CONTROL OF INDUSTRY IN SCOTLAND. (Hansard, 30 July 1947)

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.

§ LORD MORRISON
My Lords, His Majesty's Government do not agree that present-day legislation tends in the direction suggested. In the many fields of industry and commerce which are in private hands, the determination of the appropriate administrative centre for any particular undertaking is a matter for the industrial and commercial interests concerned. In the case of industries which have been or are about to he socialized, His Majesty's Government have been at 742 pains to ensure that within the arrangements for Great Britain as a whole there is the greatest practicable devolution of authority and provision for dealing with special Scottish conditions.
As regards the machinery of the Central Government itself, all the Departments for which my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, is responsible. are administered in Scotland, and the Departments of Ministers whose functions extend to the whole of Great Britain are represented in Scotland by responsible officers to whom is delegated authority to enable Scottish business to be settled on the spot. The arrangements for the conduct of Scottish business are, and will continue to be, kept under close review so as to ensure that the machinery of the various Departments and of the boards of socialized industries is properly related to Scottish needs.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
May I have an answer to the last part of my question, which was whether the Government will set up a Commission of Inquiry? The noble Lord in his reply has not even referred to that very important part of my question, which was the gist of it.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
May I ask the noble Lord if he can quote one instance of any nationalized industry in which any effective devolution of responsible or executive management has been brought into force by any Statute in the last two years?

§ LORD WOOLTON
May I point oat that what the noble Lord has just said is in direct contradiction to what was said yesterday on the Transport Bill?

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
Before the noble Lord replies to the other questions, I would like to have an answer to my question regarding a Commission of inquiry which the noble Lord has not answered. Perhaps there may be other questions to follow.

§ LORD MORRISON
My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I answered the noble Viscount's question and gave it priority. Before one can set up a Commission of Inquiry I suggest it is necessary to be clear what it is desired that the Commission should examine, and whether it is specifically a Scottish issue alone. May I draw the 743 noble Viscount's attention to the words of the Prime Minister on this point in another place on October 10, 1945? The Prime Minister said: … any question as to what is the most suitable form of government for Scotland in post-war years raises political and economic issues involving other parts of the United Kingdom and can therefore only appropriately be raised as part of a general measure for the revision of the machinery of government for Great Britain. I hope the noble Lord will agree that in the light of that statement a hasty decision should not be made, but that full consideration should be given to the wider issues involved.

§ LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER
My Lords, arising out of that answer, may I ask His Majesty's Government whether, having solved with comparative ease some of the most difficult political and administrative problems in the world, they would welcome a discussion in the following terms: To ask His Majesty's Government to appoint a Committee or Commission (as they think best) to inquire into the problems of devolution and decentralization in nationalized industries? That refers specifically, but not exclusively, to Scotland. If His Majesty's Government would agree to that I propose, if I may be allowed to say so, to put a question on the Order Paper as soon as I can in the autumn sittings, and I hope the Leader of the House will give us lots of time to talk about it.

§ LORD MORRISON
I can only make a personal reply on the spur of the moment. I am unable to speak for the Government. Personally I should welcome such a Motion because it would enable fuller discussion to be given than is possible in reply to a question in this House. As I am sure all noble Lords will readily agree, this is not in any sense a Party political question.

§ LORD TEVIOT
My Lords, arising out of the answer, in which the noble Lord rather intimated that Scotland should be bunched together with other members of the Commonwealth, is not Scotland in a unique position? I do not think that what might apply to another part of the Empire would necessarily suit Scotland, and I feel that the noble Lord, being a Scot, should have more responsibility 744 than he has at the moment in regard to the carrying out of any legislation which is agreed to in Whitehall and here. I do hope that the request of my noble friend will be granted, because although I am far from being a Scottish nationalist I feel that we can go a long way to satisfy the ambitions of the Scots to manage their own affairs.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY
My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, does put down such a question as he mentions, I hope he will not confine it to nationalized industries but will extend it to the whole range of Government administration and apply it to all the other affairs of the nation with which Government Departments are concerned, not only with regard to Scotland but with regard to the whole of the rest of the country. There is a great problem to be discussed concerning administration and all the work done by the Government Departments. I hope the noble Lord will word his question with that in view.

§ LORD MORRISON
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, what I tried to say was that it appears to me that before this question can be thoroughly examined it will be found to involve other parts of the United Kingdom as well as Scotland. You cannot specify Scotland separately on an issue like this, therefore I am looking at it from a wider point of view. It is necessary to give full consideration not only to Scotland but to the wider implications involved.

§ EARL HOWE
In view of what the noble Lord says, what is the explanation of the Government's attitude in the discussion on the Transport Bill to the proposal to set up a Transport Council for Scotland? How does he harmonize the responsibilities?

§ LORD MORRISON
I am afraid the question of harmonizing responsibilities is not one of my responsibilities.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
Could I have an answer to my question? This question refers specifically to industry and commerce, and particularly to the nationalization of transport. It is the question of de-centralized control, responsibility and administration.

§ LORD MORRISON
The noble Earl is trying to lead me into a long discussion, 745 which would be against the rules of the House. I could probably give him a reply which would not satisfy him. It is, I am aware, an arguable question. I repeat that this is not a Party political question, and I hope that no noble Lord would desire that it should be made so. It is entirely non-Party and I cannot add anything to what I have said.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
The noble Lord cannot say "Yes"?

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
In the whole course of the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, he tried to lead us to assume that the Government were in full touch with Scottish feelings in this matter. Is it not a fact that their heads are buried in The sand so far as Scottish feelings are concerned?

§ LORD MORRISON
I am sure the noble Viscount would not expect me to admit that the heads of the Government are buried in the sand.