts to get the rump of the nationalised steel industry denationalised have been frustrated. I am a complete flop. The Treasury Bench has crushed me because it is more Socialist than the Socialist Front Bench.

§ Mr. Lee
The hon. Gentleman, in his picturesque language, has described himself as a flop, and I shall not disagree with him in any way. There are many occasions on which I am able to agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are good friends and know each other very well indeed.
On this issue, I, and I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, are more concerned because a private industry, a private firm such as Colvilles, is not susceptible to Parliamentary control in the same way as is a nationalised firm. We have discussed, and shall continue to discuss, the question of public finance being provided for public enterprise. Indeed, we have discussed this largely on the initiative of the Opposition on many occasions. We still seek opportunities to continue that discussion.
I am here concerned with the expenditure of public money on Colvilles Limited. The Minister told us that he believed he had sufficient control within the provisions contained in the Bill. The hon. Member for Kidderminster pointed out what is stated in Clause 1 (6) and I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Nabarro
Jolly good.

§ Mr. Lee
There is nothing in subsection (6) by which either the Minister or the House of Commons can determine the detailed expenditure of this £50 million loan. There is no way at all. I do not wish to continue to quote subsection (6). It merely gives a general blanket arrangement under which the Comptroller and Auditor-General does certain things. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will interrupt me if I am 263 wrong, but I say that there is no way in which he can know at any given moment how the £50 million to be lent to Colvilles is being expended.
Therefore, I come to my hon. Friend's point, that the only way in which the House of Commons can assure itself, although we disagree fundamentally with the principle of public money being allocated to such firms as Colvilles, given the fact that the £50 million is being expended for the purpose which the Minister tells us it is to be spent, is by having supervision of some kind within Colvilles itself. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester has put his finger right on the button and that his suggestion that we should appoint somebody to supervise the way in which this expenditure goes ahead is the right way in which the House of Commons should proceed.
The Minister said that he had certain powers by which he could look at this matter. I wish that the Minister would tell us how the House of Commons has any power.

§ Mr. Nabarro
That was my point.

§ Mr. Lee
What I object to in the speech of the hon. Member for Kidderminster is that he said, and I quote his words, that he objected to the Minister's choice of words. I do not object to his choice of words; I object to his methods.

§ Mr. Nabarro
Of course, I object to my right hon. Friend's methods and his practices in this context, but I began my speech by requoting two of my right hon. Friend's words. He said that he himself and Parliament had full powers in regard to these loans. I quite agree that he has powers, but Parliament has none. I happen to be a Member of Parliament and I want powers of scrutiny. I do not want a monopoly left with my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Lee
I think that the hon. Member and myself are arguing the same thing. He says that his right hon. Friend has powers. I do not believe that he has. He has powers to agree to a loan. He is now asking us to agree to these powers being implemented. I do not believe that any Minister of Power, given the terms of this loan, has any powers whatever to determine how it shall be 264 spent. I do not agree that the Minister himself has the necessary powers; far less has the Commons detailed powers and supervision of the manner in which this loan shall be spent.
I invite the Committee to remember that we do not even know the percentage of interest on which this loan will be agreed. How, in heaven's name, can we, the House of Commons, agree to a loan of £50 million of the taxpayers' money, bereft of any knowledge of the interest rates upon which that loan will be given and of any knowledge of how it will be spent? This is a blanket about which we are now asked to agree. I submit to the Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, with his usual perspicacity and attention to details, has put to us a method which, I should have thought, would have been agreeable, quite apart from political matters, to all hon. Members.

§ Mr. Peyton
May I ask the hon. Gentleman, with the utmost restraint, how in the name of conscience the appointment of an assessor will help us out of this dilemma?

§ Mr. Lee
The Minister of Power, in subsection (6), has a general blanket supervision. He has no detailed knowledge at all. An assessor who could constantly bring to his attention the detailed manner in which this loan is to be expended would be of the very greatest assistance to the right hon. Gentleman and, through him, in a report to this House. In our later Amendments we are asking that there shall be a detailed report to this House by virtue of the report of the assessor, by which we believe that we could get some detailed knowledge of how this public money is to be expended.
I believe that Richard Thomas and Baldwins is a different proposition in the sense that it is now a nationalised firm, although, in a short time, it will not be

§ Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)
Can my hon. Friend tell me, since I have had some interest in Richard Thomas and Baldwins for a very long time—I remember the time when it had money from the Prudential—if there is any conceivable reason why this very successful firm should be denationalised?

§ Mr. Lee
My right hon. Friend has put before us a most pertinent point. I remember asking this in 1953 and my right hon. Friend did so, as well. There is no argument which we have had adduced from the Government Front Bench to tell us why it should be. By any criteria which right hon. and hon. Members opposite can adduce, Richard Thomas and Baldwins is the most successful of any steel firm in Britain. It is the very success of Richard Thomas and Baldwins that has sounded its death-knell. A nationalised industry, if it is to be retained in the nationalised sector, must make absolutely certain that it never succeeds, otherwise the vultures opposite are ready to pounce and devour it.

§ The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert)
The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the Amendment.

§ Mr. Nabarro
On a point of order. I distinctly heard the hon. Gentleman refer to me as a vulture. Is not the term "vulture" a most approbrious fashion in which to describe one's political opponents?

§ Mr. Lee
I withdraw at once. I have never seen a vulture cloak its talons in the way in which the hon. Gentleman does. It keeps a clean face on these things. He was perfectly right in saying that I had no right to describe him in any way, shape or form as a vulture.
To return to the argument concerning Richard Thomas and Baldwins as distinct from Colvilles, I was saying that Richard Thomas and Baldwins is still, for the time being, part of the nationalised sector of the steel industry. I said that it was probably the most successful part of the steel industry as a whole. But we are here discussing a loan of public money to a nationalised firm, which has no interest in making profit for private enterprise and, therefore, addresses itself directly to the fact that its job is to increase the value of its public holdings on behalf of the public as a whole, as distinct from an enterprise which exists quite frankly for making profits for private people.
Therefore, the hon. Member for Kidderminster, in addressing himself entirely to the question of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, forgets that there is no 266 question of creaming off the spoil for private people, but that the whole of its efforts and increase of efficiency is directed to increasing the general wealth of the 52 million shareholders in Britain, whereas Colvilles is an entirely different proposition.
My charge against the hon. Member for Kidderminster and his hon. Friends is that they are now telling us they are worried about the fact that the House of Commons has no control over public moneys invested in private enterprise. I will tell the hon. Member how that could be done; renationalise the industry. That is all that has to be done; it is as simple as that. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester would agree with me that, provided there were public supervision and that the incentive to production was not merely to fatten the pockets of private people—that the main point of their existence was to increase the wealth of the community as a whole—there would be no need for an assessor to look after these matters.
My hon. Friend has made a case which is both unanswered and unanswerable. Many hon. Members opposite have paid lip service to the conception that where public money is invested in private enterprise there must be supervision over the way in which that public money is used. If they are sincere and honest—I know that the Whips have been doing a lot of work behind the scenes and I do not know whether the knees of the hon. Member are knocking, but I sense that he is in trouble and that the rebels are not so rebellious as they were before the Whips got to work—

§ Mr. Peyton
Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to say that, in inviting us to vote for an Amendment with which we do not agree, he has greatly overrated the sagacity of his own party and the coherence of its policy.

§ Mr. Lee
At least, there is a policy. I have listened to the hon. Member, who makes militant noises to us but is afraid to follow them up in the Lobby on many occasions. He contributed to the general thesis of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) —who is now absent—that this was "bastard Socialism". Is he going to support it now?

§ Mr. Peyton
Let me make it absolutely clear that under no circumstances would I vote for an Amendment with which I do not agree. Let me add that it would take a very great deal to get me through the Lobby on any steel question with the party opposite.

§ Mr. Lee
In other words, we now know that the hon. Member is very brave in telling the Government he will not have this question of spending public money on private enterprise, but when my hon. Friend suggests a very simple way of supervising it he has not the guts to carry out what he is talking about.

§ Mr. Nabarro
Surely, when the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) reads through the Notice Paper, he will see that at present there are three alternative proposals in regard to control of public investment. The first of those proposals is that made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) for an assessor. There is a further Amendment covering the appointment of Government directors. That is an Amendment to page 2, line 2, at the end to insert: and, if the borrower is a company, the nomination by the Minister of a director or directors of the company". That is a stronger method of control.
Then there is a third method of control, also in an Amendment, calling for a Statutory Instrument in respect of the tranche of investment, in page 2, line 4, at the end to insert: Provided that no such terms as aforesaid shall be approved unless they have been set out in a statutory instrument of which a draft has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament. Those Amendments are graduated in strength. The weakest of the three is that calling for an assessor. The next stronger is that for a Government director and the strongest of all three controls is that for a Statutory Instrument. Therefore, if I do not go with the hon. Member on the proposal for an assessor, which is a weak, puny little thing compared with the two which follow, I hope he will not think I am in any way running away from my hon. Friend the Whip on the Front Bench.

§ Mr. Lee
I do not recall that I accused the hon. Member for Kidder-minister of anything of the sort. I was 268 addressing my remarks entirely to his hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who made it clear that he was now backing out.

§ Mr. Nabarro
No, he is just as brave as I am.

§ Mr. Lee
If he is as brave as the hon. Member for Kidderminster, then the hon. Member for Kidderminster is not as brave as I thought he was.

§ Mr. Peyton
I would be very much obliged to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) if he would put it in these words. What he is saying to the Committee now is that his definition of courage and bravery is to vote for something with which one does not believe. That is typical of the party opposite.

§ Mr. Lee
Not at all. I am merely saying that the gist of the hon. Member's speeches over the last few months has been such that he should agree with this proposal. He has been arguing the need for control wherever public money is invested in private enterprise. Now, when it comes to the point, he runs away from it. I confine myself to saying that.
I submit to the Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester has put to us a case which moderate opinion on the opposite side of the Committee should accept. There is, in fact, a strong case for saying that wherever we have public money invested in this way there should be this control. That is especially so at a time, as I again remind hon. Members opposite, when we do not even know the percentage of interest the Government are charging, when the interest rates are to be deferred for a certain period before they become payable and when there is this agreement with Colvilles.
I shall not read the heads of agreement, but the agreement with Colvilles I imagine is unique in British history. It is the most advantageous agreement I have ever seen, short of a complete dole from the Treasury, that has ever been transacted in the history of this Parliament. Under those conditions, I put it to the Committee that it is essential for the House of Commons to demand what controls it can get within the terms of an agreement of that type.
The Minister has said that that agreement is concluded and he can do nothing 269 about it, but the House of Commons can do something about it. It can insist that we are the forum of the nation and in the last analysis the people who can decide whether such a transaction is agreed to or not. I say to hon. Members opposite that this is the first of many tests that this Committee will receive during the considering of this Bill. I ask them, in all sincerity, to judge the question on its merits and to come into the Lobby with us on this Amendment.

§ Mr. Godfrey Lagden (Hornchurch)
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) has engendered enormous excitement, unlike his usual self, on this occasion. He is talking about an assessor. Will he agree that if this assessor came into being he would be only a lap dog of a Minister? Would he not agree that that is not what we need? What the House of Commons needs, not only in this case but in all these matters of public money and nationalised industries, is that the bulk of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee should have the right to investigate and make up their minds— before, not after—these events.

§ Mr. Lee
In other words, the hon. Member disagrees with the agreement. In the course of discussing these Amendments we shall give him a chance to support that contention. In our first Amendment we are asking him, as a loyal Government supporter, to say that even if it is a lap dog there is no point in saying that this provision should not be made. Later, we shall give him an opportunity to support even stronger contentions. I ask him to give an earnest of his intention to show the Government and the nation that we, the forum of the nation, are determined to get supervision over public expenditure of our moneys, by coming into the Lobby with us on this occasion.

§ Mr. Wood
We seem to have wandered in the last three quarters of an hour a long way from what the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) described as a modest Amendment. From the description some of them have given of themselves, I find the greatest difficulty in recognising some of my hon. Friends. I cannot compare my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to a Pekinese, though he described himself as such.

§ Mr. Peyton
My right hon. Friend must get this right. I said there was a danger of this House of Commons becoming the Administration's pekinese. I think it a very real danger.

§ Mr. Wood
I confused an individual Pekinese with a collective pekinese. When my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) described himself as insignificant and a flop, I began to wonder whether his humility was running away with him. That description did not seem any more accurate than the description of him by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) as a vulture, which the hon. Member for Newton kindly withdrew. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster agreeing with me that at least I as Minister have adequate powers to see that these agreements are carried through. For that reason, I do not need an assessor.
5.0 p.m.
Since my hon. Friends spoke, the debate has divided itself into two strands. On the one side, there have been those who think that I should have information which I otherwise would not get. On the other side, there have been those who think that Parliament should have an opportunity of investigating the affairs of these industries which it otherwise would not get. It is fair to point out that the function of the assessor—as I see him and as the hon. Member for Gloucester described him—would be only to report to me. Therefore, from that point of view he would not have anything to do with Parliamentary accountability. Any powers that Parliament has at the moment it can use. They will not be increased by the appointment of an assessor. At the moment, Parliament can question me. It would only be able to question me afterwards. Therefore, from that point of view the assessor would not make any difference.
I should like to deal briefly with my hon. Friend's point.

§ Mr. Nabarro
That is my point, is it not?

§ Mr. Wood
This is the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster. There seemed to me to be only two ways to honour the contract which was made at the end of 1958. The first was to put these sums on the Vote of 271 my Department. The second was to take the course which is the objective of the present Bill, which is to place them below the line. If they had been placed on the Votes there would have been, as my hon. Friends will no doubt agree, an annual opportunity for Parliament to exercise control. In fact, Parliament would have been, I hope, reluctant to exercise that power because, if it had moved a reduction in my Vote on that account, it would be the same as saying that the Government should dishonour the contract which they had made.
By the Bill, Parliament will give the Government—here I entirely agree with my hon. Friend—the power to provide at this moment all the funds which will be necessary to fulfil these contracts. I would certainly not agree with my hon. Friend that I was in any way inaccurate in the language I used, because I am quite convinced that Parliament will have a continued opportunity for comment and question about these arrangements.

§ Mr. Nabarro
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. May I repeat his last few words—"Parliament will continue to have the opportunity to question". My right hon. Friend will recall that I asked him to be much more precise. How will Parliament have the opportunity to question? I explored whether it would be by Parliamentary Question. The answer is in the negative. I explored whether it would be under the Consolidated Fund Bill. As a result of Mr. Speaker's Ruling given to me by letter this morning, which I shall read later in the debate, we cannot raise it now under the Consolidated Fund. We cannot raise it under the Finance Act. Will my right hon. Friend now tell me how Parliament can control it?

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
Before the Minister speaks again, may I raise a point of order with you, Sir Norman? This raises a very serious issue. May we have a Ruling from the Chair on what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has said on several occasions in the debate? We are now considering an Amendment to Clause 1, which provides for the loans to be made out of the Consolidated Fund.
272 My point of order is this. In accordance with Parliamentary practice, I have always understood that we have a right to raise any grievances on anything which is voted and then included in the Consolidated Fund Bill and then the Appropriation Bill before we finally vote in July the Consolidated Fund Bill and the Appropriation Bill.
Sir Norman, you may think—if you think so, I should not blame you—that I am being a little unfair, but we are handicapped because we have not the benefit of the letter which the hon. Member for Kidderminster has received from Mr. Speaker. As this is such an important constitutional issue, I do not think we should allow it to pass without having a Ruling from the Chair.

§ Mr. Nabarro
Further to that point of order. Would it not be for the convenience of the Committee if I now read out what Mr. Speaker wrote and which I received this morning?

§ The Temporary Chairman
No, the hon. Member cannot do that. This does not affect the Committee. It affects the House.

§ Mr. Nabarro
You say, Sir Norman, that it does not affect the Committee. On the contrary, with very great respect, the sums referred to in the Bill which the assessor is supposed to be controlling if the Bill goes through are sums derived from the Consolidated Fund. It is on the subject of Parliamentary debate in connection with the Consolidated Fund that Mr. Speaker has written to me, and it is that very decision which I think the Committee should hear, because if we pass the Bill in its present form no Member of the House of Commons in the Consolidated Fund Bill debates in future can challenge any of the sums under the Bill. Therefore, is it not proper that I should be allowed to tell the Committee what Mr. Speaker has ruled?

§ The Temporary Chairman
The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss on this Amendment the whole principle of what is or is not in order on the Consolidated Fund.

§ Mr, Nabarro
With very great respect, Sir Norman, I am not seeking to debate on this narrow Amendment all matters of principle inherent in the Bill. But 273 the function of an assessor, if I understood the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) correctly, is to exercise some form of control over the expenditure of State funds and how they are applied. The question whether we may debate it on the Consolidated Fund Bill is the Parliamentary aspect of dealing with control and application of the sums concerned. It is for that reason that I want to tell the Committee that Mr. Speaker has ruled that in future Consolidated Fund Bill debates we may not discuss investment in nationalised industries. That is a matter of just as great gravity to the Opposition as it is to Government Members.

§ The Temporary Chairman
The Committee is unaware of Mr. Speaker's Ruling in this matter.

§ Mr. Nabarro
May I hand it to you, Sir Norman?

§ The Temporary Chairman
No, not at this moment.

§ Mr. Nabarro
May I hand it to you in a couple of minutes, Sir?

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
Further to my point of order, may I have a Ruling from the Chair on the matter I raised?

§ The Temporary Chairman
I must remind the Committee that we are discussing a Bill with very limited powers. What may or may not be in order in the future is purely hypothetical.

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
My point of order cannot be hypothetical. It is laid down on several pages of Erskine May that we have established the important constitutional right that before we vote Supply we at least remedy or state our grievances. If I have a grievance concerning the steel industry, shall I be allowed to raise it in future on the Consolidated Fund Bill with particular reference to this loan?

§ The Temporary Chairman
We are not discussing Supply but one particular Amendment to a Bill.

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
Further to that point of order. This has arisen in this way. Due to the democratic discussion which has been taking place on both sides, none of us knew that our Parliamentary rights were to be undermined in this way.

§ Mr. Nabarro
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
As an elected representative I am not prepared to sit here and allow generations of struggle to go by the board. We should not be assuming our Parliamentary rights if we continued with this Bill without knowing where we are going and without having advice from the Chair. I do not want to press this too far, because it would not be fair to you, Sir Norman, but I am further reinforced in my view by the statement by the hon. Member for Kidderminster that he has had a Ruling from Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Frank Bowles (Nuneaton)
A private Ruling.

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
The danger is that this important point of order will be side-tracked by the other issue. Therefore, I want us to confine ourselves to the narrow limits of this issue. May I have an assurance from the Chair that, seeing that this issue has been raised in this way, our established Parliamentary rights will not be affected by the Bill?

§ Mr. Nabarro
Further to that point of order, Sir Norman. I am not sure that, in the previous Ruling which you gave, you were fully apprised of the circumstances which have now arisen. Last Wednesday, Mr. Deputy-Speaker gave a Ruling that on the Consolidated Fund Bill it was out of order to debate capital investment in nationalised industries. I therefore wrote to Mr. Speaker—

§ The Temporary Chairman
Order. In Committee we cannot refer to Mr. Speaker's Rulings.

§ Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)
Before we pass from this matter. Sir Norman, those of us who can cast our minds back to a moment when the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was not speaking will remember that this arose on an interjection in the Minister's speech. The right hon. Gentleman may be about to tell us how Parliament can control these sums. I do not suppose he will, but he might. It would seem wise to wait until he has spoken further. After he has done so, it may be of importance to the Committee to know whether it would be in order for the hon. Member for Kidderminster at that point to read out the Ruling—it may or may not be important 275 —which has been given to him privately by Mr. Speaker but which, at the moment, is not known to the Committee. Would it be in order, when the Minister has finished, to refer to this matter?

§ The Temporary Chairman
At no time would it be in order for the hon. Member for Kidderminster to read out a private letter he has received from Mr. Speaker.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ The Temporary Chairman
Order. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we allowed the Minister to finish his speech. Then, if an hon. Member wishes to raise a point of order, I will consider it.

§ Mr. Wood
When I was last allowed to speak, which I think was about ten minutes ago, I was about to give the important information which the Leader of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) reminded us about, and which, I hope, will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster. If my hon. Friend had waited another few moments, I should have been able to give him an answer to the precise question about the manner in which Parliament will be able to exercise its control in the future.
The first method is this. The amount which it is estimated will be necessary each year from the Consolidated Fund to meet the relevant tranches of the loan would be shown in the Financial Statement which is issued in connection with the Budget which, I am quite sure, my hon. Friend studies very carefully and which he could find indefinite opportunities to discuss.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend has indicated, under Clause 1 (6) of the Bill, there is an obligation placed upon me to render account of my transactions. Again, on that report I could be questioned at any time.
Thirdly—I want to be as helpful as I possibly can to the Committee—there will be the possibility, in 1962, of a review of the contract with Colvilles on the basis of a review of costs and of the resources available to the company. I certainly intend—I give the Committee this promise—to inform Parliament of 276 the result of that re-negotiation. There again, Parliament would have an opportunity to comment on these matters.
Lastly, it is part of the agreement with Richard Thomas and Baldwins that the contract with that company will be subject to reconsideration if this firm is denationalised. Again, on the denationalisation of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, I shall inform Parliament and Parliament would have an opportunity for comment.

§ Mr. Paul Williams (Sunderland, South)
Did my right hon. Friend say "if" this firm is denationalised, not "when"?

§ Mr. Wood
I am always aware that my hon. Friend's ears are constantly open for these small words. In this case, I think I used the correct word. I said that the agreement provided that if the firm were denationalised the contract would then be reviewed.

§ Mr. Finch
The right hon. Gentleman is all right; he is quite safe.

§ Mr. Wood
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his assurance. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that from my point of view "when" is the operative word.
This debate has taken a long time. We may be summoned elsewhere shortly, and perhaps we could come to a decision before that moment arrives. I am quite satisfied that Parliament will receive adequate information and have adequate opportunities to comment on these matters from time to time, and, from my own point of view, as regards the Amendment, I am quite convinced that I have all the power which is necessary to get all the information that I need and, therefore, I must regretfully refuse the hon. Gentleman's Amendment because I need no assessor to assist me.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Hirst (Shipley)
Before we leave this matter, I must say that I am not entirely happy. I cannot extend any sympathy to the Government on this matter. They have got themselves into this jam. I have sympathy for the present Minister because, for all the reasons I know, I believe he is not responsible and, to that limited extent, I sympathise with him.
What we are really discussing is the Amendment before us, and I agree to 277 this extent that I do not think an assessor would do any good. The principle behind all our discussion turns upon the question whether Parliament has, has not, or is likely to have any form of control over this matter. Of course, the Government should never have taken the decision which resulted in their being in this jam, and I disapprove of what has been done. Bearing in mind that they have got themselves in this jam, they must come to the House with a better answer than we have had from my right hon. Friend so far.
Quite frankly, I say that I have every reason to know what is in the reply which Mr. Speaker has given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), because I had a previous answer on similar lines from one of Mr. Speaker's predecessors. I have no reason to believe that it follows any different line.
I suggest, Sir Norman, that it is material to know exactly what we are discussing. Primarily, we are discussing—the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) is aimed at it—what measure of control Parliament and the people will have over these advances of money. That is what we are discussing. That is the Amendment. Though the point is very narrow, the principle is very important. Consequently, what we can do or what measure of control we have is very material.
I am not much convinced by what the Minister has said. He referred to the Finance Bill and said we could bring the matter up on that. We cannot. I know we cannot because I have tried it dozens of times. I know perfectly well that we cannot bring it up in other ways. My right hon. Friend said that the position of Colvilles will be reviewed and that he will bring the review before Parliament. That is all very interesting. What will be done with it—stuff it in the Library? All I do know is that we cannot discuss the matter on the Floor of the House or in Committee.

§ Mr. Nabarro
We cannot vote on it.

§ Mr. Hirst
I know that. We cannot even vote for it or against it without discussion. I submit that this matter is extremely material to the whole of this 278 miserable Bill. I admit that we are saddled with it; I cannot ask the Government to go against their contract. It is a shattering, dastardly contract, but I cannot ask the Government to go against it. We are faced with it, and we have a responsibility to the people now, having passed it, whether as a Government or as an Opposition. I, for my part, want a better answer than we have had so far.

§ Mr. Wood
My hon. Friend has criticised the contract and he has criticised the decision which the Government took, but I never saw any sign of his being critical of that decision two years ago when it was taken.

§ Mr. Hirst
That was before the election. I happen to know that my right hon. Friend is an extremely intelligent person. I hope that he will at least give me credit for being slightly intelligent, if not as intelligent as he is. That was before the election, and the picture was totally different. Did the Government think that they would win the election? Did they really?—I did, anyway. When they came to this decision, were they thinking of assessors, Government directors in due course, or anything else? Why on earth have they not got their further denationalisation plan ready, and why, when the steel price boom permitted it, was the money not raised on the market? Why was not that opportunity taken? What on earth were they doing? Why say to me that I did not raise the matter two years ago? I apologise to the Committee, but I did not raise it in February because I was in hospital having an operation. That is all that I apologise for. If the Government had the intention which they clearly indicated to the electors, they should have had the plan ready and put it into operation, and then we should not have wanted an assessor or any of this discussion.

§ Mr. Diamond
I hope that the Minister has listened to the anxiety and anguish expressed by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). It is no part of my case that I want to divide the Committee. I am trying to do what many hon. Members on all sides have appreciated. I am trying to improve the position of Parliamentary accountability so far as it can be done under this Bill. This is a very difficult matter. The fact 279 that this is a modest Amendment does not mean that it is an entirely unimportant one.
Being somewhat inhibited by an overdeveloped sense of what is relevant to a particular debate, I tried to deal with the matter in a way which I thought would be in order. I also opened the discussion in a way which I thought would be in order, and there is no reason to believe that it was not. I did not attempt to go into the wider points which have since been discussed. No one could be more grateful than I for the attention which the Committee has given to the Amendment which consists of the all-important words "leave out 'and'". We discussed the rights of Parliament in regard to the nationalisation of the steel industry on these very simple sounding words.
I hope that the Minister will think a lot more about this matter. Clearly there is a feeling of unease throughout the Committee. It is not confined to one side or the other. There is a feeling of unease that the present position is not satisfactory. We all admire the Minister personally, but his speech has not helped to allay this feeling of unease. It has accentuated it. First, he indicated that we are not entitled to discuss the terms of the agreement because it is fixed, settled and finished and Parliament has not the right to discuss it. In fact, this is the first occasion that it has been open to the Committee to discuss it in a way which can be discussed in Committee.
The President of the Board of Trade, on Second Reading, unfortunately, set this pattern by asking my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). "Why did you not complain before?" My right hon. Friend did complain, but where is one to discover something about which to complain—a Written Answer? Does every hon. Member go through each Written Answer in HANSARD every day to find out whether something is going wrong? Does the Minister think that Parliament is enabled to discharge its functions by agreements being entered into virtually behind its back?

§ Mr. Nabarro
Would the hon. Member now support the point that I was trying to make in connection with his argument on several occasions, namely, 280 that once the Bill is through there is no Parliamentary accountability whatever? Is the hon. Member sufficiently gullible and generous to believe that the learned Clerks at the Table will take Parliamentary Questions on these tranches of money within the powers of this Bill? Of course they will not. It is a nationalised industry and the matter will be out of order.

§ Mr. Diamond
Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to say what I proposed to say so that he knows what it is all about. Perhaps I can come to the point in my own time and in some sort of logical sequence.
My first point was that the Minister has added greatly to the sense of unease which, I am sure, is felt on all sides by trying to prevent us from discussing this matter as fully as we would like and by trying to give the impression that as an agreement has been entered into we, as honourable men, are not allowed to suggest variations of it. The suggestion that I have made is the minimum variation. As the right hon. Gentleman said, all that is required is a slight codicil to the agreement. I say that the Government are to be wholly criticised for putting Parliament in such a position that it cannot fully discuss this agreement. We have been put in that position quite unfairly and against the trend of opinion which is being formed about how Members of Parliament should exercise their responsibilities in financial matters as trustees of the nation's purse. As we are in this position, I attempted to table an Amendment which sought the minimum that could be asked.
My proposal does not require an alteration in the agreement, as the right hon. Gentleman admits. Only a small addendum, a small codicil, is needed to give the Minister these additional minimum rights. I have been criticised by both sides of the Committee that these rights are too small. They are much too small, but we have to make a start within the context of a particular Clause in a Bill which we are discussing during its Committee stage.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Kidderminster that I have my own views as to what Questions are permitted and what Questions are not permitted. It is quite useless for us to talk about a Question as "it" It all depends what is the 281 question. It is not possible to discuss in a general way whether a Question will be accepted. I take the view that if the Minister says he has power to do certain things we have the right to question him on that power. The Minister is responsible to the House, not to himself. He is, therefore, going much too far by saying that he has all the powers needed in order to follow up the payment of this money. If that were so, we should have had the right to question him on it. He knows that we have not the right to do that, and the hon. Member for Kidderminster knows that the Minister has not the right under this Bill as it stands to follow up the detailed payment of this money, certainly with regard to Colvilles.
If the Minister had said, "This Amendment does not go far enough. Will you withdraw it and substitute an Amendment asking for the appointment of a director?", I would have been most willing to oblige, but that was not the tone of his reply. He replied in two ways, which were completely mistaken.
First, he said that the appointment of an assessor would be regarded as an indication of lack of confidence in the directors of Colvilles. Let me repeat that I am dealing specifically with Colvilles for the obvious reason which my hon. Friend the Member for Mother-well (Mr. Lawson) gave. Although if the Amendment were accepted it would give the Minister the right to appoint an assessor for the nationalised industry as well, I should have thought that he would not exercise that right. I should have thought that he would feel with regard to the nationalised industry that he already has sufficient powers.
I therefore should have thought that the Minister could accept the Amendment, even though he would not use the powers under it in relation to the nationalised industry, feeling, as he might well feel, that the industry was sufficiently under his control already.