§ 3.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Neil McLean (Inverness)I beg to move.
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to protect from future nationalisation those private industries which are in receipt of State subsidies or loans under the Cotton Industry Act 1959, the Shipbuilding Credit Act 1964 or the Fort William Pulp and Paper Mills Act 1963.The purpose of my proposed Bill is to reassure those industries that the fact that they have received grants and loans from the Government for certain purposes in the national interest will not be used as a reason, should there be a Labour Government in power next time, for nationalising them or for the State taking control of them. It is generally agreed on both sides of the House that money given under these Acts to these companies has been of great benefit both to the industries and to the areas in which they are located.These Acts are the actions of government in this country in which we have a mixed economy. Private capital and public money, or State capital, both have an essential part to play. This is so not only in this country, but in almost every modern country today, except in the Socialist world. Both State and private capital have to play their full part if the economy of a country is to flourish. This country is no exception to the rule. Whichever Government we have in office, it will have to deal both with State and private enterprise and to co-ordinate the activities of the two in the best interests of the country.
An important factor at this stage in our history is that although both parties face the fact that we have a mixed economy there is a fundamental difference between the two parties in approach to the running of the economy. If I understand it correctly, hon. Members opposite believe in Socialism. Going back over the years, the record of the Labour Party is a mixture of Christian humanitarianism and Marxism and of great service according to its beliefs, but the essential core of that philosophy is a belief in Socialism; and if the Labour Party abandoned its Socialism it would abandon its spirit and inner 230 drive. That is why the Labour Party, in spite of whatever economic reasons may arise, cannot abandon Clause Four. It is a fundamental fact of the situation.
I go further and say that I think that the Labour Party, when and where possible, would like the State to take control of various enterprises and industries and would like an extension of public ownership for its own sake. I do not accuse the Labour Party of being idiots. Where this approach is impossible, the Labour Party will come to terms with private industry. But by and large, and where-ever it can, it will extend public ownership and State control. That is its attitude, and there is nothing in this attitude about which it need be ashamed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I said about which the Labour Party need be ashamed, according to its ideas.
On our side, we believe that private enterprise functions in a beneficial way for the development of our economy. At the same time, when necessary, we have never been afraid of the State intervening in support of private industry and—here some of my colleagues will disagree—even of the State starting up an industry. On the other hand, hon. Members on this side of the House would do this only where we feel that it was really necessary. By and large, we believe that as much of the economy as possible, for economic, social and other reasons, should be left in private hands. That is the best and fairest way of developing our economy.
As far a 5 I understand, members of the Liberal Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]—say that this fundamental difference in approach to our economy and to the whole social outlook is completely unimportant. They say that it does not matter whether one believes in Socialism and in the State running things or whether one believes in private enterprise and wishes private enterprise forces to run the economy of the country. They say that that is quite unimportant—and this is a good example of the contribution which they have to make to our philosophy.
Speaking as a Scottish Member, I would say that the Acts in respect of shipbuilding and the Fort William Pulp Mill have been and will be of great benefit to the Highlands in particular and to 231 Scotland in general. Hon. Members opposite are equally as keen to see them successful as we are. Perhaps I may add a word about the Fort William Pulp Mill, which is in my constituency. I hope that I shall be forgiven for doing so. This great project, which has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, will be of immense benefit to the whole of the Highlands. The Government have agreed to make available up to £10 million in loan and grant and another £3 million for houses and ancillary services. The company has gone into this great project, both for its own advantage and profit and, at the same time, for the benefit of the Highlands and the economy of the entire country.
There have, however, been a number of remarks by hon. Members opposite which have cast doubts about the future relationship between the State and these companies. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), in the debate the other day, said that if the taxpayers were being asked to put up their money for the Fort William Pulp and Paper Mill project they were entitled to a stake in the industry. On the face of it, that is a very reasonable statement, but it must be seen against the background of statements made many times by the Leader of the Opposition, who has made his views clear in the matter, which is that "State finance means State participation in the ownership and control and in the profits." If the remarks of the right hon. Member for Belper are taken in conjunction with those of the Leader of the Opposition, who goes a stage further, it means that the State would seek control of these industries both in the running of them and in their profits. Nevertheless, if hon. Members on both sides of the House support the Bill, we can reassure these industries that they will not be taken over by the State if the party opposite comes to power. I hope that they can be reassured.
These remarks about these industries must be seen against the background of the various statements made by the Labour Party in the past and in the present. I should like to ask the Labour Party one question. If the Leader of the Opposition becomes Prime Minister, does he intend, as many hon. Members of his party undoubtedly think, to seize the 232 commanding heights and to carry the revolution one stage further forward? Will he do that? Many people in his party support him because they think that he will. Is it his aim to seize the commanding heights and to carry the revolution one stage further politically? Or, on the other hand, will he act according to what he tells his friends privately in the City when he reassures them that he will not nationalise their industries and that they will be all right under the Labour Party? Does it mean that the men in the City are being fooled or that the back bench Members are being fooled?
Today, I am more concerned with the narrower subject of the Bill, in which we seek to reassure those industries under the three Acts I have mentioned that they will not be taken over, should there be a Labour Government, just because they have received Government funds and loans, and that State control would not be made a condition of any further funds and loans. I ask my hon. Friends on this side of the House and hon. Members opposite to support the Bill.
§ 3.40 p.m.
§ Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craigton) rose—
§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)Congratulate the hon. Member on his "maiden" speech.
§ Mr. MillanI rise to oppose the Bill.
I am not sure that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. N. MacLean) made out an effective case for his Bill, but it requires some kind of answer. In the first place, the Bill is misconceived in principle. I do not believe that it is constitutionally sound for one Government to bind the actions of the next Government. Indeed, I do not think that that is possible. Even if the Bill were passed, I do not believe that it would be effective.
But I do not want to rest my case on that. The Labour Party's view on giving assistance to private enterprise has been repeated on a number of occasions. It is simple. Our view is that if large sums of public money are given in assistance to private industry, then the taxpayers, the Government, have the responsibility and, indeed, the duty to see that there is public 233 accountability. If profits are made from this enterprise, then the whole of the profits should not go to private enterprise, but the taxpayer should get a reasonable return. That is what is said in "Signpost to the 'Sixties", and it was made clear in the debate on nationalisation, which we had last week. In fact, the hon. Member has not addressed his mind to that question at all.
In his Motion the hon. Member mentions three Acts of Parliament. I shall say something briefly about each in turn. First, the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, was debated at great length in the House, and all the HANSARD references to the debate are available. Yet the hon. Member did not attempt to prove at any time during the debate on that Act that any hon. Member from this side of the House said that the cotton industry should be taken into public ownership.
We did not say that. That was not a commitment that we made and we have not made the commitment since. Therefore, again, as to the cotton industry the Bill is misconceived. What we said on the Cotton Industry Act was that if it were taken by itself, without other measures by the Government, it would not have the effect of reorganising and re-equipping the industry in the manner that the Government said they intended.
We have had confirmation of that view in the conclusion of the Fourth Report of the Estimates Committee, which reported in May, 1962, which, in its last paragraph, mentioned the purpose of the Cotton Industry Act and said that large sums of money had been voted by Parliament. It went on to say that the Committee
feel bound to record their conviction that, failing a speedy and satisfactory solution to the related problems of imports, marketing, and the fuller use of plant and machinery, much of the expenditure incurred will have been to no purpose.At the time when the Bill was going through, we said nothing about taking part of the cotton industry into public ownership.As to the Shipbuilding Credit Act, again I challenge the hon. Member for Inverness to produce a quotation from HANSARD showing that we on this side at any time suggested that we were 234 committed to taking part of the shipping industry into public ownership. We did not say that. Again, therefore, the Bill is misconceived.
What we did say was that the assistance under the Shipbuilding Credit Act, 1964, came far too late and, what was more, was far too restricted. I am glad to see the hon. Member's interest in the shipbuilding industry which is associated with the Bill. I am not sure that he has ever expressed an interest in it before. The number of people employed in shipbuilding in Scotland went down from 54,000 in 1957 to only 38,000 in 1963. During that period, hon. Members on this side were pressing the Government to do something for the shipbuilding industry.
It is, however, the Fort William Pulp and Paper Mill that I want specially to mention, because, as the hon. Member has said, this project is in his constituency. The project is to cost £19 million and the Government are to provide about £10 million. What we on this side said, and I moved an Amendment to this effect in Committee on the Bill, was that the Government's participation in the project at Fort William should not be on a debenture basis at a fixed rate of interest, but that they should participate in the profits.
An Amendment to that effect was moved from this side of the House on the Report stage of the Bill. The hon. Member for Inverness, however, whose interest, again, I am glad to see in the project, was not present on that occasion. His interest was so intense that he was not present on Second Reading and he was not a member of the Committee which dealt with the Bill, even though the project was located in his constituency.
That whole project depends upon Government money. Who is supplying the timber? It is being supplied by the Forestry Commission, a State-owned enterprise. The water is being provided by the local authorities, by whom the roads are bring provided, also. The rail services, which Dr. Beeching was on the point of closing down just when the venture came forward, are also being provided by nationalised industry with public money.
I go further. It is an impertinence of the hon. Member for Inverness, of all 235 people, to seek to introduce his Bill. If it were not for State enterprise and public money, his whole constituency would collapse into economic depression. Not only does the hon. Member's constituency depend upon the very public services which I have mentioned, but it depends also upon hydro-electricity. Some of us on this side of the House have been fighting for the Hydro-Electric Board against the Government's treatment of it which we have had over the last two years. I do not recollect one occasion on which the hon. Member for Inverness gave us any assistance, although his constituency is vitally interested in the development of hydro-electricity in Scotland.
As an example of the dependence of the Highlands on State enterprise, I ought finally to mention that one of the first Bills which the Government intro
| Division No. 113.] | AYES | [3.51 p.m. |
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Dance, James | Hutchison, Michael Clark |
| Anderson, D. C. | Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) |
| Arbuthnot, Sir John | Doughty, Charles | James, David |
| Ashton, Sir Hubert | Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec | Jennings, J. C. |
| Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) | Drayson, G. B. | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) |
| Barlow, Sir John | Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) |
| Barter, John | Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) | Johnson Smith, Geoffrey |
| Batsford, Brian | Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn | Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith |
| Bell, Ronald | Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. | Kershaw, Anthony |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Farey-Jones, F. W. | Kirk, Peter |
| Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Farr, John | Kitson, Timothy |
| Biffen, John | Fell, Anthony | Langford-Holt, Sir John |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Finlay, Graeme | Leavey, J. A. |
| Bingham, R. M. | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Foster, Sir John | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) |
| Bishop, Sir Patrick | Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) | Lindsay, Sir Martin |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Gammans, Lady | Litchfield, Capt. John |
| Bossom, Hon. Clive | Gardner, Edward | Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield) |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Gibson-Watt, David | Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) |
| Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) | Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan | Longbottom, Charles |
| Box, Donald | Goodhew, Victor | Longden, Gilbert |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John | Gower, Raymond | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh |
| Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Grant-Ferris, R. | McAdden, Sir Stephen |
| Braine, Bernard | Green, Alan | MacArthur, Ian |
| Brewis, John | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) | McLaren, Martin |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter | Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) | Maddan, Martin |
| Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Maitland, Sir John |
| Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Marshall, Sir Douglas |
| Bryan, Paul | Harrison, Col. Sir | Mathew, Robert (Honiton) |
| Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham) | Harwood (Eye) | Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon) |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) | Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Channon, H. P. G. | Harvie Anderson, Miss | Mawby, Ray |
| Chataway, Christopher | Hastings, Stephen | Maxwell-Hystop, R. J. |
| Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) | Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C. |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward | Mills, Stratum |
| Cleaver, Leonard | Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Cooke, Robert | Hiley, Joseph | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) | Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr) |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) | More, Jasper (Ludlow) |
| Cordle, John | Hirst, Geoffrey | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) |
| Corfield, F. V. | Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Morrison, John (Salisbury) |
| Coulson, Michael | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin | Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles |
| Courtney, Cdr. Anthony | Holland, Philip | Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) | Hollingworth, John | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. |
| Crawley, Aidan | Hopkins, Alan | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Cunningham, Sir Knox | Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. | Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) |
| Curran, Charles | Hughes Halls", Vice-Admiral John | Percival, Ian |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Hulbert, Sir Norman | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth |
§ duced into the House after 1959 was the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act, 1960, the purpose of which was to provide Government money for building ships to maintain shipping services to the Highlands. That is another matter in which the hon. Member for Inverness has a vital constituency interest, but on that one, also, he did not speak on Second Reading, he was not on the Committee which dealt with the Bill and he did not speak on Report.
§ For the general reason that the Bill is misconceived, and, particularly, considering the quarter from which the Bill comes, the House should reject it.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
§ The House divided: Ayes 191-Noes 135.
237| Pike, Miss Mervyn | Spearman, Sir Alexander | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Pitman, Sir James | Stalnton, Keith | Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Pitt, Dame Edith | Stanley, Hon. Richard | Vickers, Miss Joan |
| Pounder, Rafton | Storey, Sir Samuel | Walker, Peter |
| Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch | Studholme, Sir Henry | Wall, Patrick |
| Prior, J. M. L. | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho | Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Proudfoot, Wilfred | Teeling, Sir William | Whitelaw, William |
| Pym, Francis | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret | Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley |
| Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin | Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury) | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.) | Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton) | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Ronton, Rt Hon. David | Thompson, sir Richard (Croydon, S.) | Wise, A. R. |
| Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) | Tilney, John (Wavertree) | Yates, William (The Wrekln) |
| Seymour, Leslie | Turner, Colin | |
| Sharples, Richard | Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) | Tweedsmuir, Lady | Sir F. Maclean and |
| Mr. Neil McLean. |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Hayman, F. H. | Oram, A, E. |
| Ainsley, William | Healey, Denis | Owen, Will |
| Aldritt, W. H. | Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) | Paget, R, T. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Herbison, Miss Margaret | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Hill, J. (Midlothian) | Pargiter, G. A. |
| Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central) | Hilton, A. V. | Pavitt, Laurence |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Holt, Arthur | Peart, Frederick |
| Barnett, Guy | Houghton, Douglas | Pentland, Norman |
| Beaney, Alan | Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr) | Prentice, R. E. |
| Benn, Anthony Wedgwood | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Probert, Arthur |
| Benson, Sir George | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Rankin, John |
| Blackburn, F. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Redhead, E. C. |
| Blyton, William | Hunter, A. E. | Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) |
| Boston, T. G. | Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Rhodes, H. |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. | Hynd, John (Attercliffe) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leies, S. W.) | Janner, Sir Barnett | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M, | Jeger, George | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.) |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Ross, William |
| Callaghan, James | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Short, Edward |
| Castle, Mrs. Barbara | Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Skeffington, Arthur |
| Collick, Percy | Kelley, Richard | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Kenyon, Clifford | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) |
| Crosland, Anthony | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Small, William |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | King, Dr. Horace | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Dalyell, Tarn | Lawson, George | Snow, Julian |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Deer, George | Lipton, Marcus | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Diamond, John | Lubbock, Eric | Steele, Thomas |
| Donnelly, Desmond | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley) | McCann, J. | Stones, William |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | MacColl, James | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall) |
| Evans, Albert | Mackenzie, Gregor | Swingler, Stephen |
| Finch, Harold | MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) | Symonds, J. B. |
| Fitch, Alan | MacPherson, Malcolm | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Fletcher, Eric | Mapp, Charles | Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.) |
| Foley, Maurice | Mason, Roy | Thornton, Ernest |
| Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) | Mayhew, Christopher | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Mellish, R. J. | Warbey, William |
| Ginsburg, David | Mltchlson, G. R. | Weitzman, David |
| Cordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Monslow, Walter | Whitlock, William |
| Gourlay, Harry | Moody, A. S. | Winterbottom, R. E. |
| Grey, Charles | Moyle, Arthur | Woof, Robert |
| Gunter, Ray | Mulley, Frederick | |
| Hamilton, William (West Fife) | Oliver, G. H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Harper, Joseph | O'Malley, B. K. | Mr. Millan and Mr. Carmichael. |
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. N. McLean.