NATIONALISATION

HC Deb 18 June 1964 vol 696 cc1493-562

Mr. Speaker

Before I call the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) to move the Motion standing in his name, it is probably convenient for me now to say that I propose to select the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) and other hon. Members and no other Amendment to the Motion.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye)

I beg to move, That this House, having regard to the wide-ranging threats of nationalisation contained in the Labour Party's official policy statement, "Signposts for the Sixties", and to the fact that the Labour Party, under Clause Four of its constitution, remains committed to State ownership of all the means of production, distribution and exchange, urges Her Majesty's Opposition to make clear to the nation exactly which industries and which firms it would nationalise or take under any form of State control. It has taken nine years for me to have the good fortune to come out top in the Ballot for Private Members' Motions. It is somewhat satisfactory to find more than a modest amount of interest has been shown, in all quarters of the House, in my Motion. It is also satisfactory to note that a certain number of other Motions have been put down arising from my original Motion.

One point which seems to have arisen, and which is certainly not always usual for Private Members' Motions, is that I detected, only a day or two after my Motion was tabled, in a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition, some words which had a bearing on the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head and would appear to be indicating dissent, but he will recall that he said that there were Conservatives who were pressing the Opposition to be more specific about their proposals for nationalisation.

With that courtesy to which we are accustomed from the right hon. Gentleman, he went on to say: Repeated questions, and what they call challenges on public ownership, can bear only two interpretations. Either they cannot read, which considering their educational background is improbable, or being literate they choose to twist what they have read. I thought that that quotation would be a very good start to what I have to say today. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied by the time I sit down, not only that I and my hon. Friends can read, but that what I am doing—

Mr. A. E. Oram (East Ham, South)

rose—

Mr. Irvine

I will not give way.

Mr. Oram

rose—

Hon. Members

Give way.

Mr. Irvine

No.

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the hon. Gentleman who is on his feet does not give way other hon. Members must not persist in trying to intervene. I suggest that we will perhaps get through what I hope will be a cheerful afternoon a little more expeditiously if I am not called upon to shout "Peru, Peru".

Mr. Irvine

I was merely indicating that I was hoping that by the time I sit down—

Hon. Members

Sit down now.

Mr. Irvine

—hon. Members opposite will at least admit that some hon. Members on this side of the House can read and are able to—

Mr. Oram

rose—

Mr. Irvine

I will not give way.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Irvine

Not only can we read, but we are able to question the policy statements of the Opposition. I am not prepared to give way to hon. Members opposite just now, for I think that they should at least allow me to develop some of my arguments before I am interrupted.

I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has today suggested that some of the national opinion polls are not conducted in perhaps the way which would receive his lull approval. It is odd that it is only just at this moment he should decide to say that they are not giving him the satisfastion they have in the past. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has at least had a look at the one which was published on 12th June, and which indicated that only one person in three in this country believes that the Labour Party is giving enough details of its policy to the nation.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Irvine

Not yet.

If the Opposition appreciate that only one person in three believes that the country is receiving enough details of that party's policy, it is by no means entirely satisfactory for them to say that we are twisting some of the facts when we take the same view as the majority.

Mr. Guy Barnett (Dorset, South)

rose—

Mr. Irvine

I will not give way yet.

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

Have the decency to give way.

Mr. Irvine

There is only a short time for our debate. If I gave way to everyone, no one would be able to speak.

I hope that hon. Members opposite will listen to what I have to say about Clause Four. That is something that they like to discuss from time to time, although I noticed that they did not discuss it at Scarborough last year. I have made a few observations about it in my Motion. I have had another look at Clause Four and it is quite clear that it relates to control of "each industry" and, therefore, it is a very wide-ranging mandate for the Opposition.

On the first occasion on which he made a speech in this House as Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), said that Clause Four was the policy of the whole party. That was on 18th February last year. I have with me a little book which, I am sure, will have been read from cover to cover by all hon. Members opposite.

Mr. W. Hamilton (Fife, West)

"Fanny Hill"?

Mr. Irvine

It is the speakers' notes, published in March by the Labour Party. [Laughter.] I am delighted to note that that causes such merriment to hon. Members opposite. On page 6 of that document it is stated that Clause Four itself "is not a policy statement". So, on the one hand, we have the Leader of the Opposition saying that it is the policy of the whole party and, on the other, this very important document saying that it is not a policy statement but "a broad expression of philosophy and approach."

The document goes on: In short, any decision on a further extension of common ownership is left to the party policy statement". That, of course, brings us back to this little yellow document called "Signposts for the Sixties". I want to examine it for a few moments to see whether it meets all the criteria that have been set by the right hon. Member for Huyton and others. The right hon. Gentleman says that Signposts contains the policies of the Labour Movement. No Opposition in history has been more detailed, specific and clear". I will, therefore, examine this document for details which are specific and clear. I picked out a total of nine major sectors of industry which may be included. First, it refers to … greater control over the investment policies of pension funds and private insurance companies … I do not know what you would think, Mr. Speaker, but the term "greater control" does not seem to me to give any indication of detail. Nor is it specific or clear. About 20 million people have their pensions arranged through occupational and private schemes and a great number of them would be interested to hear further details from the Opposition.

Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton)

Being ever helpful, I think that I might help the hon. Gentleman at this point. Is he not aware that, three weeks after that statement was published, exactly the same proposal was made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—now the Leader of the House—in his summer crisis Budget? The right hon. and learned Gentleman announced that he was instructing insurance companies not to lend money for property speculation and, subsequently, in pursuance of our policy, the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked insurance companies to put up money for particular export credit projects.

Mr. Irvine

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for any assistance that he may give me. I am glad of assistance from whatever quarter it comes. I have the greatest confidence in Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer. I would have no such confidence in any possible Chancellor who might come from the party opposite.

The Motion asks the Opposition to make their plans clear, and it is on that ground that I say that the term "greater control" meets none of the three criteria the right hon. Gentleman has himself laid down. There was a time when the Labour Party suggested that the insurance industry should be nationalised, but that is not in the shopping list today. I wonder why. Perhaps the Co-operative Insurance Society, being the third largest in the country, has had something to say about it.

The second set of circumstances dealt with in "Signposts for the Sixties" that I want to mention is the aircraft industry.

Hon. Members

Ferranti.

Mr. George Brown (Belper)

Where is the hon. Gentleman reading now?

Mr. Irvine

If the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has something to say I would be pleased to give way.

Mr. Brown

I would only say that, since the hon. Gentleman has dealt with (c) of his Aims of Industry brief before dealing with (a), it took me a little time to catch up, but I have the place now.

Mr. Irvine

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to deal with that when he makes his speech. I am going through the—

Mr. Brown

Aims of Industry pamphlet.

Mr. Irvine

I find it most interesting that the Opposition Front Bench seems to have been supplied freely with the Aims of Industry pamphlet. I am going through their own pamphlet, "Signposts for the Sixties". The quotations I am giving are from that document. I would have thought that the right hon. Member for Belper would have recognised them without my assistance.

" Signposts for the Sixties" says, of the aircraft industry, that … new forms of State participation will be necessary … Does this meet any of the three criteria set by the Leader of the Opposition? Is that statement detailed, specific or clear?

Lord Balniel (Hertford)

It is just dishonest.

Mr. Irvine

When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper replies he will be able to make it quite clear, so that there will be no doubt. On 17th February last, the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. F. Lee) said that the aircraft industry would not be nationalised and, therefore, it may well be that, although the industry is mentioned in "Signposts for the Sixties', it is no longer on the list.

The third section of industry I would like to deal with is covered by this quotation: Another field where public ownership may well have to be extended is in those private industries which through the receipt of subsidies or loans, are dependent on the State for their continued existence. Can anybody suggest that that is a specific statement, that everyone knows where he stands? It seems to be as general a statement as it could possibly be. Therefore, contrary to the document which the right hon. Member for Belper has, I refer him to an excellent document, published by his party last March, which says: Cotton, shipping and aircraft are three examples … Thus, we have the hon. Member for Newton saying on 17th February that aircraft will not be nationalised and then we read a document published in March saying that the industry is an excellent example of what "Signposts for the Sixties" says. The other examples—cotton and shipping—are not, as far as I know, included in the current list that the Opposition are proposing.

The fourth lot I would like to look at is the pharmaceuticals.

Mr. G. Brown

Hear, hear. Page 16.

Mr. Irvine

Page 17.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

On a point of order. Is there anything in our rules of debate, Mr. Speaker, which says that less respect should be paid when a back bencher is moving a Motion than when a member of the two Front Benches is moving a Motion?

Mr. Speaker

None at all, but in the general interest we have to listen to quite a lot of things with which we do not severally agree, and time is fairly achieved for counter-expressions and we do better at getting on if there is not quite so much noise. [Interruption.]

Mr. Irvine

If the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) would like to make an intervention, I shall be happy to give way.

The next item with which I want to deal is pharmaceuticals. "Signposts" says that the National Health Service is spending £80 million a year on pharmaceuticals and adds: Why should we not protect the taxpayer by arranging that it should meet its requirements increasingly from public enterprise, either through new, publicly owned undertakings or by the acquisition of existing ones? In October, 1961, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in almost precisely those words, said that that was what the Labour Party would do. I am not aware at this moment that that is what the Labour Party is saying it will do. Indeed, in the House on 27th April, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), who is in his place and who will be able to correct me if he so wishes—

Mr. Manuel

Take your hand out of your pocket.

Mr. Speaker

My hand was not in my pocket.

Mr. Manuel

I apologise for my interjection, Mr. Speaker, but is there any way in which the Chair can control the unseemly behaviour of an hon. Member who is moving a Motion?

Mr. Speaker

I do not wish to intervene all the time, but it is not in order to make a loud running commentary while some other hon. Member is making a speech. The House would enjoy itself more if it made a little more progress.

Mr. Irvine

I was asking whether pharmaceuticals were on the list, because on 27th April the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North was apparently asking what was the authority for suggesting anything of the sort. If the hon. Member, who is such an expert in these matters, is not aware of what is the authority for saying that pharmaceuticals are on the list, this is certainly something which should be cleared up during today's debate.

Fifthly, there is a reference to removing the restrictions on publicly-owned industries to develop the equipment and machinery we need.

Mr. G. Brown

Here it is.

Mr. Irvine

Does the right hon. Gentleman want to intervene? I say once again that if the right hon. Member for Belper wants to intervene, I shall be happy to give way.

Workers in the firms supplying the nationalised industries would certainly like to know what the proposals are. Nobody can say that the mere statement that restrictions should be ended is in any way clear and precise.

Then we come to steel. The reason for nationalising steel is the most woolly of the lot. It says: Where vast concentrations of economic power have created monopolies, the Government, on behalf of the people, has the right to insist that such economic empires be made accountable to the public interest. That is our case for renationalising steel. Those of us in the House who have experience of the difficulties in obtaining accountability from the nationalised industries will regard that as a most peculiar reason for taking over a great industry. I would have thought that, quite apart from the Iron and Steel Board and the other ways in which that industry is kept under control, there are 276,000 shareholders, three shareholders for every two workmen, who would be able to exercise a far better control than is exercised over any nationalised industry today.

Further than that, anybody who has travelled in different parts of the world will know, particularly in the Commonwealth, the difficulties which will arise in the industry if it should find itself nationalised. The people of this country would like to know, if the industry is to be taken over, whether it is proposed by the Opposition that they are to take over five companies, 10 companies, or the 92 companies taken over last time, or the whole total of 262 companies and 310 works.

Mr. Brian O'Malley (Rotherham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Irvine

Finally, what is to happen to the ancillary operations of the steel industry, which is a very complicated industry in the way it is connected with various others? That should be made clear. I commend to the Opposition the statement made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), when this subject was under discussion in 1951. He started by saying: At a time when there is a very real threat to our standard of living,"— That, of course, was in the last few months of the last Labour Government— it would be psychologically disastrous to have an iron and steel industry which was doing very well indeed from a business point of view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 1782.] I would have thought that that situation applied today.

The seventh comes after the word "chaos".

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)

rose—

Mr. Irvine

The seventh I want to mention comes after the word "chaos" and says that that provides the case for creating an integrated and publicly owned transport system. If anyone wants to test whether there is chaos in the transport industry I would suggest that he looks at the use made of the capacity of the whole industry. The private sector of the industry by this test increased its efficiency by 4 per cent. between 1952 and 1962, whereas British Road Services went down by 12 per cent. during a similar period.

If we are to have nationalisation of transport, how is it to be done? What are the proposals? Are there to be distance limits? Is it to be a matter of 25 miles? Is it to be nationalisation without compensation?

Mr. John McCann (Rochdale)

Have an election and find out.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)

Now the cat is out of the bag. Now we know.

Mr. Irvine

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) has completely summarised the purpose of the debate. My reason for this Motion is to find out before the election, and I hope that the opportunity which we are giving to the Opposition today will be taken by them so that the people of the country can know.

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said in Washington a year ago: We shall rebuild this integrated system not so much on the basis of buying off every lorry … as we did last time. We have had another year for him to have thought about this matter and he has told us how he will not do it. Is it not time that he was able to give some indication of what he intends to do?

Then, what about C licences? In 1947, C licences were vigorously supported by the co-operative societies, and it will be interesting to note what proposals the Opposition have about those licences today.

The next item is land, but as we spent a whole day on this subject less than a fortnight ago, I do not think that we need deal with it any further today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members opposite are interested in the matter, I commend to them the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who made it quite clear that the proposals in "Signposts" would not work.

Lastly, there are a lot of even more woolly suggestions about "the commanding heights of the economy", and so on and so forth.

Of the nine sectors I have picked out for consideration there are only three that anybody can be certain are on the present shopping list of the Opposition, but if anybody should wish to add to the list today this is a very good opportunity. The three that I think are clearly on the list are steel, road transport and land—

Mr. H. Wilson

What about water?

Mr. Irvine

I shall come to water in a moment.

I want to look at some of the suggestions that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, quite apart from the policy statements. In 1952, he was saying that he wanted heavy engineering, the heavy fertiliser industry, shipping, aircraft, textile machinery and machine tools. I do not know that all those are on the list today. In 1960, he was saying that there was An unanswerable case for the public ownership of the defence industry in this country. I do not know whether that is on the list now.

In the statement that he made, to which I have already referred and which was reported in the Sunday Times last Sunday, the right hon. Gentleman said: We have said we shall take the steel industry into public ownership. Signpost makes clear too our intention to create a publicly owned national water undertaking and the public ownership of all urban building land on which new building or redevelopment is planned. A moment ago I heard the right hon. Gentleman ask, from a reclining position, "What about water?" He was chairman of the committee that dealt with this policy statement in "Signposts". Having made the suggestion that some hon. Members on this side of the Chamber may not be able to read, I assume that he means that he is able to read quite happily—[Interruption.] What I want to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman is that anybody who reads "Signposts", and knows what is in it, knows that there is no reference whatever to water in it at all. He is, therefore, suggesting that we cannot read, and he is saying that he wants to nationalise something that is not, in fact, in the party policy statement.

Another thing that I believe is quite clear is that in the earlier statement the right hon. Gentlemen referred to nationalisation, whereas now, for some reason that he may like to explain on some occasion, he always talks about public ownership.

Mr. H. Wilson

As the hon. Gentleman has sat down, I presume that he wants me to reply to him. I think that he understands, though some of his hon. Friends may not, that by "nationalisation" we mean the transfer to public ownership of assets at present in private ownership. Steel is an example. I also use, and so do most people who are literate in these fields, the phrase "public ownership" to cover such developments as the creation of new publicly-owned industries that do not exist today. For example, the present Government created, under public ownership, the Atomic Energy Authority—they did not nationalise it.

Mr. Irvine

That, of course, makes it crystal clear. But in 1952 the right hon. Gentleman intended to nationalise shipping, the fertiliser industry, and so on, yet in his more recent speeches he talks about public ownership, and seems to prefer the use of that word. I should like to ask him whether, perhaps, he has not taken to heart the observation of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who said after the last General Election, "The word 'nationalise' has become damaging to the Labour Party."

Perhaps I may just summarise what appears to me to be the result of what I have said. There is not only the list that I have referred to but, at one time or another, 26 industries have been included in one shopping list or another by the Opposition. In 1955, there were only two industries on the list. Today, we find nine in the policy statement, of which I think that three are strong runners at the moment, and I am doubtful about the remaining six. Water is outside the list and it is outside the policy statement, but the right hon. Gentleman has said quite clearly that it is in. The right hon. Gentleman's list has only two industries out of the nine included in "Signposts", and one outside. There are seven others that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested ought to be in.

In those circumstances, can anybody say that the proposals of the Opposition are detailed, specific or clear? I therefore commend the Motion with some confidence to the House.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh (Greenwich)

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: noting the successful achievements of the public sector of the economy, particularly in the fuel industries where new production techniques are being developed which will cut costs substantially, and noting the confidence in that section of the steel industry remaining in public hands, as expressed by the Prime Minister, approves the policy of the Labour Party set out in the statement, Signposts for the Sixties". It is intriguing that this Amendment should be based upon speeches made by Ministers. It is extremely unfortunate that when Ministers are pinned down on the subject of nationalised industry they give, lip-service to it, but that when they can do a dirty little bit of damage they do it.

The hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) started by telling us that he could read. I disagree entirely with some of my hon. Friends who seem to have some scepticism about that; the hon. Gentleman proved conclusively that he can read, but I remain quite unconvinced about his ability to understand. He started by quoting, for example, a national opinion poll—a very objective source—published by Aims of Industry—

Mr. Godman Irvine

rose—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Marsh

Using the hon. Gentleman's own yardstick, I presume that he would not expect me to give way to anybody other than Ministers.

But to continue, I think that this particular pamphlet is extremely important. It can be obtained for 2s. from Aims of Industry. On page 7, for example, it deals in its opinion poll with how important the electorate believes this squalid attempt to make political capital to be. It gives a list of 10 decisive issues. Nationalisation features as eighth on the list. The last two are defence and the independent nuclear deterrent. Therefore, the understanding by hon. and right hon. Members opposite of the electorate is not perhaps quite as clear as they seem to think.

Page 10 of the pamphlet is extremely interesting. It shows that an overwhelming majority of people want to see more planning of the economy. On page 12, there is a detailed series of questions addressed to the electorate and to people generally as to what issues they think the Labour Party is likely to nationalise. There is a list of 14. The first is steel, the second road transport and the third mining. Therefore, the usefulness of the document is gone.

The other figure which the hon. Member for Rye did not mention is that only 7.6 per cent. of those surveyed wanted to see denationalisation, but one appreciates that much of the hon. Member's speech had to be fairly selective.

Mr. Godman Irvine

That is not the figure that I was quoting. Mine was from the national opinion poll, which appeared in the Daily Mail.

Mr. Marsh

It is the same poll.

As I understand, the hon. Member had two main points. The first was that he did not know what was the attitude of the Labour Party towards nationalisation, The second was that if he knew what it was he would not agree with it. I should have thought that our attitude to nationalisation was fairly simple. In my view The Socialist remedy should be accepted in regard to industries and services where it is obvious that private enterprise has exhausted its social usefulness or where the general welfare of the economy requires that certain basic industries and services need now to be conducted in the light of broader social considerations than the profit motive provides.

Hon. Members

Karl Marx.

Mr. Marsh

No. It is a quotation from "The Middle Way", written by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan). I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should show such discourtesy to his memory. The right hon. Gentleman made only one mistake and that was the appointment of his successor, and we shall put that right at the General Election.

I do not believe that the definition laid down by the right hon. Gentleman could be bettered, but the point made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite over and over again is that they do not know what Labour Party policies are on public ownership. I am sure that they will not mind if I spend the next couple of minutes explaining the policies to them, and I and a number of my hon. Friends will be available in the Tea Room after the debate to answer questions.

The policy of the Labour Party remains quite unchanged. It is the policy laid down in "Signposts for the Sixties". [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members do not listen they will go out clouded in the same abysmal ignorance as that in which they came in. This is the policy laid down in the Labour Party conference and agreed to by the late Hugh Gaitskell, by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, by the whole of the conference, and by my hon. and right hon. Friends.

First, we say that we will take the steel industry into public ownership. That is perfectly clear. Hon. Members opposite dispute and argue whether we should do that. They raise that issue, and quite rightly. They fought the by-election at Rutherglen on it, and that was the most decisive of the 60 by-elections of this Parliament, with the exception of Faversham, where we did even better and where we also had a dispute about public ownership.

Although I agree that this is not mentioned in this document—but it is mentioned elsewhere—we are to create a publicly-owned water undertaking. We intend to take into public ownership all urban building land on which new building and redevelopment is planned; and if there is one thing which I should have thought is beyond dispute from either side of the House it is that hon. and right hon. Members opposite cannot say that in the last 13 years their alternative has been particularly successful in halting the racket in land prices.

We propose to end the transport muddle by having an integrated service on road and rail. "Signposts" makes it quite clear that we intend to achieve this more by taking artificial restrictions off the existing and profitable British Road Services and allowing it to expand and compete than by a mass statutory transfer of private road undertakings to public ownership.

This is the crucial point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Explain it."] I have every intention of explaining it, and if hon. Members want more detail we on this side of the House will arrange and pay for W.E.A. lectures to ensure that they understand it. Hon. Members opposite refuse to understand the difference between nationalisation—the statutory transfer of existing privately-owned assets to public ownership—and the creation of new publicly-owned industries based on science and technology. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said that the Conservative Party created the Atomic Energy Authority. It was not nationalisation. It was the creation of new industry within the public sector.

Hon. Members opposite ask, "Which industries?" How can anyone forecast the industries of tomorrow? In 1948, when the Labour Party set up the National Research Development Corporation to develop new inventions, no one could have forecast such triumphs as the Hovercraft and the Atlas computer, or the other 400 new projects which State-sponsored research development has made possible.

We have said that in some cases new industries would be private, paying a royalty where public money was in volved. In some cases there would be a partnership between public and private control. In other cases they would be wholly publicly owned. Thirdly, and this has been made clear time and time again, we have said that where private industry comes to the Treasury for subsidies we shall insist, as any sensible private investor would insist, on a proportionate share in the control and profits.

Fourthly, we have made clear our intention to use any appropriate methods, including joint partnership projects, to protect the taxpayer against excessive profits in defence contracts. With the memory of Ferranti fresh in our minds I hope that hon. Members opposite will not see anything wrong with that. We will also take steps in the same way against racketeering prices by foreign-controlled drug interests in respect of sales to the National Health Service.

Hon. Members opposite may disagree with this policy, but it is a policy which has been put forward, and we can argue about it. Surely hon. Members opposite will have noticed it. They seem quite satisfied with it now. Yet that was a direct quotation from the speech which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton made last Saturday. They find it acceptable now, but they did not even know before that it was there. One of the troubles here is that there is more space devoted in some of the Press to asking the questions than to publishing the answers.

I come back to the point about constant denigration of the public industries. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite ought to make up their own minds on exactly where they stand. Do they intend to denationalise any of the existing publicly-owned industries?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Marsh

I shall willingly give way to the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade if he wishes to answer. It is a perfectly clear question. Do they intend to denationalise any one of the existing publicly-owned industries? Parliament and the country are entitled to know. Not only is it a fair question but, with respect, it is a very important one, for this reason. At present, the total net value of the assets of the publicly-owned industries in this country is well in excess of £6,500 million.

Sir Cyril Osborne (Louth)

It is £8,400 million.

Mr. Marsh

It is quite simple. The hon. Gentleman is including the Post Office and I am leaving it out. That is where his figures are wrong.

A vast amount of taxpayers' money is involved, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite are trustees of it. Any director of a company who had the same blatant disloyalty to his own company would be turned out at once. In fact, of course, whatever their more naïve hon. Friends on the back benches think, right hon. Gentlemen opposite have not the faintest intention of getting rid of the nationalised industries. Indeed, many of our nationalised industries were creatures of their own creation. It is not a specifically Labour Party affair at all. This is something in which even Conservatives have taken a hand.

Sir C. Osborne

No; the £8,400 does not include the Post Office.

Mr. Marsh

I am always interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. I have read his speeches, with great profit, ever since I joined the Labour League of Youth. I think that the Labour Party has published more of them than anyone else.

Sir C. Osborne

Perhaps that is why the hon. Gentleman is so well educated.

Mr. Marsh

With respect, it is why I am on this side of the House and not that.

One thing which we on this side intend to do—make no mistake about it—is to break down some of the obstacles deliberately put in the way of our publicly-owned industries by hon. and right hon. Members opposite. They talk sometimes about the position of the British Transport Commission. Our publicly-owned transport undertakings want to manufacture components. They have the ability and capacity to do so, but they are prevented for no reason other than the pressure of private vested interests.

Obviously, a large public sector is essential for any degree of State planning. If one opposes State planning, then, of course, one can dispense with the idea of a publicly-owned sector. If, on the other hand, one accepts the idea of any State planning, one must have a large publicly-owned sector, if for no other reason than to be able to use it to influence the direction of the economy and have some effect on investment.

We hear a great deal about the losses of the publicly-owned industries. The schizophrenic approach of hon. and right hon. Members opposite to matters of public money is quite astonishing. There is a Question down today about the losses incurred by the publicly-owned industries in the last 17 years. When hon. Gentlemen read the Answer, I hope that they will bear in mind, at the same time, an Answer given on 2nd February, 1960, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).

My right hon. Friend asked for the total financial assistance provided by the taxpayer to private industry between 1951 and 1959, and the reply from the then Chancellor was that subsidies to private industry and agriculture amounted to £2,311 million and that loans in the same period totalled £84 million. That is the measure of State assistance which has been given. Is it so wrong or so wicked that the taxpayer, asked to put up that sort of money, asks for some say in how his money is spent? When this is in dispute, we do not hear about that from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. W. Hamilton

The figure I have been given by the research section of the Library is that, from 1952 to 1964, the total of loans and subsidies to private industry came to £4,342 million.

Mr. Marsh

That is the latest figure. The one I quoted was somewhat earlier.

Another point which needs to be made is that one does not judge the ability of publicly-owned industry purely on the counting of profits. Whereas the private entrepreneur is primarily concerned with maximising the profit to his shareholders, a public industry must be primarily concerned with the social benefit of the nation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is a good point. If hon. Members disagree, they have a simple answer: get rid of the nationalised industries. If they intend to keep them, then they should give some of those on whose shoulders they place the task of running the indus tries, if not a modicum of encouragement, at least not constant denigration.

Of course, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not really believe that public ownership is bad for the nation. Every modern industrial nation today has a large public sector. This is true in Gaullist France. It is true in Italy. It is true in Britain under this Conservative Government. It is true in every industrial modern nation. Why, then, do they run this constant campaign?

Mr. Manuel

Ignorance.

Mr. Marsh

My hon. Friend is too generous. It is not ignorance at all. They do it for no other reason than having to please the faceless men behind them who pay their election expenses. Some of them—I make this point deliberately—do it to such an extent that they degrade themselves to the level of political pimps.

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Marsh

Then there is the question of steel. If ever there was a classic case for public ownership, it is to be found in the British steel industry. It is one of the basic industries on which every other industry in this country depends [Interruption.] Yes, I believe that, when every other industry depends upon a particular basic industry like that, control of it should not be in the hands of a small group of people not accountable to the nation. The primary duty of the people at present in control, understandably, is to maximise the profits for their own shareholders. It is intolerable in a democracy that small groups of men should have this enormous power over the economic destiny of the nation.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing (Hendon, North)

What about the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Marsh

I do not want to be unkind, but as long as they have the present Prime Minister, the one danger which does not face hon. Members opposite is the possibility of it ever becoming a one-man band.

When we look at the measure of control and how it is spread in this massive industry, we find that the chairman and general manager of John Summers, of Stewart and Lloyds and G.K.N. all sit on the board of United Steel. The chairman of the Steel Company of Wales is also a director of G.K.N. and the chairman of each of these five companies is an alternate director on another of the boards, while the Steel Company of Wales and English Steel all have a director in common as does English Steel and R.T.B. There never was a clearer case of industrial incest than that which is provided by steel.

Look at the performance. Its capacity was inadequate almost every year right up to last year and it is only adequate now because of its miserable export performance. If one looks at its development [Interruption] Anybody on this side of the House is perfectly willing to debate this issue on this matter in particular or on public ownership in general with any hon. Member opposite.

Italy produces 7½ million tons of steel from one State-owned steel plant. The French are now building a new plant at Dunkirk which will produce 10 million tons a year. The Russians are having an argument about whether their new plant will produce 12 million or 24 million tons of steel a year. There are 30 scattered plants in this country and not one of them has an output of more than 3 million tons of steel a year. [Interruption] There are a number of hon. Members who want to take part in this debate, but as the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir H. Nicholls) interrupts I shall mention the other interesting example of broadcasting. I would say that, here again, is another clear case. [Interruption] There are plenty of buyers for the B.B.C. if it wants to sell out, but no one wants to buy because the contribution that it makes to the community is recognised.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

The hon. Gentleman has kept his promise for the most part. He said that he would be categorical in stating what the policy of his party was and he had the assent of the Leader of the Opposition while he was doing it. He was categorical on dealing with steel, road transport and water, and we shall deal with that at the election. Can he be just as categorical, and can we have the assent or dissent of his right hon. Friend, that in the event of his party winning the next election it will not nationalise the machine tool industry? The hon. Member was categorical about some things. Cannot he be just as categorical on this?

Mr. Marsh

The machine tool industry—I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of "Signposts for the Sixties"—is specifically quoted as a typical example of the sort of industry which, in my view, is not ripe for old style nationalisation, but in which there is a real need for the State to be able to undertake this sort of initiative—

Mr. David Gibson-Watt (Hereford)

rose—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Marsh

I cannot envisage anyone on either side expecting a back bencher to give way to a Whip.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

The House will make better progress if we observe the rules of order that only one hon. Member may be on his feet at a time.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think that the hon. Member is under the misapprehension that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) is a Whip.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I was unable to discern anything that is a point of order in that.

Mr. Marsh

It is surprising that hon. Members opposite want the answers and then do everything they can to stop them. There are plenty of hon. Members on both sides who wish to speak. If I did an injustice to the hon. Member by calling him a Whip, I apologise to him.

Whatever the argument about any particular point, I think that hon. and right hon. Members did right to make this a major election issue. It is right that it should be so. It is an extremely important issue on both sides. We are determined, on this side, to make British industry accountable to the nation. We are determined to ensure that our people shall no longer be economic lodgers in their own country. We are determined to put these arguments at the next General Election and to implement this policy after it.

4.58 p.m.

Sir Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Heeley)

I want—[HON. MEMBERS: "Declare your interest."] I want to deal with the question of steel. In doing this it is natural under the normal procedure of this House to declare an interest, which I am very pleased and proud to do. I am the chairman of one of the big steel companies in this country in Sheffield and I also am in some form or another a shareholder in various steel companies. I do not think that the House should disapprove of this interest because it shows that at least I have some knowledge of what I am talking about.

May I first refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), which I think put clearly his Socialist principles. We know the statement of Socialist policy. It goes back a very long way. But I think that there are other things besides Socialism which we must consider when discussing the great basic industry of steel, as the hon. Member referred to it. So far this afternoon we have heard the statement that steel is to be nationalised. That raises the question why. So far the only answer that we have had is that this is Socialism. We should, however, look at the matter a bit more closely.

Before I go into detail, I should like to take up one point which the hon. Member for Greenwich made. He talked about using the W.E.A. to put over his Socialist ideas. He may have used some other initials, but I thought that he referred to the W.E.A., which is a non-political body, I hope. I will discuss this matter with the hon. Gentleman afterwards round the tea table, as he offered.

A number of hon. Members opposite have affirmed that they wish to nationalise—I think that that is the right word in this case—the steel industry. Let us consider what that means. So far, the only reason that we have had for this is that it is good Socialism. But this House and the country must look further than that. We must look to the economy of the country. I want to ask a number of questions in order to see whether hon. and right hon. Members opposite think that the system of nationalisation will be more efficient than the existing system. I am asking for information.

Let us first take capacity. The hon. Member for Greenwich said that it is better now than it was. I do not propose to go too far into detail except to say that by 1965, when the newest plants come into operation, capacity will be running at about 33½ million crude tons. Today the demand is about 27 million tons, which we are glad to see. There is considerable extra capacity—

Mr. O'Malley

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir P. Roberts

No. I think that it would be better if back bench speakers did not give way. It only leads to a good deal of delay. I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The arguments which I have listened to for two, three, four, five or even more years, usually put forward by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), about the low capacity of the industry, do not apply today.

I want now to turn to the question of development. I notice that some time ago the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition got involved in a discussion about oxygen development in this country compared with Germany. He was talking about oxygen development, as I understand it, and not the rather long-term, old-fashioned oxygen method of Bessemer steel making which has been going on in Germany for some time. Since the right hon. Gentleman made this remark, and since I thought that some hon. Member opposite might try to develop it, I thought it proper to get the best evaluation which I could of the development of the oxygen process in this country. The best estimates which I can find relate to what will happen in 1965–66; we have records on this. The figures show that in 1965–66, 25 per cent. of United Kingdom production, which is now being planned, will come through the oxygen process; that in West Germany the figure will be 17 per cent.; in the United States 15 per cent.; and in France 11 per cent.

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

rose—

Sir P. Roberts

Let me finish the argument. Admittedly there has been a move on the Continent to introduce this new development quicker than here. But those who went in first may well not be best off in the end. I look at the developments which were going on four or five years ago. They were not efficient. New processes have been introduced, and I am sure that the United Kingdom in dustry will by 1965–66 have the latest and best processes and will be in advance of some of those companies abroad which went in for these plants earlier than we did.

Mr. Winterbottom

rose—

Sir P. Roberts

I will give way to my honourable colleague from Sheffield. He may know something about this.

Mr. Winterbottom

May I put this question to the hon. Gentleman on his statement that in future 25 per cent. of steel will be produced by the oxygen process? I know that it is a technical question, but, nevertheless, it is an important one. What are the possibilities of producing steel next year by the oxygen process—that is, by the pure oxygen process as distinct from using oxygen lancing, in other words, by making steel by the L.D., Kaldo or Rotor process? My figure is quite different from the hon. Gentleman's. My figure, even allowing for the developments already planned, is 15 per cent.

Sir P. Roberts

I tried to cover that point in what I was saying. I was talking about new developments and not the old process of oxygen insertion into the steel. The figures which I gave included steel into which oxygen is inserted in one way or another.

I was dealing with the point made by the Leader of the Opposition—it was a denigratory point, whatever the hon. Member for Greenwich may say—that the British industry was behind Continental practice in the oxygen method. One can very easily cloud the issue by talking about other methods. We will be leading the world by 1965–66 with the latest K.D. process and Kaldo process, which is not quite so successful.

There have also been criticisms that we have not had as many bright ideas about steel development as other countries. I have heard this criticism on one or two occasions, and it is incorrect. United Kingdom steel production is about 10 per cent. of world production. No one can expect us to produce all the bright ideas. The percentage of ideas which we have produced is greater than our 10 per cent. of world production. I should like to mention three. The continuous casting process is one of the biggest developments in the Steel Co. of Wales and another in Canada. The Ajax oxygen process is now being developed, and there is the hardened steel roll production for alloy strip mills. These are British developments and we are proud of them. I hope that in the political battle which no doubt we shall have we will not run down either the nationalised industries or the private enterprise industries of this country. Let us try to consider the matter purely from the economic point of view, and the best interest of the nation.

I turn to the question of prices. There have been some criticisms of the price structure of the industry. It is said that British engineering industries are having to pay a higher price for steel than their competitors abroad. I thought that this matter should be checked and looked into. I have had this done by the Iron and Steel Federation, which has the best methods of finding this out. This is factual information and it can be checked. The difficulty is that there is a different tax structure in the price, there is a different quality in the price and there is a different rail charge in the price.

The easiest and best comparison is the price of the steel delivered to the consumer, and the answer comes out as follows. United Kingdom prices are definitely lower for thin flat products. They are normally lower for heavy products and they are just about competitive for light products. Again, I have taken the top and bottom ends of the range so that hon. Members can see the sort of comparison which we are talking about. That deals with open-hearth steel quality, remembering that on the Continent Bessemer steel quality is usually about £4 or £5 per ton less.

In the case of sheet steel, the United Kingdom price to the consumer is £55 per ton. The comparable prices are: the United States of America, £61; West Germany, £65; France, which has the Bessemer steel, which, therefore, costs less, but adding on the extra quality, £63; and Belgium, £65. It is in this range that we are best, where we have spent the most money on the latest developments, and our prices are lowest.

At the other end of the scale, our position concerning billets is not yet as good as it should be. The comparable figures are £32 for the United Kingdom, £40 for the United States, £39 for West Germany, £29 plus £4 for France and £33 plus £5 for Belgium. On the economic aspect, it is therefore possible to say that the present pricing system is advantageous to the British industrialist.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

What about shipbuilding?

Sir P. Roberts

We are cheaper basically with plates than the Continent.

Let me continue and look at another point. We discussed this kind of argument across the Floor of the House on coal nationalisation, which I remember well. One of the big arguments at that time was that there were bad labour relations in the mines. That argument cannot be applied to the steel industry today. We have not had some of the difficult arguments and debates which we had in the past concerning coal. Incidentally, in the steel industry, we have a system of relating the wages of steelmakers to the cost of living index. I ask hon. Members, on both sides, to note how well this system works and I suggest that it might be considered in other industries.

Moving on to the question of how nationalisation would do better than the existing organisation of the steel industry, I must raise the subject of taxation. The hon. Member for Greenwich used a lot of figures and talked about subsidies which had been given to the industry. Before a subsidy is given, however, there must be taxation from which to give it. Again, I have looked up some figures to see what the steel industry has paid in taxation towards the social and educational development of the industry. In the period from 1957 to 1961, the steel industry contributed £350 million to the Exchequer through Profits Tax and Income Tax. One could say that if there were a policy under nationalisation of no profit, then the profit would come higher up the industrial line. But from the national viewpoint of taxation it is obviously better to take the money at the basic start of the industrial tax system rather than to follow it through the various subsequent channels of industry.

If we make a comparison with British Railways and the National Coal Board during that same period—I do not necessarily complain of this—instead of putting £350 million into the Exchequer for the social development of the country, British Railways and the Coal Board together received a refund of £10 million. I am not in any way criticising, but hon. Members opposite must realise that if we take nationalisation on the basis which has been discussed today, which usually means no profit or some loss, we would lose a great deal of profitable taxation, of which I am not ashamed, which goes towards building up of the national social life.

Therefore, the questions which I want to ask right hon. and hon. Members opposite are whether the industry would, in fact, do better under nationalisation; whether it would do better in regard to development, prices and labour relations; and whether it would continue to add to the national Exchequer. So far, on all the figures which I have shown, it is undeniable that hon. Members opposite have not made a case. If they want to go before the country and say that the figures which I have given are wrong or that nationalisation would do better, the onus is upon them to prove it. This they have not done.

Having dealt with the question of whether nationalisation could be more economically efficient, let us consider whether the system of nationalisation is best applicable to the steel industry as such. A lot of thinking about this has to be done by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. As yet, we have not had any experience of what I call an intensive international nationalised industry. The only one which we have had is the aircraft industry, which is so tied up with Government subsidies all round the world that it is not comparable. We have not, however, had intensive experience of a highly competitive industry being nationalised.

The hon. Member for Greenwich mentioned nationalised plants in Italy, in France at Dunkirk, which we know about, and in Austria, which was the result of the war. Basically, however, those companies are still being run on a profitable basis under the capitalist share-owning system. Apart from Russia, where steel is used inside their own great monopolistic ring, we have not seen any example of nationalisation of this nature.

The only small example which we have had concerned the National Coal Board when it came up against cheaper competitive coal prices from the U.S.A. for the Steel Company of Wales. But a restriction was imposed by the Government and the cheaper coal was not allowed to be imported. In view of the fact that steel is a highly competitive and strenuous industry, these facts should be borne in mind. What are the difficulties which we have experienced from nationalisation? I am not attempting to denigrate; I am stating what I understand to be the administrative difficulties. The first is a tendency to become monolithic. I believe that some of the steel companies have become too big, particularly in the United States of America, where some of the companies are of a vast size. Even in this country, some of the companies have got too big a structure.

My experience is that the right sort of unit is a plant with a total labour force of something like 4,000 people. Once we get above that size, we lose a great deal. We might gain something in rationalisation, which tends, however, to lead to redundancy, but we lose something in the sense of belonging to a company and being part of a team. It is a fact that many of the workpeople and staff in the industry are proud to belong to their company. I am proud to mention again my company of Hadfields. I am honoured to find that people who have worked in the firm for, perhaps, as long as 50 years still come back to our functions, and are as proud of Hadfields as I am. There is something in this which we should not lose.

The second point in the monolithic argument is that within the monolithic structure there are pockets of loss which do not show up and which continue to be allowed to exist. I think that this is worth looking at, and I want to give one example of it. Again, I am not doing it to denigrate the National Coal Board. I am merely giving figures and I want to say before I do so that in the Coke Oven Division of the Coal Board they have some of the ablest men and some of the latest equipment such as the Avenue plant at Chesterfield. Let us look at this pocket of loss in the accounts of the Board, the latest ones for which are for 1962.

Mr. W. Hamilton

Interest charges.

Sir P. Roberts

I put interest charges in.

In 1962, the Coke Oven Division lost £7,775,000, and with interest charges of £1,880,000 added to that it amounts to a total of £9,650,000. That is a big enough figure in itself in the National Coal Board's accounts. But then one should look at the sales value on which this loss has occurred. The sales value of the total of the products of the Coke Oven Division was £49½ million—nearly £50 million. So there is a loss of nearly £10 million on a sales turnover of £50 million, which is 20 per cent. or 4s. in the £. As I say, this is an organisation with the ablest men and with the best equipment, but it is the system itself which allows this to happen.

Mr. W. Hamilton

Come off it.

Sir P. Roberts

If we take—

Dr. Jeremy Bray (Middlesbrough, West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir P. Roberts

As I was saying, if we—

Dr. Bray

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order, As the House well knows, only one hon. Member may speak at one time.

Sir P. Roberts

If we take this type of pocket of loss and refer to it in the private enterprise context, the first thing that tends to happen is that the unions come along and say, "This is not good enough." We can get some very helpful advice on pockets of loss of this kind from those on the shop floor, who often see it first. If that does not work, then we get the shareholders saying, "What does the board think it is doing losing 20 per cent. on the turnover?" If that does not work, then the staff are dissatisfied and leave. These are the sort of safeguards which are brought to bear at the moment under the private enterprise system. When we get to the monolithic concept of nationalisation in a highly competitive world market we cannot afford any kind of inefficiency arising from such system.

Therefore, let me, if I may, see how far the arguments of the hon. Member for Greenwich have led. The hon. Gentleman says, first, that the Labour Party is going to nationalise the steel industry, but he does not say how, when, or how much. Nor has any other hon. Gentleman opposite made out the case that nationalisation would be more efficient. They have made out no case to prove that nationalisation is a system which would work in this type of industry. Therefore, we come back to the only answer that is left to us, and the only answer that we have been given today. The answer is Socialism, back to Karl Marx, back to 1840, and Labour Party Clause Four. But it is not 1840 today, it is 1964; and we cannot have these old-fashioned, out-of-date Socialist ideas attacking the most vital basic industry of our country.

I do not object to hon. Members pushing their ideas, but I find that there is some objection from hon. Members opposite when some of us on this side of the House or even some companies and their shareholders try to defend themselves. If, again, right hon. and hon. Members opposite would say what they are going to do, when they are going to do it and how much they are going to pay, and if the amount were to be astronomical, then the shareholders in steel companies might use their money to support hon. Members opposite. However, we do not know, and since no case has been made out, and no amount of money has been mentioned, surely the shareholders in the steel companies are entitled to defend themselves.

I very much doubt whether enough money has yet been paid to the Conservative Party in order to defend the industry. Let me say to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who may be going to reply for the Opposition—perhaps he is not, but perhaps he will pass on our comments to whoever is going to reply—and who I know has a very good sense of fair play, that if he were to receive a letter from somebody saying that they were going to come to his house and take away his grandfather clock, presuming he has one, but did not tell him when they were coming or how they were coming or how much they were going to pay, then the right hon. Gentleman would be entitled to buy a watch-dog. I would not blame him. That is the same position as far as levies from the companies and money from the shareholders are concerned.

We have heard the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) making a great fuss about funds being raised in order to defend the right of property and the assets of the steel industry. Let no one say that to defend one's property is not a proper thing to do.

Let me end by saying that the Labour Party, so far, has refused to say why it wants to nationalise steel. All it has done is to look and bow to the great statue of Karl Marx. It is unable to say how nationalisation will be more efficient, and how nationalisation as a system will work in the steel industry. I hope that the Amendment to the Motion which we are discussing will be defeated.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

On a point of order. I do not wish to take part in the debate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but may I ask you whether or not you could appeal to hon. Members not to take half an hour each in which to make their contributions in such a limited debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think that we had better make use of what time we have got.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)

I will try to be as brief as possible and to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts). He doubts whether the shareholders have paid enough yet to fight our party's plan to bring this industry under public ownership. Perhaps his and other companies will disclose how much they have paid so that we can measure whether they have paid enough. Perhaps his own company will disclose what they have paid the Federation.

Sir P. Roberts

I have made inquiries and I think that it is about £1,000.

Mr. Morris

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and all the other company directors of the steel industry have gone to their shareholders one after the other to seek their permission so to do. That is not the situation. Many steel companies refuse to disclose to their shareholders how much they have contributed.

The situation is that the contributions of the steel masters to avoid a Labour victory at the next General Election is such that already a coach and four has been driven through our electoral practices. The limitations which are now imposed on these Parliamentary candidates are nothing to what the steel masters can indeed pay. We remember the last General Election and how much Stewarts and Lloyds paid. It was well over £¼ million—in fact it was some £300,000. We never knew how much the Steel Company of Wales paid in order to finance the campaign of Colin Hurry.

I will deal with some of the points raised. The hon. Gentleman dealt first with capacity. It may well be that capacity today is in the region of optimum, but it has taken us since 1951 to reach that position. We remember the long battles that went on between 1951 and 1958 between the Federation of the steel owners, the Federation trying to stop the Steel Board from setting up its new development that was so necessary. As a result the country has had to pay dearly year by year in our series of balance of payments crises.

The hon. Member was proud of the development. Mr. W. F. Cartwright, managing director of the Steel Company of Wales, said as far back as 1958 that he could not help noticing that nearly all the items regarding the development of new steel-making processes appearing in the Iron and Steel Institute's "Journal" were of foreign origin. Criticism was made by the Iron and Steel Board about lack of research in the British steel industry.

The hon. Gentleman was proud of the prices in the industry. I do not dispute the prices. They are governed not by the steel industry but by the Iron and Steel Board. The Board has imposed maximum prices, but they have been adopted as the minimum prices by a large part of the industry. If prices are so low and competitive, why have we a shocking export record compared with the Common Market countries? If we have all these advantages, the capacity and the techniques and our prices are competitive, why are we not able to sell very much better abroad than we are doing?

I can give figures of export sales of this great industry compared with the Common Market countries. The record of Stewarts and Lloyds, the great campaigners on this issue, is far worse than other parts of the industry. The exact amount of its exports in recent years does not show a plus basis at all. When one looks at the national total of tubes, of which it has a virtual monopoly, it has a minus figure from 1953 to 1962.

The hon. Member declared his interest, and I declare mine. I am anxious that we should have an effective and competitive industry. It is bad for the industry to remain a political shuttlecock. I am sure that when the time comes after the next General Election, no longer will it be open to the Tory Party to denationalise it. When the last denationalisation Measure was brought before the House in 1953, the present Minister of Power confessed that the industry was being denationalised for purely doctrinal reasons.

We are all entitled to know what the Government's views are. We were told in the Tory manifesto in 1959 that they were utterly opposed to any extension of nationalisation by whatever means. That was their view. But what was one of their first acts after 1959? They nationalised Whitehead, of Newport. We had to pay for that. It was sold back by the nation to private investors for £3.4 million, and eventually it became necessary to nationalise it again. I concede that some £3.6 million of profits had been ploughed back in the meantime. Putting the two together, it is a total of £7 million. What the country had to pay when the Tory Government nationalised that industry once again was more than £10 million. The British public had to pay through the nose for that piece of nationalisation. Where does the Tory manifesto, with its statement that they were utterly opposed to any extension of nationalisation by whatever means, stand now?

The 1953 Act pledged the Tory Party to continue the process of denationalisation. We were told from time to time that it remained the intention of Her Majesty's Government to complete the denationalisation of the steel industry. We were told that as recently as 1962. In the meantime, the important words which we have heard from time to time, to the effect that the Government propose to do this in the lifetime of this Parliament, were conspicuous by their absence. I challenge the Minister to state where Richard Thomas and Baldwin stand on this, if the Government have made a pledge that they intend to denationalise the concern and if they believe that nationalisation should not be extended.

Why, when there was a need for a new strip mill and a large amount of investment, did the Government have to go to the great publicly-owned concern, Richard Thomas and Baldwin, and ask it to carry out the work? The answer may be that Richard Thomas and Baldwin was not the only firm in it. There was another firm, a privately-owned one in it, I concede. It was Colvilles, of Scotland. But whose money was it? When an expansion was needed, was the interest of the country put first and not the interest of a private concern? It was the country's money, and most of it came from the public's money in Colville.

I would quote a statement made in an advertisement by Stewarts and Lloyds in The Times on 12th March this year. The question asked was: State-owned steel—is it reasonable? Does it seem to you to be sensible to treat this company as a political football? Does the uncertainty which must then prevail help to recruit and keep the people we need? Is it right to keep those whom we employ as well as those with whom we trade in a state of continuing uncertainty? That is the situation in regard to Richard Thomas and Baldwin year after year. We have asked the Government about this month after month, and they will not tell us what their plans are.

I asked the Prime Minister on 24th March this year what his intentions were in the present Administration and what he intended to do with the concern? There was no certainty at all. Allegations have been made that the staggering losses of Richard Thomas and Baldwin are one of the burdens of the taxpayers. Let us look at the situation. In other departments, the firm of Richard Thomas and Baldwin has consistently made profits. The whole company until this major piece of expansion had been making profits for many years. However, when the great expansion took place and a large amount of money was injected into the company, it was natural to expect that at the beginning of such investment no great profits would be shown. Any reasonable businessman would expect a loss at the end of the first year after the new plan began. Let us look at the situation of the sister company in this respect, Colvilles, of Scotland, which was expanding at the same time. It made a loss of £4.7 million, and the chairman had to tell his shareholders that it could not be expected that such large schemes should become immediately pofitable at the start of the production. That is the defence.

I have a far better witness than the chairman of Colvilles. I have the Prime Minister himself. I asked him on 24th March—he is a man we can expect to believe on these occasions—whether he was satisfied with the record and management of Richard Thomas and Baldwin to date. I did not want to commit him for some future date; I merely asked him about the situation up to 24th March. The Prime Minister said that he was satisfied with the record and management of that great publicly-owned concern up to 24th March.

What reason can there be for some of the steel masters and other people in different parts of the country denigrating these great publicly-owned industries and Richard Thomas and Baldwin in particular? What I have referred to is the kind of advertisement which is being issued by Stewarts and Lloyds—and partly financed by the Tory Party—to try to show that the company is doing something improper and wrong and that the losses are due to the monolithic character of that part of the industry.

The Richard Thomas and Baldwin concern is entitled to know the Government's intentions. This company has been kept dangling on a piece of string since 1953, and particularly since 1959. So far the Government have not dared to make a final pronouncement of their intentions.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

Sir Andrew McCance managed Colvilles when it was originally under private enterprise. He then managed it when it was under public enterprise. He manages it now that it is back again under private enterprise. Is it suggested that he behaved improperly when the firm was under public enterprise, but that he worked conscientiously when it was under private enterprise?

Mr. J. Morris

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend.

How effective is the present system of ownership whereby the industry is partly public, but the bulk of it is privately owned, and there is this so-called supervision by the Iron and Steel Board? Recently we had two private Bills for South Wales because we in South Wales, like other parts of the country, need new iron ore ports. Richard Thomas and Baldwin came down to the House to promote a Bill to build a new iron ore port for £18 million, and the Steel Company of Wales is proposing to build another iron ore port for £15 million.

If this supervision was worth while, if it was effective, if there was someone looking at this industry, not from the point of view of any particular firm, but rather from the point of view of the nation as a whole, one would have expected there to be some kind of plan to examine the advantages of those schemes. It may be that both schemes are needed. It may be that only one is needed. It may be that neither is needed. But such was the Government's interest in those two major measures, which at the end of the day will be financed by public money, that when the issue was debated in the House the Minister of Power did not come down to listen to the debate. That illustrates the supervisory powers of the Minister and of the Iron and Steel Board over this industry.

I am taking up far too much time, and I propose to sit down shortly to allow other hon. Members to speak. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I propose to deal with some of the points which have been raised in this famous pamphlet issued by Stewarts and Lloyds. The first yardstick is: is capacity adequate? That was the point made by the hon. Gentleman. We all know that over the years capacity has been inadequate. It may be that that situation is on the point of solution, but when there is a clash between private interests and public need in this country, private interests always come first. The difficulty in the past has been the clash between the Iron and Steel Board and the Federation.

Next it asks: are operations efficient? We all know that in this respect there is a need for rationalisation. Stewarts and Lloyds produce steel tubes at three centres, and there are three major companies in Lincolnshire. The chairman of the South Durham board suggested that either one or both of his neighbours should give up what they were producing and allow him to go it alone. The hon. Gentleman thought that the optimum need of this industry was 4,000 men. That will not do in this day and age. There is a need to rationalise this industry, but there is no hope of doing it except by public ownership.

The next yardstick is: is the quality of management and labour force adequate? I am sure that there is an immense potential in both these fields, but they are operating within the narrow confines of the needs of their own companies, and there is no one to look at the interests of the nation as a whole.

The last yardstick is: is the industry's sales effort forceful and effective? I am making no attack on what the industry has succeeded in doing so far, but when one compares its efforts in exports with those of the Common Market countries, one realises that they are not good enough, particularly with regard to steel tubes, in which Stewarts and Lloyds play a prominent part.

This is a great industry. It is a monopolistic industry. I can only quote the words of Lord Beveridge, that where there is a great industry of this kind, which is in itself monolithic and monopolistic, there is no suggestion of competition. Mr. Judge at the Restrictive Practices Court conceded that competition played no part in this industry. When there is a great industry of this kind, a monopolistic and monolithic industry, and when there is no suggestion of competition within it, it should be accountable to the nation.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett (Torquay)

We have heard a number of interesting remarks from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I must confess that few of them appeared to have any relevance to the Motion, which seeks to discover which industries the Labour Party would nationalise if it was returned to power at the next election.

If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are right in all that they say on behalf of nationalisation, that may be a useful argument for it, but its only relevance to the Motion is for them to say that it is also their intention to nationalise the lot. All their arguments are in favour of nationalisation, and all that we are asking them to do is to say so clearly and to give specific details. [Interruption.] I intend to make my speech. If hon. Gentlemen opposite continue to interrupt me, it will prevent other hon. Members from taking part in the debate.

The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) seemed to have Aims of Industry unduly on his mind. Let me tell him that I have not received any documents at all. The documents at my disposal are entirely from Labour Party sources, and it is on Labour Party statements that I intend to speak this afternoon.

I have here a rather seedy little booklet entitled "Ammunition" with a sub-title, "Speakers' Notes, No. 9". It sets out a number of arguments. As a weapon, this ammunition must be about the wettest thing since the French bowmen damped their bowstrings at Agincourt and lost the battle It says: Every Tory M.P. who makes wild allegations about Labour's plans for industry or who demands to know whether company X or Y is going to be nationalised should be prepared to answer these questions: First, what firms are contributing to his local Tory association? I think that that is a rather personal question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have no objection to answering it. There is no significant industry in Torquay, so no firms contribute to my party, but I am sure that if there were firms there they would be only too glad to do so.

The next question to be answered is: Second, how many directorships in private firms does he possess? Even the most inexperienced Labour canvassers could get hold of a copy of "Who's Who", or the Directory of Directors, or some other established reference book to discover that. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will answer some similar questions about retainers and things like that, which do not appear in reference books.

The next question to be answered is: Third, is he himself in receipt of an income from dividends or capital gains? Yes, I am, and I think that many other hon. Members opposite, too, are interested in income from dividends. All I can say is that in the newspapers, a couple of days ago, a most distinguished Member of another place—Lady Gaitskell—headed the names in a new investment trust designed specifically to encourage people, presumably not all of them Conservatives or reactionaries, to invest in her unit trust.

Again and again we have heard the claim made that all we need to do is to rely on "Signposts for the Sixties". That is the "bible." That is all we need to know. But that view is not shared by every hon. Member opposite. I learnt with extreme interest of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in November, 1961, when she said: Give this document"— "Signposts"— to a man like Ian Mikardo and you could have this country's industry transformed. But give it to someone like Woodrow Wyatt and you won't get very far. If everyone else is clear about "Signposts for the Sixties" it is certain that the hon. Member for Blackburn is not.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) also does not seem too keen to abide by the "bible." In 1960, he seemed to be writing a version of his own when he said: The leadership must be prepared to accept that they were committed to the hilt to a full-blooded programme for public ownership. Clause Four stands unimpaired and undiluted. That is the fact, and no one can deny it. I do not notice many contributions to "Signposts" in that little lot.

Let us move to consider some specific industries. Again, I have no quotations from Conservative documents. They are all from Labour records. In 1961, the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) openly advocated full public ownership of the aircraft industry. This year he reversed his position, and make a statement on it, but in May of this year the A.E.U. National Committee, at its annual conference, passed a resolution urging public ownership of all independent airlines. If the party opposite goes from Box to Cox and from Cox to Box, backwards and forwards again and again, it is clear that it is right and necessary that we should be debating a Motion of this kind now.

On 13th February, 1964, the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions proposed nationalisation of the whole machine tool industry. I want to know whether the Opposition accept that, or whether they have sent a note to the Confederation repudiating the recommendation. I want to know that today. In May, 1964, the annual conference of Building Trades Workers passed a resolution in favour of the nationalisation of the building industry and building materials. Again, has a little note been sent telling it that it is not on?

In June of this year the chemical workers' annual conference advocated that the next Labour Government must nationalise the chemical industry. Has that union received a rocket for that suggestion, or is it to be included in the next edition of "Signposts"? As recently as last Sunday the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), one of the brain children of the benches opposite, with his usual flair for letting cats out of bags at inconvenient moments, advocated nationalisation of the motor industry. I wonder what concern that caused among his colleagues, when they realised that they had another contribution from him towards policymaking for a new edition of "Signposts".

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman (Coventry, East)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to put the hon. Member straight. What I said last Sunday is something that I am sure will commend itself to the hon. Member. I said that if it came to a choice between a British firm acquiring American capital and being subjected thereby to American control, on the one hand, and being subject to British Government control and having thereby partial or wholesale nationalisation, on the other, I was for nationalisation—and so were all the workers of Coventry.

Mr. Bennett

I am glad to hear the hon. Member say that because his party has dropped all claims concerning the recent contribution by American industry, about which he is apparently still complaining. If his party is still so critical of the situation why has it not followed up the futile Questions it addressed to the House and which it withdrew smartly soon afterwards?

Now let us consider the Young Socialists—the young torch carriers who will be sitting on the benches opposite when all the present occupants have gone to another place. They are the ones with whom the future lies. These young men recently passed a resolution demanding the nationalisation of all land, the building industry, steel, chemicals, banks, finance houses, insurance, shipbuilding, motor manufacture, and building societies, and the municipalisation of housing. Is all that coming into "Signposts" as part of the Labour programme?

It may be said that all these do not bind a future Labour Government, and do not represent policy making. All I can say is that these unions very much help to pay the piper. I wonder what will happen when the time comes for them to start calling the tune. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tell us about the Tory women."] I should be glad to tell them about the Tory women if they would tell us about their plans.

Now I shall try to bring myself right up to date. I have studied recent by-election addresses to see what I can find out from them. In Bury St. Edmunds the Labour candidate said that the only industry on the list was steel—so he has not read "Signposts", because he left out road haulage, water, and the rest. In Devizes, the Labour candidate approved the nationalisation of steel and road haulage, but no more, so he had a different version. The new hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Mackenzie) played much more safely. He wrote vaguely about the public ownership of key industries, without naming any of them, apart from steel. He will be a very good member of any Labour Shadow Cabinet.

Finally, in this connection, the real plum should go to the Labour candidate for Winchester. He wrote a carefully detailed election address and never mentioned nationalisation, public ownership, social ownership or any other State ownership of key industries. He kept right out of it.

The whole purpose of the debate has been to force the Socialist Party out into the open and to prevent its members from continuing a practice which, if they were members of the private firms which they so much despise, would put them all in gaol for issuing fraudulent prospectuses. It is quite a clever game, but the opinion polls are beginning to show that the people are seeing through it The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper who, I understand is to reply for the Opposition, gave the game away in an interesting statement in May last year, when he said: The fewer detailed commitments my party have when we enter office, the greater will be our opportunities then. As for the Leader of the Opposition, I want to make my closing remarks to him, because he has taken such an intense personal interest in the whole of this matter since it first came before the House. He is the archdeacon of deception by silence in this matter. And yet, in 1957, in a rare moment of frankness, he said: When, for economic reasons, we need to acquire an industry or firm—its economic control—we should honestly say so. That is all that we are asking the Leader of the Opposition to do. We say to him frankly that sucking a pipe in sheep's clothing and saying nothing is no way of fulfilling that splendid declaration. We now ask him to fulfil it properly.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt (Bolton, West)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) would not expect a reply to his speech from me. I do not suppose that he expects a reply from anybody. The House enjoyed his knockabout turn and I am sure that it was a great satisfaction to him and to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport).

I intervene, in what I think an entirely "phoney" and irrelevant and out-of-date quarrel between the other two parties in the House, to say a word on behalf of the millions of people in the country, many of whom are constituents of hon. Members opposite and most of whom are absolutely bored to tears with this argument. It is an astonishing matter to me that in February of last year the Conservative Party thought that it would be on some kind of election winner if it used this old red herring again.

I should like to bring the House back to the consideration of serious matters. We are concerned about economic growth, a rising standard of living, getting more exports, and the like. There is little, if any, indication that ownership, as such, has anything to do with that. What creates economic growth in these modern times is, basically, a right kind of consistent economic policy being followed by the Government, and industrial efficiency, from top management down; promotion policies which ensure that the most able people can get to the top and take over the leadership of a firm, whether it be nationalised or private, large or small; consultation throughout industry and good labour relations.

If we are talking about taking Britain into the latter part of this century and achieving a rate of economic growth which we have not yet achieved it is these matters to which the House should give its attention—and to which I believe the country wishes the House to give attention—rather than to the kind of nonsense we have heard this afternoon.

Ownership is important, but not in that respect. It has little to do with economic efficiency and the achievement of growth. It is important politically, and in relation to questions of power and expression of opinion, and that sort of thing. Our experience over the years has shown that a great deal more attention should be given to this aspect. The chief thing to avoid is a concentration of power through ownership. It is important to safeguard against concentration of power in the private sector—perhaps even more so than in the public sector. It is important to guard against concentrations of power which, I suggest, are not related particularly to industrial efficiency, but to other things—to the spread of ideas, politics, and so on. To drag, once again, the question of ownership into an argument about growth and economics, as if it were a vital point, is pure nonsense. I thought that most people had accepted this. An argument went on in the Labour Party for a number of years on the need to examine the question of ownership in a more rational context and in a less doctrinaire atmosphere.

Certainly, the question of ownership has nothing to do with the problems of the steel industry. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. A. Pearson) made an interesting speech about this being the solution to the problems of the industry. I am not an authority on the industry, but those who have examined its problems say that the important thing is to seek the kind of arrangements for pricing—the basis point of pricing is what I think they call it—which is used in the Common Market countries and which, if it were spread throughout the steel-making countries of the world, would give a measure of stability and genuine competition which would safeguard the interests of the public and help to bring about the efficient production of steel. The question of ownership, or change of ownership in the steel industry, is quite irrelevant to the problems of the industry.

Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Holt

No, I have not much time.

The Tory Party, as I said earlier, with the Labour Party, appears to be taking a more pragmatic attitude to the question of ownership. Figures have been quoted today about subsidies given to nationalised industry and even larger subsidies and loans to private enterprise. A lot of that has been done under Tory Governments. We have seen a Tory Government set up the public ownership of the Atomic Energy Authority. We have seen a Tory Government defend the taking over of a private firm by Richard Thomas and Baldwin. We have seen a Tory Government lend public money to a private company, such as Colvilles, and the like.

I should have thought all these were pragmatic approaches to problems which existed at the time. There might be an argument that when the Government put money in Colvilles they should have insisted on having one or two directors on the board. These are perfectly proper things for discussion, but they are not really things which it can be argued should divide one part of the nation from the other on extreme doctrinaire grounds.

On the other hand, the Government followed an extremely doctrinaire attitude when the last legislation on transport went through the House. They insisted that perfectly good railway workshops should not be allowed to take on contracts for outside work or be hived off from some of the railway works, as some road transport undertakings were, into a holding company. They could have been hived off into separate companies so that it could be seen that they competed with private enterprise on a fair and proper basis.

There is no reason at all why the railway workships should not have been dealt with in a pragmatic, undoctrinaire way for the benefit of the country and those working in them.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

The hon. Member spoke for the Liberal Party on that occasion and supported the Government on that Act.

Mr. Holt

The hon. Member will also know that I spoke in favour of the railway workshops being allowed to do exactly what I have been describing. I voted with the Opposition on the particular Amendments about the railway workshops.

It is a great misfortune that when there are many more important matters to be argued, and argued openly on the hustings in the next few months, this old bogy should be raised as if it were a matter which, in fact, divides hon. Members. It does not and their record stands to be examined on it. It is a great pity when there are so many other things to be discussed and argued out that this bogy should have been raised.

The public is not impressed by the arguments about nationalisation, as every opinion poll has shown. The public is bored stiff with it. Hon. Members opposite will find that though they have raised this matter for party advantage when they are at the nadir of their fortunes, and think that it will bring them some success, it will do nothing of the sort. It will have no effect at all except that, if they go on with it, the people will become more and more bored with them.

6.12 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath)

As I am rising now I should like to give the House an explanation. It has long been the convention of this House, which has been confirmed by the authorities, that the Government have the right to wind up a debate. This I believe still to be the case. This includes private Members' days. Certainly, during the time that I have been in the House, and in the experience I had in my previous capacity, this has been accepted, but on this occasion the Opposition have refused to adhere to the convention. [HON. MEMHERS: "It is not a convention."] It is a convention. We are not debating a Government Motion; it is a Private Member's Motion.

Mr. Ross

The right hon. Gentleman decided to support it.

Mr. Heath

The hon. Member has not yet heard what I have to say. The position is that, to avoid what I believe would be an unseemly situation for the House, I am quite prepared to wind up now and to sit down in sufficient time to allow the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who, I understand, is to follow, so say whatever he wishes in explanation.

Sir C. Osborne

What about the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)?

Mr. Heath

That is perhaps an interesting question, which I shall come to in a moment.

This has been a somewhat unusual debate because it has given, and will give, the right hon. Member for Belper an opportunity of clarifying the policy which his party would follow if they became the Government. Although I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) said, I must disagree with his statement that this debate is unimportant. I believe the subject is of great importance, and very great importance to the people of this country, but its relationship to current problems, is an entirely different question, with which I propose to deal at the end of my speech.

I believe this is an important debate which deserves the attention of the House. Even if hon. Members opposite have not clarified their policy beyond what has been set out in "Signposts for the Sixties", they have at least made it abundantly clear in every speech made from the opposite benches and from their whole attitude throughout the debate that they not only support present nationalisation and future nationalisation as set out in "Signposts for the Sixties" but positively revel in every idea of nationalisation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) asked why the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was not answering this debate. He of course would be "a natural". He is the Shadow President of the Board of Trade. If hon. Members opposite should come into power whatever would be left of the Board of Trade after the right hon. Member for Belper had made his seizure of it, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North would be in charge. But the right hon. Member for Battersea, North is, unfortunately, unreliable in these matters. He is not doctrinally sound. He has deviationist tendencies on Clause Four. He was the first to call nationalisation a dirty word. No wonder he is not taking part tonight and is not even on the Opposition Front Bench.

We might have expected the Leader of the Opposition to reply to this debate because he has attached so much importance to this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the Prime Minister?"] It is perfectly natural for us for the Minister responsible to reply, but the Shadow Minister is unable to do so. We accepted last night what he said about strategy, that he had little experience and did not know what bases and weapons were for, but on this subject he is a foremost authority, one of our leading economists.

He has had great experience as a student, a lecturer, at the Board of Trade as a civil servant and, finally, as a Minister in the 'forties when he went to the Board of Trade. This is of great significance because constantly in this policy we see him jobbing back to those days. Those, of course, were the days. What bliss it was to be politically alive but to be young, and at the Board of Trade was very heaven. There was that exciting meeting with Mr. Mikoyan of which we never ceased to hear and the meetings with people from overseas one never met before.

So the right hon. Member for Belper is to wind up for the Opposition because he is the least committed on this issue of all right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Perhaps he might commit himself further. When revision of Clause Four was under discussion, he, of course, supported Mr. Gaitskell as his Leader, as he always did. Although we have always respected his loyalty if not his judgment, this was precisely the moment when the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was making one of his several attempts to do in the late Leader of the Opposition. So now we see the right hon. Gentleman showing loyalty again to the right hon. Member for Huyton.

One of the interesting things when my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) put this Motion down was the immediate reaction of some hon. Members opposite who put down an Amendment. It was in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot), supported by one of the hon. Ladies opposite, and the Amendment looks back to 1906. This was a perfectly natural reaction from the back benches opposite. They quoted the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). My right hon. Friend, in the exuberance of youth, said these things. At that time, any idea of public ownership was an attractive theory. Now, he has had experience. It is no longer a theory, and it is no longer attractive.

If people want to look back to 1906, 60 years back, why not look 600 years back or 6,000 years back? Let us look to the Book of Proverbs— Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit … we shall fill our house with spoil. An obvious prophecy of nationalisation.

I have been asked, "What about existing nationalised industries?" Here we have to make several things plain. My hon. Friends, who have been attacking hon. and right hon. Members opposite, have been attacking them about the vagueness of their policy in the future and also about the fact that they intend to nationalise at all. This is not an attack on those who are serving at present in the nationalised industries.

Mr. Walter Monslow (Barrow-in-Furness)

Is it not? The right hon. Gentleman should look behind him.

Mr. Heath

It is not what is being debated today. What is being debated is the future of the Labour Party on nationalisation. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will listen for a moment, what this Government have done to the nationalised industries is to change the means of operation and the concept behind them in order to achieve a more efficient industry where it has been nationalised. This has been done in a number of ways. It has been done by a decentralisation of the decision making inside an industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dr. Beeching."] In the whole transport industry, there has been a decentralisation of decision making. That is what hon. Members opposite objected to. Second, there has been a tremendous amount of investment in these industries, totalling today nearly £8,000 million, taking them all together. These things must be taken account of as a whole. We have to recognise the good things which the nationalised industries have done in the way of prices, for instance, but, at the same time, we have to bear in mind that overall, as the Answer in today's HANSARD shows, they have made the quite considerable loss of about £800 million.

The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) compared this with, as he put it, about £2,000 million—he was corrected by his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton)—in subsidies including subsidies to agriculture. Are we to deduce from that that the hon. Gentleman extends the logic of his argument to agriculture? Of course, the consumer gets the benefit of the subsidy to agriculture.

Mr. W. Hamilton

Oh, no. Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heath

The hon. Member for Greenwich is, therefore, saying—

Sir C. Osborne

Let him get in and put his foot in it.

Mr. Hamilton

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give way and let me put my foot in it. Is he aware that Mr. Paul Chambers, the chairman of I.C.I., addressing the National Farmers' Union about a year ago, said that it was sheer humbug to suggest that farm subsidies were not a direct payment to farmers?

Mr. Heath

Of course they are a direct payment to farmers—they are made that way—and the consumer benefits.

Mr. Hamilton

He denied that, too.

Mr. Heath

Is the hon. Member for Greenwich saying that all the measures he suggests should be taken in cases where Government money is paid in this way should apply also to farmers and to agriculture? That is the logical conclusion of his argument.

Mr. Marsh

It is not the logical conclusion at all, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that it is not. All I am saying is that when there is talk, on the one hand, of losses of £800 million by the nationalised industries, the right hon. Gentleman should not shut his mind, on the other hand, to the £4,000 million put into the private sector.

Mr. Heath

I am not shutting my mind to anything. I am asking the hon. Gentleman whether he applies his argument in its logical conclusion to agriculture. That he will not face.

Our task in relation to nationalised industry today has been to make it as efficient as we can and to introduce the financial disciplines which it lacked before.

Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)

That makes it all right, does it?

Mr. Heath

This is the question which hon. Members opposite must answer. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is anxious to have an economy which is not based on finance. He is constantly saying this in all his speeches about economics. For example, at Liverpool he said So first we need an economic policy based not on finance"—

Mr. H. Wilson

Go on—"but …".

Mr. Heath

—"but on industrial purpose". What the right hon. Gentleman never explained is what industrial purpose is.

Mr. Wilson

Read on.

Mr. Heath

What does it mean, not based on finance? Are the financial disciplines which have been introduced into the nationalised industries while we have been in power all to be swept aside again?

Mr. Wilson

Is the right hon. Gentleman asking?

Mr. Heath

We have this splendid mass of verbiage and talk of economic purpose or some other national purpose, but a completely ill-defined approach to any financial discipline.

Mr. Wilson

If the right hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of reading what I said, he will see that I was referring to an economy based on purposiveness and industrial production, and not, as under this present Government, on the predominance of speculative finance. It was a reference not to the control of nationalised industries but—he will find the words if he looks it up—to the fact that—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question. Do not hon. Members want to hear the answer?

Mr. Heath

This is all tied up with the right hon. Gentleman's ideas on the economy. I have studied all his speeches with the greatest care, endeavouring to find out what the real basis of his economic policy is. He is constantly telling us that, of course, we must concentrate, as he puts it, on the hard core of the economy, we must concentrate on building new factories to meet the hard core of the economy and to help our exports. Exactly what are our exports dependent on? What are our foreign exchange earnings dependent on? They are dependent on cars, on whisky and on tourists, all of which contribute an enormous amount to our foreign exchange. But this is what the right hon. Gentleman calls a speculative "candy-floss" economy. The late Aneurin Bevan used to spin words about a "marzipan" society, but the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is becoming almost indecently addicted to the "candy-floss" society concept. This is no answer to our economic problems.

In another speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that there should be no attempt at personal aggrandisement and that there must be an economic purpose. Yet he is the first to belabour us to give more and more incentives to industry. What is an incentive for but to make more profits for investment and distribution and to enable the people working in the industry and the shareholders to get a better living? That is the whole point of incentives.

How often has the right hon. Gentleman criticised the Economic European Community for so-called autarchy. Yet he is the first to suggest that we should limit imports, make things ourselves, and keep out foreign investment. Keep it at bay, he says. That is autarchy in a Little England.

Then the right hon. Gentleman compares our position in all the league tables with other countries. We always get the morals—Germany, we are told; the United States, we are told; Japan, we are told. But these are all the great free enterprise countries. The right hon. Gentleman never asks us to compare us with the authoritarian State-controlled economies. No; he always says that we must compare ourselves with what the private enterprise economies have done. He says that that supports a policy of nationalisation whenever possible.

Now we hear about the begging-bowl. The right hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that this was nothing new; it had been said before, and it is in "Signposts for the Sixties". The exact phrase is there—"the begging-bowl". The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, and there is usually very little original in what he says. I want to read this paragraph, because it is particularly important: The Capitalist Begging-Bowl. Another field where public ownership may well have to be extended is in those private industries which, through the receipt of subsidies or loans, are dependent on the State for their continued existence.… Where national assistance is required by manufacturing industry, it should be made conditional on public participation in the enterprise—the setting up, for example, of a joint venture, with the State as at least an equal partner. The whole of the industrial location policy of this country—I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was concerned earlier with industrial location—is based on grants and loans—what the right hon. Gentleman and his party would call subsidies—to private industry.

Mr. H. Wilson

We started it.

Mr. Heath

I am not criticising the Labour Party for having done that. What I am saying is that this means that the whole of this policy will be affected by this directive. There can be no doubt about it. The right hon. Gentleman raised this question in the Rootes case. He raised the whole question of investment of this kind. These industrialists are not going round with a begging-bowl. Most of them would far rather expand in their present locations. What is happening is that the inducements are there to offset the disadvantages, economically speaking, of going to another district. [Interruption.] I have quoted the words. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny them. There was no qualification of any kind about the development districts. It is plain that this policy extends to them.

Then we have had the recent instance of Rootes, which is a very good example of the approach of the Opposition. First, it was the right hon. Gentleman, who was xenophobic; his attitude was, "Keep them out altogether". Then the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) said, "Nationalise it". That was the first reaction. The hon. Gentleman wrote an article saying: Even if it means partial or full nationalisation, then do it".

Mr. H. Wilson

The right hon. Gentleman says, "Americanise it".

Mr. Heath

I do not say anything of the sort. What I say is that, if there is an American investment to go into a development which will strengthen it, well and good. Some people are saying that the right hon. Gentleman has been behaving like this to pick up a few votes at the election. I believe this to be merely unjust and unfair. It is not a question with the right hon. Gentleman of trying to pick up a few votes. The right hon. Gentleman is like this. The first reaction always of the other side to any problem is, "Nationalise it."

What does it do? Psychologically, I agree, it gives hon. Members opposite the feeling that they are imposing their will on independent companies and individuals. What does it do in fact? It changes ownership. By changing ownership it does not in itself solve any problem connected with industry today. What are the problems which are sometimes quoted by hon. Members opposite as leading to nationalisation? First, there is the shortage of capital.

Mr. G. Brown

I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to overlook the time.

Mr. Heath

If the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends did not interrupt so much, I should be able to finish on time. The problems which are put forward for nationalisation are, first, the shortage of capital, but this can be raised and, with proper taxation policies, is available. Where a Government contribution is made, it is very often made for special reasons, and the question then arises whether there should be any kind of Government representation. What the Government have to do is to see that there is security for the money they are investing. That they have always done, without entering into all the difficulties, very often, of management and control which the other side so obviously want.

Then there is the question of seizing the commanding heights of power. That has always been at the bottom of so many of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. Today this is an old-fashioned idea, for this reason. It can be dealt with in two ways. One is by monopoly legislation such as we are proposing in the White Paper. [Interruption.] This is the reason why it is old-fashioned, because where an industry is important in the economy today we have since Keynes developed all the other means of handling the economy. This idea was pre-Keynes. It takes no account of Keynesian developments and is entirely outmoded. Speaking of the "commanding heights" I remind the House that the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) said this: I hope that no one in our ranks will insult the intelligence of the British public by asking them to believe that water is a commanding height but that the vast free enterprise empire of I.C.I. is a mere obscure hillock.

Hon. Members

Cheating.

Mr. Heath

I am not cheating in the least.

Mr. G. Brown

The right hon. Gentleman has had 28 minutes.

Mr. Heath

I want to sum up by stating my own attitude and that of the Government to future nationalisation. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends nationalised during their last period of power, and they have paid heavily for it ever since. They are now proposing to nationalise steel, for which there is no reason; road transport, which is quite capable of expanding without renationalisation; water, which is quite unnecessary because of the Water Resources Act, 1963; and land for housing, but that is no answer to the housing problem.

In fact the real condemnation of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends is that the whole of this policy is irrelevant. It is irrelevant to all our problems. It is irrelevant to exports. It is irrelevant to tariff problems in the developed world. It is irrelevant to the developing world and its problems. It is irrelevant to the modernisation of British industry. It is irrelevant to training and redundancy. It is irrelevant to an incomes policy. It is irrelevant to the whole question of labour relations. We on this side of the House are against any extension of nationalisation. We shall resist it, and so win the election.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. George Brown (Belper)

rose—

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Brown

This must be the first time that I have been equally loudly cheered by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade was very bad-tempered at being asked to speak before the last speaker on this side of the House. He showed his bad temper by wilfully breaking the agreement we had entered into and by talking for 10 minutes more than he had asked for.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

rose—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Lewis

On a point of order. May I seek your advice, Mr. Speaker, on the comment that the right hon. Gentleman just made—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Lewis

—about the apportionment of time? May I point out to you that this is a private Member's occasion and that the right hon. Gentleman has no right to do that?

Mr. Brown

A cheat is a cheat on a private Members' day as well as on any day. I can well understand why the right hon. Gentleman was so upset at being asked to speak before me, since, obviously, the speech which he wanted to make had nothing whatever to do with the Motion. He only just remembered to mention the word "nationalisation" in passing.

This debate was opened by the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine), who, in a few days' time, on the Adjournment, will protest against the closure of railway stations around Bexhill by Dr. Beeching. [Interruption.] He will, then, be having an opportunity which he would not have had under private enterprise.

Today's debate has shown the total cant and humbug with which the party opposite approaches this question of public ownership. The Tories have been nationalising for 50 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "And you?"]—while we have been doing it for only five years, but in our five, let us be fair, we nationalised as many things as they nationalised in their 50. That is quite right because they are ten times slower than we are—and that goes for everything. Their first nationalisation Measure was in 1904 and was of the Metropolitan Water Board. Their last was in 1954, the Atomic Energy Authority. Between time they did London's buses, Northern Ireland's buses, the B.B.C. and the Central Electricity Generating Board—yet Ministers opposite think that they have the right to come here tonight and say that we want to nationalise everything while they are not interested in nationalisation.

Not only have they done as much nationalising as anybody else, but, in addition, in their speeches they are continually claiming credit for what they call the achievements of the nationalised institutions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did it in his Budget speech, when there was not a word about nationalisation being a bad thing. The Prime Minister remembered to do it, although on another occasion he called the nationalised institutions "a junk yard", just as the Chief Secretary once called the people who served in them Quislings.

Hon. Members

Shame.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter)

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will get his facts right. If he is attributing words to me, he should make it quite clear that I referred, and this is on the record, to people not then serving on nationalised boards but who might be tempted by an offer of an appointment on them not to defend the private industries for which they were then responsible; who might be tempted, in other words, to jump on what they thought was a Labour bandwagon but which turned out to be a Labour hearse.

Mr. Brown

So the right hon. Gentleman did say it, although now he tries to justify it. His intervention was not up to his usual standard.

Despite the insults which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite throw—and they thought that throwing them would gain them political dividends—at the men who are prepared to serve the nation rather than their own private profit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and despite everything else they say, the truth is that they need nationalisation, they introduced it and they have praised it. They know, despite the rubbish they have spoken this afternoon, that public ownership of the equity undertakings is not bad per se.

Hon. Members opposite understand that we are to have a mixed economy. Every country to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—countries which he called "free enterprise countries"—are mixed economy countries. In a mixed economy world there must be some public and some private enterprise. The real point is that hon. Members opposite do not object to nationalisation. They only object to the public owning the equity in enterprises which are profitable. They do not mind us having the rest.

If they believe, and have believed, that nationalisation is so bad, why have they been in office for 13 years yet have denationalised so little? The right hon. Gentleman just spoke about £800 million in losses, but if he thought that those losses were so wrong, is he not aware that he and the Government have had ample power for the last 13 years in which to put the matter right? Why did they not do it? Who stopped the party opposite doing it? Was it the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)? I can see the Secretary of State rubbing his own sore back where I pointed a finger behind him. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West told us that it took the power of back benchers to make a reluctant Government denationalise even parts of steel and road transport. In other words, the Government as a whole did not even want to do that.

The classic statement for public enterprise is this: … where the general welfare of the economy requires that certain basic industries and services need now to be conducted in the light of broader social considerations than the profit motive provides". That statement was made by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), and he did not go any further than that. It remains his classic statement.

Of the nationalised bodies we now have, there are only two which really come under attack. Most of the nationalised bodies—nationalised by the Conservatives, too—are not being attacked. The two which get attacked all the time are railways and the coal industry. Let us face it. Not only would both of those have ground to a halt had they not been nationalised, but, in addition, the Government—these administrators who have been in office for 13 years—have been restricting, limiting and inhibiting both of them. If our people have had to pay heavily for these services, the responsibility, after 13 years of Tory interference, lies with the Conservative Party, not with us.

I am asked—and if the Minister had not taken my time I could have replied at length—what will we do, since we are about to become Her Majesty's Government.—[Laughter.] Yes, my right hon. Friends will soon be producing the detailed Bills. Meanwhile, let me tell the prospective Opposition precisely what they will have to face. It will not be the rubbish printed in "Entitled to Know", not the silly stuff that the Minister trotted out just now, but what is in "Signposts for the Sixties".

In the first place, we shall take into public ownership the freehold interest in urban land as it becomes ripe for development—and if hon. and right hon. Members opposite think that this is a bad thing for us to say, let them ask Mrs. Olsen, who was their candidate at Faversham, what she has to say. They might even like to read the leader in the Evening Standard last Monday, headed "Racket in Land". The fact is that they are the only people in the country who believe that the land racket can stay as it is. They are the people who created the racket in land, their friends are the people who benefit by the racket in land; and we shall deal with it in the way we have said.

We shall take into public ownership the steel industry—[Interruption.] I do not quarrel with a lot of what the hon. Baronet the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) said about the steel industry. I do not want to denigrate the industry, or argue about what it has done or not done. It is quite unnecessary to do that, but I do say that this industry is basic to our economy. Its record, in some respects, has not fitted what the economy as planned by the nation would have required of it. If we are to have a planned economy, if we are to have our basic industries answering that economy, there is every case for the steel industry being responsible to the plan that we make—[Interruption.]—and, monopolised as the industry is, cartelised as it is, price rigged as it is, it is not possible to assure that. Indeed, the Tories recognised this when the present Commonwealth Secretary said that he could not give the industry back to private industry just like that, but must set up a national board to try to control it.

The right hon. Gentleman did that because he understood that the industry could not be allowed to operate as a totally private cartel, but, in practice, the board cannot control it and, clearly, since the Tories themselves recognise that this is not private enterprise, since they recognise that it cannot respond to normal private enterprise requirements, since they know that it needs public money to develop, rationalise and modernise, on every single count it is sensible and intelligent to take it into public ownership.

We shall extend the operations of the British Road Services. As to the private hauliers, we, like the present Administration, will await the outcome of the committee that has been set up on licensing—just as hon. Members opposite will—and then we shall consider what happens there in the light of that committee's report. But anybody on that side of the House who believes that we can have an integrated transport service without having a wider area of publicly-owned road services to integrate with the railways is living in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land.

We shall have a publicly-owned national water supply [Laughter]. Hon. Members opposite set out to ask the questions and they are going to hear the answers. I have given them a list of our specific commitments for public enterprise in the next Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Now I will tell them something else. [HON. MEMBERS: "What else? "] No more commitments for take-overs in that sense, but do not let us be totally illiterate and immature on this matter. There are other areas for public enterprise [Interruption.] Shall I tell hon. Members where?

Where the taxpayers are being asked to put up their money, such as for the Fort William pulp and paper making mill, they are entitled to a stake in the industry. Where private enterprise will not move industries fast enough into the development districts of the North-East, the North-West, Scotland and Wales, public enterprise should go in and do it. Where industry is over-monopolised and competition does not exist, publicly-owned industry and public enterprise should go in. These are not areas of take-over; these are the obvious areas for purposeful national expansion in the interests of our people, either in partnership, or in extension, or in place of private enterprise.

There is no difficulty about this, but since the Minister has not left me my full time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I cannot finish the whole argument. But may I tell him this?

We heard a lot about confrontation a little while ago. I am willing to go with the right hon. Gentleman on television and finish the argument there.

Mr. Herbert W. Bowden (Leicester, South-West) rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part

of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 235.

Division No. 109.]	AYES	[7.2 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter	Emery, Peter	Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)	Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Kershaw, Anthony
Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian	Errington, Sir Eric	Kimball, Marcus
Arbuthnot, Sir John	Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Kirk, Peter
Ashton, Sir Hubert	Farey-Jones, F. W.	Kitson, Timothy
Atkins, Humphrey	Farr, John	Lagden, Godfrey
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)	Fell, Anthony	Lambton, Viscount
Balniel, Lord	Finlay, Graeme	Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony	Fisher, Nigel	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Barlow, Sir John	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Leather, Sir Edwin
Barter, John	Forrest, George	Leavey, J. A.
Batsford, Brian	Foster, Sir John	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)	Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford&Stone)	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)	Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	Lilley, F. J. P.
Berkeley, Humphry	Freeth, Denzil	Lindsay, Sir Martin
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Galbraith, Hen. T. G. D.	Linstead, Sir Hugh
Bidgood, John C.	Gammans, Lady	Litchfield, Capt. John
Biffen, John	Gardner, Edward	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Biggs-Davison, John	George, Sir John (Pollok)	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Bingham, R. M.	Gibson-Watt, David	Longbottom, Charles
Bishop, Sir Patrick	Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan	Lubbock, Eric
Black, Sir Cyril	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Bossom, Hon. Clive	Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Bourne-Arton, A.	Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)	McAdden, Sir Stephen
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)	Godber, Rt. Hon, J. B.	MacArthur, Ian
Box, Donald	Goodhart, Philip	McLaren, Martin
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John	Goodhew, Victor	Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs)
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Gough, Frederick	McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Braine, Bernard	Grant-Ferris, R.	Macloed, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Brewis, John	Green, Alan	McMaster, Stanley R.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Gresham Cooke, R.	Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry		Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Maddan, Martin
Browne, Percy (Torrington)	Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.	Maginnis, John E,
Bryan, Paul	Grosvenor, Lord Robert	Maitland, Sir John
Buck, Antony	Gurden, Harold	Markham, Major Sir Frank
Bullard, Denys	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Marlowe, Anthony
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric	Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)	Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Burden, F. A.	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)	Marten, Neil
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Mathew, Robert (Honlton)
Butler, Rt.Hn. R. A. (SaffronWalden)	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Campbell, Gordon	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)	Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Mawby, Ray
Channon, H. P. G.	Hastings, Stephen	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Chataway, Christopher	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Chichester-Clark, R.	Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward	Mills, Stratton
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)	Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Misoampbell, Norman
Cleaver, Leonard	Hendry, Forbes	Montgomery, Fergus
Cole, Norman	Hicks Beach, Maj. W.	More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Cooke, Robert	Hiley, Joseph	Morgan, William
Cooper, A. E.	Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)	Mormon, Charles (Devizes)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	Hirst, Geoffrey	Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Corfield, F. V.	Hocking, Philip N.	Neave, Airey
Costain, A. P.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin	Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Coulson, Michael	Holland, Philip	Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony	Hollingworth, John	Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Holt, Arthur	Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Crawley, Aidan	Hopkins, Alan	Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Critchley, Julian	Hornby, R. P.	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)
Crowder, F. P.	Howard, Hon, G. R. (St. Ives)	Osborn, John (Hallam)
Cunningham, Sir Knox	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Curran, Charles	Hughes-Young, Michael	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Currie, G. B. H.	Hulbert, Sir Norman	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Hurd, Sir Anthony	Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Dance, James	Hutchison Michael Clark	Partridge, E.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Iremonger, T. L.	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.	James, David	Peel, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Jennings, J. C.	Percival, Ian
Doughty, Charles	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Peyton, John
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Drayson, G. B.	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Pike, Miss Mervyn
du Cann, Edward	Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith	Pitman, Sir James
Duncan, Sir James	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Pitt, Dame Edith
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Pounder, Rafton
Elliott, R. W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N)	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Price, David (Eastleigh)	Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Prior, J. M. L.	Spearman, Sir Alexander	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho	Speir, Rupert	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Proudfoot, Wilfred	Stainton, Keith	Vickers, Miss Joan
Pym, Francis	Stanley, Hon. Richard	Wade, Donald
Quennell, Miss J. M.	Stodart, J. A.	Walder, David
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm	Walker, Peter
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin	Studholme, Sir Henry	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)	Summers, Sir Spencer	Wall, Patrick
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)	Tapsell, Peter	Ward, Dame Irene
Renton, Rt. Hon. David	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)	Webster, David
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas	Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Ridsdale, Julian	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)	Whitelaw, William
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey	Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)	Teeling, Sir William	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Robson, Brown, Sir William	Temple, John M.	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)	Thomas, Peter (Conway)	Wise, A. R.
Russell, Sir Ronald	Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S)	Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Scott-Hopkins, James	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter	Woodhouse, C. M.
Seymour, Leslie	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin	Woollam, John
Sharples, Richard	Thorpe, Jeremy	Woreley, Marcus
Shaw, M.	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Shepherd, William	Tilney, John (Wavertree)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Skeet, T. H. H.	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon	Mr. Godman Irvine and
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)	Turner, Colin	Mr. W. Clark.
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Ainsley, William	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Albu, Austen	Edwards, Walter (Stepney)	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Evans, Albert	Kelley, Richard
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Fernyhough, E.	Kenyon, Clifford
Bacon, Miss Alice	Finch, Harold	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Barnett, Guy	Fitch, Alan	King, Dr. Horace
Beaney, Alan	Fletcher, Eric	Lawson, George
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Foley, Maurice	Ledger, Ron
Bence, Cyril	Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Benn, Anthony Wedgwood	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Forman, J. C	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Benson, Sir George	Galpern, Sir Myer	Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Blyton, William	George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)	Lipton, Marcus
Boardman, H.	Ginsburg, David	Loughlin, Charles
Boston, T.	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Gourlay, Harry	McBride, N.
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)	Greenwood, Anthony	McCann, J.
Bowles, Frank	Grey, Charles	MacColl, James
Boyden, James	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	MacDermot, Niall
Bradley, Tom	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Mclnnes, James
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Griffiths, W. (Exchange)	McKay, John (Wallsend)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Gunter, Ray	MacKenzie, J. G.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Hamilton, William (West Fife)	McLeavy, Frank
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Hannan, William	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Harper, Joseph	MacPherson, Malcolm
Callaghan, James	Hart, Mrs. Judith	Mahon, Simon
Carmichael, Neil	Hayman, F. H.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara	Healey, Denis	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Chapman, Donald	Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)	Manuel, Archie
Cliffe, Michael	Herbison, Miss Margaret	Mapp, Charles
Collick, Percy	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Marsh, Richard
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Hill, J. (Midlothian)	Mason, Roy
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Hilton, A. V.	Mellish, R. J.
Crosland, Anthony	Holman, Percy	Mendelson, J. J.
Crossman, R. H. S.	Houghton, Douglas	Millan, Bruce
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)	Milne, Edward
Dalyell, Tam	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Mitchison, G. R.
Darling, George	Howie, W.	Monslow, Walter
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Moody, A. S.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Morris, John (Aberavon)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Hunter, A. E.	Moyle, Arthur
Deer, George	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Mulley, Frederick
Delargy, Hugh	Hynd, John (Attercliffe)	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Dempsey, James	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Diamond, John	Janner, Sir Barnett	Oliver, G. H.
Doig, Peter	Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas	O'Malley, B. K.
Donnelly, Desmond	Jeger, George	Oram, A. E.
Driberg, Tom	Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)	Oswald, Thomas
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Owen, Will
Edelman, Maurice	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Padley, W. E.

Paget, R. T.	Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)	Rogers, C. H. R. (Kensington, N.)	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.	Ross, William	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Parker, John	Royle, Charles (Salford, West)	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Parkin, B. T.	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.	Thornton, Ernest
Paton, John	Short, Edward	Tomney, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence	Silkin, John	Wainwright, Edwin
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)	Warbey, William
Peart, Frederick	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Weitzman, David
Pentland, Norman	Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Popplewell, Ernest	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)	White, Mrs. Eirene
Prentice, R. E.	Small, William	Whitlock, William
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Wigg, George
Probert, Arthur	Snow, Julian	Wilkins, W. A.
Proctor, W. T.	Sorensen, R. W.	Willey, Frederick
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Randall, Harry	Spriggs, Leslie	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Rankin, John	Stewart, Michael (Fulham)	Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Redhead, E, C.	Stonehouse, John	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)	Stones, William	Winterbottom, R. E.
Reid, William	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Rhodes, H.	Swain, Thomas	Woof, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Swingler, Stephen	Wyatt, Woodrow
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Symonds, J. B.	Zilliacus, K.
Robertson, John (Paisley)	Taverne, D.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. Steele and Mr. Skeffington.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne) rose in his place, and claimed, That the Main Question be now put.

Main Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 235.

Division No. 110.]	AYES	[7.14 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter	Chichester-Clark, R.	Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)	Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)	Freeth, Denzil
Amery, Rt. Hon, Julian	Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)	Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Arbuthnot, Sir John	Cleaver, Leonard	Gammans, Lady
Ashton, Sir Hubert	Cole, Norman	Gardner, Edward
Atkins, Humphrey	Cooke, Robert	George, Sir John (Pollok)
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)	Cooper, A. E.	Gibson-Watt, David
Balniel, Lord	Cooper-Key, Sir Neil	Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony	Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Barlow, Sir John	Corfïeld, F. V.	Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Barter, John	Costain, A. P.	Clyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Batsford, Brian	Coulson, Michael	Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)	Courtney, Cdr. Anthony	Goodhart, Philip
Berkeley, Humphry	Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Goodhew, Victor
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Crawley, Aidan	Gough, Frederick
Bidgood, John C.	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver	Grant-Ferris, R.
Biffen, John	Crowder, F. P.	Green, Alan
Biggs-Davison, John	Cunningham, Sir Knox	Gresham Cooke, R.
Bingham, R. M.	Curran, Charles	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Bishop, Sir Patrick	Currie, G. B. H.	Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Black, Sir Cyril	Dalkeith, Earl of	Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Bossom, Hon. Clive	Dance, James	Gurden, Harold
Bourne-Arton, A.	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Hall, John (Wycombe)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)	Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.	Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Box, Donald	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John	Doughty, Charles	Harris, Reader (Heston)
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Braine, Bernard	Drayson, G. B.	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Brewis, John	du Cann, Edward	Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Duncan, Sir James	Harvie Anderson, Miss
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Hastings, Stephen
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Elliott, R. W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Hay, John
Browne. Percy (Torrington)
Bryan, Paul	Emery, Peter	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Buck, Antony	Errington, Sir Eric	Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Bullard, Denys	Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric	Farey-Jones, F, W.	Hendry, Forbes
Burden, F. A.	Farr, John	Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Fell, Anthony	Hiley, Joseph
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)	Finlay, Graeme	Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Campbell, Gordon	Fisher, Nigel	Hirst, Geoffrey
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)	Forrest, George	Hocking, Philip N.
Channon, H. P. G.	Foster, Sir John	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Chataway, Christopher	Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford&Stone)	Holland, Philip
Hollingworth, John	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	Shepherd, William
Holt, Arthur	Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Hopkins, Alan	Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Hornby, Ft. P.	Mawby, Ray	Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.	Maxwell-Hyslop, R, J.	Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Spearman, Sir Alexander
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John	Mills, Stratton	Speir, Rupert
Hughes-Young, Michael	Miscampbell, Norman	Stainton, Keith
Hulbert, Sir Norman	Montgomery, Fergus	Stanley, Hon. Richard
Hurd, Sir Anthony	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Stodart, J. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Morgan, William	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Iremonger, T. L.	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Studholme, Sir Henry
James, David	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Summers, Sir Spencer
Jennings, J. C.	Neave, Airey	Tapsell, Peter
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Nicholson, Sir Godfrey	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael	Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith	Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard	Teeling, Sir William
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Oakshott, Sir Hendrie	Temple, John M.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)	Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Kershaw, Anthony	Osborn, John (Hallam)	Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Kimball, Marcus	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)	Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Kirk, Peter	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Kitson, Timothy	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Lagden, Godfrey	Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Lambton, Viscount	Partridge, E.	Thorpe, Jeremy
Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Peel, John	Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Leather, Sir Edwin	Percival, Ian	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Leavey, J. A.	Peyton, John	Turner, Colin
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Lilley, F. J. P.	Pitman, Sir James	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Lindsay, Sir Martin	Pitt, Dame Edith	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Linstead, Sir Hugh	Pounder, Rafton	Vickers, Miss Joan
Litchfield, Capt. John	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch	Wade, Donald
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Walder, David
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Prior, J. M. L.	Walker, Peter
Longbottom, Charles	Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Lubbock, Eric	Proudfoot, Wilfred	Wall, Patrick
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn	Pym, Francis	Ward, Dame Irene
Lucas-Tooth, Sir John	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Webster, David
McAdden, Sir Stephen	Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter	Wells, John (Maidstone)
MacArthur, Ian	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin	Whitelaw, William
McLaren, Martin	Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs)	Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)	Renton, Rt. Hon. David	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
McMaster, Stanley R.	Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey	Wise, A. R.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)	Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)	Robson Brown, Sir William	Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Maddan, Martin	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Woodhouse, C. M.
Maginnis, John E.	Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)	Woollam, John
Maitland, Sir John	Russell, Sir Ronald	Worsley, Marcus
Markham, Major Sir Frank	Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan	Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Marlowe, Anthony	Scott-Hopkins, James
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest	Seymour, Leslie	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Marten, Neil	Sharples, Richard	Mr. Godman Irvine and
Mathew, Robert (Honlton)	Shaw, M.	Mr. F. M. Bennett.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ainsley, William	Brockway, A. Fenner	Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Albu, Austen	Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Deer, George
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Delargy, Hugh
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Dempsey, James
Bacon, Miss Alice	Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Diamond, John
Barnett, Guy	Callaghan, James	Dodds, Norman
Beaney, Alan	Carmichael, Neil	Doig, Peter
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Castle, Mrs. Barbara	Donnelly, Desmond
Bence, Cyril	Chapman, Donald	Driberg, Tom
Benn, Anthony Wedgwood	Cliffe, Michael	Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Collick, Percy	Edelman, Maurice
Benson, Sir George	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Blyton, William	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Boardman, H.	Crosland, Anthony	Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Boston, T.	Crossman, R. H. S.	Evans, Albert
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Fernyhough, E.
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)	Dalyell, Tam	Finch, Harold
Bowles, Frank	Darling, George	Fitch, Alan
Boyden, James	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Fletcher, Eric
Bradley, Tom	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Foley, Maurice

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Reid, William
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	McBride, N.	Rhodes, H.
Forman, J. C.	McCann, J.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Galpern, Sir Myer	MacColl, James	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)	MacDermot, Niall	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Ginsburg, David	Mclnnes, James	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Gourlay, Harry	MacKenzie, J. G.	Rogers, C. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Greenwood. Anthony	Mackie, John (Enfield, East)	Ross, William
Grey, Charles	McLeavy, Frank	Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	MacPherson, Malcolm	Short, Edward
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)	Mahon, Simon	Silkin, John
Gunter, Ray	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)	Manuel, Archie	Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Hannan, William	Mapp, Charles	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Harper, Joseph	Marsh, Richard	Small, William
Hart, Mrs. Judith	Mason, Roy	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Hayman, F. H.	Mellish, R. J.	Snow, Julian
Healey, Denis	Mendelson, J. J.	Sorensen, R. W.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)	Millan, Bruce	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Herbison, Miss Margaret	Milne, Edward	Spriggs, Leslie
Hewitson, Capt. M.	Mitchison, G. R.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)	Monslow, Walter	Stonehouse, John
Hilton, A. V.	Moody, A. S.	Stones, William
Holman, Percy	Morris, Charles (Openshaw)	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Houghton, Douglas	Morris, John (Aberavon)	Swain, Thomas
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)	Moyle, Arthur	Swingler, Stephen
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Mulley, Frederick	Symonds, J. B.
Howie, W.	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	Taverne, D.
		Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Oliver, G. H.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	O'Malley, B. K.	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Hunter, A. E.	Oram, A. E.	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Oswald, Thomas	Thornton, Ernest
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)	Owen, Will	Tomney, Frank
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Padley, W. E.	Wainwright, Edwin
Janner, Sir Barnett	Paget, R. T.	Warbey, William
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas	Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)	Weitzman, David
Jeger, George	Pargiter, G. A.	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)	Parker, John	White, Mrs. Eirene
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Parkin, B. T.	Whitlock, William
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Paton, John	Wigg, George
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Pavitt, Laurence	Wilkins, W. A.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	Willey, Frederick
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Peart, Frederick	Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Kelley, Richard	Pentland, Norman	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Kenyon, Clifford	Popplewell, Ernest	Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Prentice, R. E.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
King, Dr. Horace	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Winterbottom, R. E.
Lawson, George	Probert, Arthur	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Ledger, Ron	Proctor, W. T.	Woof, Robert
Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Pursey, Cmdr. Harry	Wyatt, Woodrow
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Randall, Harry	Zilliacus, K.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Rankin, John
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)	Redhead, E. C.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Loughlin, Charles	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)	Mr. Steele and Mr. Skeffington.

Resolved, That this House, having regard to the wide-ranging threats of nationalisation contained in the Labour Party's official policy statement, "Signposts for the Sixties", and to the fact that the Labour Party, under Clause Four of its constitution, remains committed to State ownership of all the means of production, distribution and exchange, urges Her Majesty's Opposition to make clear to the nation exactly which industries and which firms it would nationalise or take under any form of State control.

Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin)

On a point of order. Through inadvertence, Mr. Speaker, I failed to get here in time to record my vote on the first Division and I should not like the Chair or anyone in the House to misunderstand my posi tion. I am absolutely and utterly opposed to any further nationalisation.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not understand the point of order which the hon. Member is raising.

Mr. Yates

The orders are that a Member of the House must endeavour to be here within seven minutes of the Division bells going. [HON. MEMBERS: "Six."] Owing to traffic problems in the city I was late. I thought that people might think that I had abstained on the Division, when I have done no such thing.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member had better advise himself about what is or what is not a point of order.