Sitting of 18 February 1953

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For the Isle of Thanet, in the room of Edward Carson, Esquire, commonly called the Honourable Edward Carson (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF FOOD

    Bacon
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Food his latest estimate of the non-take-up of the bacon ration; and to what extent this surplus has enabled him to increase the ration from 4 oz. to 5 oz. as from 22nd February.
    The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): About 90 per cent. of the bacon ration was taken up by retailers during the eight weeks ending on 24th January. The resulting stock improvement was one factor, but a minor one, in helping us to restore the 5 oz. ration.
    Mr. Lewis: According to that, then, it would appear that the 10 per cent. Non-take-up of bacon is one of the reasons for the increase in the ration of from 4 oz. to 5 oz.? Can we assume that if the price goes up again as a result of the next Budget, so that more people cannot afford it, eventually the Minister will be able to de-ration bacon altogther?
    Major Lloyd George: As a matter of fact the bringing down of the bacon ration to 4 oz. was deemed necessary a considerable time ago, largely due to the question of supplies, from overseas especially.
    Mr. McGovern: In view of the fact that a considerable number of people do not take up the full bacon ration,
    1212
    especially those with large families, and the grocers pass that amount on to other people, how can the Minister tell how many are really taking up their full legal ration?
    Major Lloyd George: The system I use to check this is the system which has been used by my predecessors also for many years. We have also, as I have explained to the House before, the National Survey, the only organised system there is. The fact of the matter is that the take-up throughout the year of the bacon ration varies very considerably from week to week, but the fact remains that the consumption of bacon as a whole is in excess of last year's.
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Food what stocks of gammon bacon, per person per week, he expects to be available for sale off the ration; and how far he anticipates being able to maintain off-the-ration sales for the next six months.
    Major Lloyd George: About 1 oz. per week; and I hope to be able to continue at this rate for the next six months.
    Miss Burton: Should I be right in assuming that the Minister does not expect people who buy bacon off the ration to buy more than 1 oz. per week, because they will not get very far with that? May I ask him if I heard him correctly in answer to the previous Question, and that he said 90 per cent. of the ration was issued to the retailers? Does he not understand that we are concerned with the take-up by the customers, not with the amount issued to the retailers?
    Major Lloyd George: I explained in answer to the previous Question that the 90 per cent. figure is just for one period. If the hon. Lady will look back over the whole year, she will find that the average last year was nearer 96 per cent., because the amount varied from 99 per cent. down to 90 per cent. As I have said before, it is far more satisfactory to have 90 per cent. of a 5 oz. ration taken up than 100 per cent. at 2 oz.

    Sweets and Chocolate
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Food what increases in price for sweets and chocolate took place between November, 1951, and February, 1953.
    Major Lloyd George: The last general increase, ranging from 2d. to 6d. per lb., was in March, 1951. In December, 1951, some sugar confectionery lines were increased by 2d. per lb.
    Mrs. Castle: In view of these increases in price which have taken place in recent months, does the Minister think this the moment to abandon price control?
    Major Lloyd George: As a matter of fact, the really substantial price increase took place under the late Government.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that he is so busy trying to evade his responsibility that he has not answered my point, and will he answer my question, which was, does he think this the moment to abandon price control?
    Major Lloyd George: The fact that I did makes it perfectly clear that I thought so.
    Mr. Willey: In view of the fact that the manufacturers say the price of sweets will be increased, does the Minister think this the right time to remove price control?
    Major Lloyd George: I have answered the Question on the Paper, and I am prepared to see what happens afterwards. I am perfectly certain it was the right thing to do, and at the right time.
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Food to what extent an increased allocation of sugar is to be made for the manufacture of sweets and chocolate.
    Major Lloyd George: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 11th February. The industry will also share in the partial restoration of the cuts made in 1951, of which the House was informed on 27th January.
    Mr. Sorensen: If during the ensuing weeks the Minister finds that the demand for sweets exceeds his anticipation, and therefore makes an inroad on the supplies of sugar, will he take action?
    Major Lloyd George: It cannot make inroads on the supplies of sugar because, as I stated in my answer, to meet the initial rush the 9,000 tons saved from the allocation last year was distributed to manufacturers. I think that we have made ample provision for what we
    1214
    assume will be the initial rush, and I have no cause to be anxious about the situation.
    Mr. Swingler: Does the answer mean that after the initial rush the Minister will expect the consumption of sweets to be less; and if, on the contrary, it is more, where is the extra sugar coming from?
    Major Lloyd George: Let us take that fence when we come to it. At the moment it is quite all right.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Food the national consumption of sweets and chocolates in each of the years 1951 and 1952; and on what estimate of annual consumption he based his policy of de-rationing.
    Major Lloyd George: The estimated civilian consumption in 1951 was about 421,400 tons and in 1952 429,200 tons. There may be a small further increase this year, but this was only one element in my decision to end control.
    Mr. Swingler: Are we to assume from the Minister's previous answers that he has made no provision for a substantial increase in the consumption of sweets and chocolates? Is it his policy to rely on rising prices to curb the housewife's freedom to buy any more sweets and chocolates?
    Major Lloyd George: If the hon. Gentleman had listened a little more carefully at the beginning of Question time and also last week, he would have learned that the 9,000 tons represents a once-for-all distribution of sugar for sweets and that the 8,500 tons is a permanent increase.
    Mr. Swingler: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman know where the extra sugar is coming from?
    Major Lloyd George: The first amount comes from a saving on the allocation last year, and, as I announced in January, the 8,500 tons represents the restoration of half the cut imposed in 1951.

    Cream (Home Production)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Food to make a statement regarding the home production of cream.
    Major Lloyd George: I hope to make a statement in about a week's time.
    Mr. Crouch: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind, in preparing this statement, that there are other counties, besides the three far western counties, which produce very rich and high-quality cream; that the flavour of strawberries and raspberries is improved by a really good cream, and that Dorset itself has a very good reputation in this respect?
    Major Lloyd George: I will bear that in mind.

    International Wheat Agreement
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Food to make a statement on the production of wheat under the International Wheat Agreement.
    Major Lloyd George: I have no statement to make, but if my hon. Friend has any particular point in mind I shall be pleased to look into it.
    Mr. Russell: Is it not a fact that under the present Agreement the acreage under wheat in most of the wheat-producing countries has gone down, especially in Australia; and does not the Minister, therefore, think that the Agreement needs revision in order to prevent that happening?
    Major Lloyd George: The purpose of the Agreement, as my hon. Friend is probably aware, is to ensure supplies of wheat to the importing countries, and as such it has nothing to do with production.

    De-Rationing
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that for the eight weeks ended 29th November, 1952, the latest available date before de-rationing, 9 per cent. of the sweets rations were not taken up; and to what extent this fact decided him in favour of de-rationing at the present date; and whether, in view of the non-take up of 2,318,000 rations of meat for the four weeks ended 29th November, 1952, and the non-take up of 4,540,000 rations of bacon for the four weeks ended 29th November, 1952, he will de-ration these food commodities.
    Major Lloyd George: The rate of uptake of sweets was only one factor in the decision. The uptake had been consistently low over many months. This is not the case with meat or bacon, to which
    1216
    in any case quite different considerations apply.
    Mr. Lewis: Are we to take it then, that the Minister, together with the Chancellor, once he has forced up the prices of these commodities far enough, and once he has got a long continuing non-take-up of these commodities, will then de-ration, as he has done with sweets?
    Major Lloyd George: The latter part of my answer is the only part really affecting this aspect. I said that in the case of meat and bacon quite different considerations apply.

    Meat (Price Tickets)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Food whether he can now announce agreement on a scheme to ensure display of price tags on meat in the shops.
    Major Lloyd George: I am glad to say a recent survey shows that butchers generally are responding to the proposal that they should use price tickets. The response is particularly good in the South. In Scotland I regret that so far it is poor. I am watching the position closely and I shall make a further review after a few weeks.
    Mr. Chapman: If there is not a real response to a voluntary scheme, will the Minister have a compulsory scheme? Is he not aware that he promised a decision within two weeks as long ago as last December, and that we have been waiting for it ever since?
    Major Lloyd George: The reason the hon. Gentleman has been waiting for it ever since is because a survey has been made of various butchers to see how far the voluntary appeal was successful. I am glad to say that, apart from certain areas, the results have been satisfactory, and I am hoping that as a result of certain areas being good others will follow their example.
    Sir T. Moore: In Scotland is not the reason, about which my right hon. and gallant Friend complains, that the purchaser in Scotland trusts the retailer.
    Mr. Hamilton: Exactly what does the Minister mean by a "good response" and a "poor response" in terms of figures?
    Major Lloyd George: There was a good response in London, with about 200

    1217
    out of 300 butchers visited. A poor response would, I regret to say, be Scotland with about 130 out of 1,600 visited.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food whether he will make it compulsory for housewives whose butchers fail to place price lists in places of easy access and within reading distance, to be supplied with price lists on application and instructions on how to distinguish between first and second qualities.
    Major Lloyd George: I do not think this would be practicable.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his predecessor, his Parliamentary Secretary and, I think, he himself pleaded for three or four years for these tickets on meat, and as there is widespread feeling among housewives that they are being exploited by the butchers, will he take some steps such as withdrawing the ration from butchers who refuse to put tickets on the meat?
    Major Lloyd George: At the moment the only compulsion on the butcher, as the hon. Lady knows, is to put the price list in a conspicuous place where it can be seen by the shoppers. As I have said, in answer to previous Questions, I hope that the practice of putting tickets on meat will extend.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the Minister aware that the price list is very difficult to interpret? It can be interpreted by the butchers but not by the housewives, and the question of whether they are getting first, second or third quality is still anyone's guess.
    Major Lloyd George: I sympathise very much with them, but I do not think that this problem is entirely confined to these particular people. I am not at all sure that before the war a good many people could not tell.

    French Meat
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Food what conversations he has had with the French authorities, with a view to increasing the import of French meat.
    Major Lloyd George: None recently. France is not a traditional supplier of meat to the United Kingdom. But I am always prepared to consider offers of meat from France if price and quality are right, and subject to public and animal health safeguards.
    Mr. Edelman: Is it not the case that France, which is certainly not a traditional supplier of meat to this country, is prevented from selling the meat which she has had to spare because of special interests in this country who have been unwilling for her to become such a supplier? Is it not the case that France has a surplus of meat, and should we not now endeavour to obtain some of it?
    Major Lloyd George: The meat is available but the question of price must be considered. The last offer of meat from France was £342 a ton, which is considerably higher than we are paying elsewhere.
    Mr. Baldwin: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend take every precaution to see that if meat is imported from France, it is not imported from a foot-and-mouth disease area?
    Mr. Edelman: As the Minister has not recently had discussions with France on this subject, how does he know the price which the French are asking today; and as, in the past, cases of foot-and-mouth disease, lack of sterling and the question of price have all been put forward as objections to prevent the importation of French meat into this country, will he re-examine the whole question?
    Major Lloyd George: I am always open to consider any offers. The hon. Gentleman asked, "When did I hear anything about it," and I said that I had not heard about it since 11 months ago, when the price was £342 a ton, which, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman will agree is far too high for us to pay.

    Butchers' Profit Margins
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Food what increases he has recently authorised in the profit margins of retail butchers; what the total amount is of these increases; and what effect they will have on meat prices.
    Major Lloyd George: From 16th February, margins were adjusted to raise the profit to the trade by £1.8 million in a full year. This adjustment is only one of many factors and will not of itself significantly affect retail prices.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: How is it possible for butchers to get another £1.8 million a year out of the meat trade without that affecting the price of meat

    1219
    to the consumer? Is not this just another case of how everybody does well under the present Administration except the wretched consuming public?
    Major Lloyd George: I said in my answer that this is only one of many factors. If this factor were the only one, the retail price of meat would rise about.15d.
    Mr. Keenan: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the retail butchers are able to get whatever price they like because he will not do what we have asked him to do—get them to exhibit the price per lb. of the commodity so that the customer knows what he is buying? The butchers are already getting more than they are allowed.
    Major Lloyd George: This is exactly the same method as was employed in May, 1951.
    Mr. Chapman: Will the Minister give an honest answer to the Question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] Will the Minister give a straight answer to it? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot hear what is being said.
    Mr. Chapman: Will the Minister give an assurance that he will take some of this margin from the butchers if they will not agree to a universal scheme for displaying meat prices in the shops?
    Major Lloyd George: No, Sir.
    Mr. G. Wilsonasked the Minister of Food whether his Department will include a higher proportion of beef in the ordinary meat ration allocated to the St. Austell district of Cornwall on the grounds that its population contains a large number of workers engaged in heavy work in the china clay industry, who are not, and cannot be, provided with canteen facilities and whose traditional diet of Cornish pasties cannot be suitable prepared with mutton or pork.
    Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. The St. Austell district is receiving on average its fair proportion of beef and an increase could only be made at the expense of allocations to other districts.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister aware that not only are the St. Austell china
    1220
    clay workers very big dollar earners in the export market, but Cornwall is a beef exporting county, and will my right hon. and gallant Friend look into the special case of the clay workers, as their needs cannot be met by industrial canteens?
    Major Lloyd George: The real position is that the St. Austell district percentage is slightly better than that for the western area as a whole.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ask the butchers of St. Austell to make this concession in return for their share of the bonus of £1.8 million which he has just announced?

    Bread
    Mr. Blackasked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the wholesale section of the bread industry is drawing subsidy for providing the consumer with the National fixed price loaf against retail selling costs which, in part, the wholesaler is not bearing; and if he will adjust the subsidy accordingly.
    Major Lloyd George: The information on costs and margins which my Department receives from all sections of the trade does not support this view.
    Mr. Black: Is it not a fact that costings as submitted to the Ministry for subsidy purposes by the Wholesale and Multiple Bakers Federation for the March and June quarters of last year showed a difference between the profit of the wholesaler and the loss of the retailer of more than 10s. per sack whereas the subsidy is the same per sack?
    Major Lloyd George: The fact is that the producer-retailer provides a service which is not provided by the wholesaler. Figures published by the National Association of Master Bakers in March do not substantiate the claim that the profit is necessarily greater than that of the producer-retailer. In any case, in co-operation with the baking industry we are having an investigation into the position.
    Mr. Blackasked the Minister of Food to consider fixing a wholesale price for the National loaf, in addition to the present fixed retail price, to allow a reasonable margin for retail selling costs

    1221
    based on the average of retail selling margins for all sections of the food industry given in the recently published Government census of retail distribution.
    Major Lloyd George: There are no sufficient grounds for altering at this date the arrangements which have been working for twelve years.
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Food when he will permit the return of the loaf from 1¾ pounds to its former weight of 2 pounds.
    Major Lloyd George: I am looking into this.
    Mr. Crouch: Is not this an opportune time when the white loaf is being introduced to let the housewife have two pounds of bread instead of one pound and three-quarters which so many think is two pounds, a practice introduced by the late Socialist Government?

    Ration Books
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Food what foodstuffs still remain rationed; what space is regarded as the irreducible minimum in the ration book for the coupons or dockets that these rationed foodstuffs need occupy, as compared with the standard ration book as used during the last few years; what steps he is taking to reduce the size of the present ration book; and what economies can be anticipated by the substitution of a modified and simplified ration card, in view of the curtailment of foodstuffs' rationing.
    Major Lloyd George: Meat, bacon, sugar, butter, cheese, margarine, cooking fats and eggs are still rationed. The ration book for the year commencing next May will contain eight pages less than the present book. Any further reductions which are practicable will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Nabarro: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise how greatly the general public will welcome de-rationing; and as an earnest of the desire of Her Majesty's Government to scrap all food rationing at the earliest possible minute, will he introduce the smallest possible ration book and endeavour to impose a time-table to get rid of rationing at the earliest possible minute?
    Mr. J. T. Price: Is it not becoming increasingly obvious to the House and to the nation that the function of the Minister is that of being official receiver to wind up the affairs of the Ministry?
    Major Lloyd George: If it is of benefit to the country, I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman.

    Sugar Rationing (Staff)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Food the number of persons employed by his Department in the administration of sugar rationing; and what financial saving, in respect of salaries and overheads, would result from abolition of such rationing.
    Major Lloyd George: About 300 staff are employed. If sugar rationing were abolished, the salary saving would be about £100,000. Other savings cannot be estimated.
    Mr. Nabarro: Flushed with the great success of his earlier de-rationing measures, will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that the greatest single service he can perform to the housewives of this country is to de-ration sugar at the earliest possible moment, and further to extinguish himself and his Ministry?

    Tea Prices
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the prices of 21 brands of tea, representative of the teas ordinarily bought by the bulk of consumers, is used in computing the interim index of retail prices; that, for these 21 brands, the average level of prices in mid-January, 1953, was about 16 per cent. higher than in January, 1952; and whether he will, therefore, re-introduce price control on tea.
    Major Lloyd George: The increase arose from removal of subsidy last June. Since control ended in October, the average price has declined slightly, even though the public are buying a higher proportion in the better blends.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that that directly contradicts the answer of the Minister of Labour to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), which appeared in HANSARD of 5th February? The facts are that to meet—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is starting to state the facts. He ought to be asking for them.
    Mr. Lewis: I started by saying "Is the Minister aware." I will put my question again. Is the Minister aware that that contradicts the answer given by the Minister of Labour to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, contained in HANSARD of 5th February; and is it not a fact that all the prices of teas have gone up, and that it is only the very cheap brands, which are mainly dust, that people can now afford to take up?
    Major Lloyd George: My answer does not contradict the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend at all, because the opening part of my answer was that the increase arose from the removal of subsidies last June.
    Captain Pilkington: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend consider that there is any significance in the phrase in this Question—"the bulk of consumers"?
    Mr. Remnant: Is the Minister aware that the sale of the lower-priced packets of tea is to be deprecated because the better qualities of tea go a great deal further?

    Calves (Slaughter)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Food at how many markets held on Saturdays calves are sold for slaughter; and for how long they are kept before being killed.
    Major Lloyd George: Ten. The calves are slaughtered either on the same day or on the following day.
    Mr. Johnson: Can the Minister say how it is possible to slaughter calves sold on a Saturday the same day or the following day, when so few slaughterhouses, if any, are open; and what arrangements are made for the feeding of the calves until such time as they are slaughtered? Is he satisfied that these arrangements are adequate?
    Major Lloyd George: If the hon. Gentleman has any instances where they are not satisfactory, I shall be happy to look into them.

    Sausages (De-Control)
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Food if he is yet in position to make his promised statement about sausages.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Food to state the nature of controls and restrictions still in force governing the contents of pork, beef and other meat sausages including milk powder content and the skins; whether such controls and restrictions can be removed; and when he proposes to restore independence to manufacturers of sausages.
    Major Lloyd George: Thanks to increased supplies of meat I am able to remove the controls on price and meat content on 1st March. This new freedom will enable manufacturers to provide at competitive prices the widest possible varieties of sausages. Local and personal preferences of consumers can now be satisfied again.
    Mr. Nabarro: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend appreciate that none will lament the passing of that Socialist monstrosity—the Webb milk sausage?
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that every housewife in this country will welcome his action? Is this not further proof of the intentions of the Conservative Government week by week to fulfil their promises?
    Mr. Webb: May I ask the Minister what effect this decision will have on the subsidy for manufactured meat, which will continue to be given to butchers? They are still to get the subsidy, but he is discontinuing price control. Is this not a serious decision to take if, apart from the argument whether it is a good thing to control or not to control, in fact the Government are going to continue to give the subsidy on manufactured meat?
    Major Lloyd George: If the right hon. Gentleman would put down a Question on that point, I should be glad to give him a full answer.
    Mr. Manuel: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to do away with this control, will he take such protective steps as are necessary to safeguard the bread supply because of the increase of bread crumbs in the sausages?

    Margarine (Package Markings)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food if he can explain the significance of the letter D, on certain packages of margarine, and the letter W, on others; and how far there is any public preference expressed for W margarine.
    Major Lloyd George: The letter indicates the factory at which the margarine was made. As regards the second part of the Question I have no information.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is an expressed desire for margarine W in the West of Scotland, and is that because it is fresher and contains more nut oil than the other?
    Major Lloyd George: The ingredients of all margarines are specified and supplied by the Ministry. There may be different processes of manufacture, but so far as the ingredients are concerned, they are identical in all.

    Eggs (Interim Marketing Scheme)
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Food if he is now in a position to make a statement on the system of distribution following the de-control of egg rationing; and, if not, when he will be able to do so.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Food on what date eggs will be derationed.
    Major Lloyd George: The new arrangements will come into force on the 26th March. As the detailed statement of these arrangements is necessarily rather long I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT in a written answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
    Miss Burton: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that, contrary to the policy of this Government, eggs will now be accessible from the point of view of price to every section of the community?
    Major Lloyd George: Thepurpose of this de-control is to try to get eggs into the shops, which has been quite impossible for the last seven or eight years.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Are these arrangements going to produce one more egg?
    Major Lloyd George: I think that is a gross understatement by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Mr. Webb: May I ask the Minister whether, in view of his decision, he has considered the anxieties of the National Farmers' Union about the breakdown of the orderly marketing of eggs, and whether his scheme, temporary or long-term, will in fact, as the National Farmers' Union require, involve the sending of eggs to licensed packing stations?
    Major Lloyd George: If the right hon. Gentleman will await the long and detailed statement which is to be made, he will find that when the original statement was made last November in the House, we said that we would immediately proceed with consultation with the National Farmers' Union, and as a result of these consultations this scheme has been put forward.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there has been a greater demand for day-old pullets this spring than there has been for four years, and it is not uncommon for producers in the habit of buying 50 day-old pullets to increase their order to 300 or 400?

    White Flour
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Food if he will defer the introduction of the new white flour until the House has had an opportunity of discussing this subject.
    Major Lloyd George: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hynd: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered distinguished medical opinion warning the public about the harmful effects of the white flour, as given by the Radio Doctor on two occasions? Will he give us the opportunity of discussing the scripts of the broadcasts, which I have in my possession, before the new flour is put on the market?
    Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman should put down a Question to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on that. The National flour is available to anybody who wants it and the white flour is also available to those who want it. Whatever is added to the white flour is added only as a result of advice after investigation by the medical authorities concerned.
    Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order. May we have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how we may put Questions to Parliamentary Secretaries as the Minister has now invited my hon. Friend to put a Question to his Parliamentary Secretary?
    Mr. Speaker: I heard what transpired. and I thought the subject-matter of the Question which it was suggested might be asked of the Parliamentary Secretary had nothing to do with the Ministry of Food but was concerned with some broadcasting scripts.
    Miss Lee: Will the Minister reconsider his answer? The kind of bread for which they pay money is an important matter to housewives. They are often greatly perplexed. Will the Minister give the housewife some information in simple non-technical terms so that she may know the value of the different kinds of bread?
    Major Lloyd George: The National loaf will continue as it is today. Those who wish to have white tour—I understand there are a number—can get it. But the National loaf remains the same.
    Mr. Shinwell: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has invited us to ask his Parliamentary Secretary a Question on the subject of white flour, might I now ask the Parliamentary Secretary to state his views on that subject?
    Mr. Speaker: That would be quite irregular.
    Mr. Hynd: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Diseased Animals
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food the numbers and types of animals that were found to be so diseased, either wholly or in part, as to be unfit for human consumption during last year; and what proportion in each case this represented.
    Major Lloyd George: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Freeman: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give the proportion by number of the animals as well as the proportion by weight?
    Major Lloyd George: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it took a very long time to provide the answer to this question. The proportion ranges from about 1.4 to under 1 per cent.
    Following is the information:
    Figures for the year ended 31st December, 1952, are not yet available but for the year ended 30th September, 1952, the numbers of animals wholly condemned after slaughter were as follows:

    —

    Number of carcases wholly condemned

    Percentage of total number of animals slaughtered

    Cattle

    33,383

    1·41

    Calves

    21,273

    1·71

    Sheep and lambs

    22,252

    0·33

    Pigs

    224,441

    0·43

    Records are not yet available from all local authorities of the number of carcases of which parts only were condemned but we have records of the total weight of all meat condemned, including parts of carcases, and the percentage this represents of the total weight of meat produced and slaughtered during the period was as follows:

    Cattle

    …

    …

    1 43

    per cent

    Calves

    …

    …

    1·41

    " "

    Sheep and lambs

    …

    …

    0·32

    " "

    Pigs (a)

    …

    …

    0·55

    " "

    (a) Does not include condemnations of individual cuts of otherwise sound bacon pigs, records of which are not maintained.

    Rationed Foods (Prices)
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Food the increased cost per person per week for rationed foods since April, 1952, to the latest convenient date; and whether he will name any foods rationed in April but de-rationed since, if these are not included in the final estimate of increase.
    Major Lloyd George: About 7½d. excluding tea and gammon on ration levels at April, 1952.
    Miss Burton: Do I understand from what the Minister has said that the increase on rationed foods per person per week over the past year has been about 7½d.? Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us that the increase over the previous year was 1s. 5½d.?
    Major Lloyd George: The hon. Lady had better look at her Question again. It says "since April, 1952." I have given her the figures since April, 1952.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Food what is the present rate of subsidy on the price of each of the rationed commodities now subsidised; and what is the weekly value of the food subsidies to a family of four compared with that of 12 months ago.
    Major Lloyd George: As the answer to the first part of the Question contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The weekly value of the subsidies to a family of four is estimated at 9s. 5d. during the current financial year as compared with 12s. 8d. the previous year.
    Mr. Swingler: May we have a firm assurance from the Minister that, before he contemplates final extinction, he will put up a battle on behalf of the poorer housewives to maintain the subsidies which are left? Can we have an assurance that there will be no further tampering with the subsidies this year?
    Major Lloyd George: I should not have thought the hon. Gentleman wanted an assurance. The family of four that he mentions is 3s. per week better off since this Government came to office as a result of my right hon. Friend's Budget.
    Following is the information:

    UNIT SUBSIDIES ON RATIONED FOOD IN 1952–53

    Commodity

    Unit

    Unit Subsidy

    Pence

    Bacon

    lb.

    7½d.

    Eggs

    doz.

    10d.

    Meat (carcase)

    lb.

    1½d.

    Butter

    lb.

    8¼d.

    Cheese

    lb.

    1½d.

    Margarine (domestic)

    lb.

    1¾d.

    Cooking fat (domestic)

    lb.

    2d.

    Sugar (domestic)

    lb.

    1¼d.

    Milk Consumption
    Mr. I. O. Thomasasked the Minister of Food the national total of milk consumption for each year from 1939 to 1952; how far there has been substantial reduction in consumption of milk during 1952 as compared with 1950 and 1951; and what he considers to be the reason for such reduction.
    Major Lloyd George: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL
    1230
    REPORT. There was no substantial reduction in the national consumption of mill during 1952 as compared with 1950 am 1951. The decline was less than 1 per cent. and 1.7 per cent. respectively am is too small to be attributed to any particular reason.
    Mr. Thomas: Does the figure of 1 per cent. relate to hundreds of thousands or to millions of gallons?
    Major Lloyd George: When the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures he will see that the position really is as I have said, that the reduction is too small to be attributed to any particular reason.
    Mr. Thomas: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not replied to my question. I presume he has the figures in front of him. To what quantity of milk does the percentage which he has quoted relate? Does the 1 per cent. involve hundreds of thousands of gallons or millions of gallons?
    Major Lloyd George: I believe it to be about 11 million gallons.
    Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the consumption of milk in 1952 fell for the first time for a very long period and that the amount consumed was not only less than in 1951 but also less than in the previous year? Is not this a very serious reversal of the trend of milk consumption in this country?
    Major Lloyd George: I can only repeat what I have said, that the trend is so small at the moment that it cannot really be attributed to anything in particular.
    Following is the information:

    LIQUID CONSUMPTION OF MILK IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

    CALENDAR YEARS 1939 TO 1952

    Million gallons

    1939

    …

    …

    …

    863.3

    1940

    …

    …

    …

    937.0

    1941

    …

    …

    …

    1063.9

    1942

    …

    …

    …

    1114.3

    1943

    …

    …

    …

    1169.0

    1944

    …

    …

    …

    1205.1

    1945

    …

    …

    …

    1242.8

    1946

    …

    …

    …

    1303.9

    1947

    …

    …

    …

    1305.5

    1948

    …

    …

    …

    1417.1

    1949

    …

    …

    …

    1513.8

    1950

    …

    …

    …

    1557.2

    1951

    …

    …

    …

    1572.9

    1952

    …

    …

    …

    1546.1

    Icelandic Trawlers (U.K. Landings)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Food what answer he has given to the proposal by the Milford Haven Dock Company that Icelandic trawlers should land fish at Milford Haven.
    Major Lloyd George: I will send the hon. Member a copy of a letter I am sending to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), who has been in correspondence with me on this subject.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware, if he is not too busy committing departmental suicide, that the housewife is being rendered desperate by the shortage of fish and the increase in price, and will he give an assurance that, if arrangements are made to have this fish landed at Milford Haven, he will not allow vested interests to sabotage its distribution?
    Major Lloyd George: I will not accept what the hon. Lady says either about the price or the quantity of fish. She knows perfectly well that this is a serious matter and that we are in communication with the Icelandic Government. There is nothing that I can do at the moment except to say that she should look at the letter that I will send to her.
    Mr. Donnelly: As the Minister has heard the consumer's cry "from Blackburn's sooty mountain to Pembroke's pebbly strand," will he not reconsider what he has just said because it amounts to the complete abdication of his responsibilities in the distribution of fish?
    Major Lloyd George: No, I cannot agree for a moment with that.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Conscientious Objectors
    Mr. Wadeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he will amend the existing procedure relating to National Service men who, after completing their full-time service, develop conscientious objections to part-time service, in order to ensure that such National Service men are not obliged to serve a sentence of imprisonment prior to their plea of conscience being considered by the advisory tribunal.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): I have nothing to add to the reply on this subject which I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on 29th October, 1952.
    Mr. Wade: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider that this procedure is contrary to the principles of justice? Does he agree with his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War who, in reply to a Question of mine yesterday, said that a person claiming conscientious objection has to provide some form of evidence that he really believes what he says; and does he agree with his hon. Friend that incarceration in a civilian prison like Wormwood Scrubs or some other jail is a suitable method of obtaining that evidence?
    Mr. Birch: The hon. Gentleman realises that there is nothing new about this practice. It has been going on for a number of years, and hon. Members on both sides of the House realise that National Service, both whole-time and part-time, is a heavy burden upon the young men of this country. Those who seek to evade it should not be able to do so lightly. Such men as the hon. Member has in mind have already had a chance, when being called up, to state their conscientious objection and they have not done so.

    Forestry Workers (National Service)
    Captain Duncanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he will release temporarily men from the Forces who were forestry workers so that they could assist in extracting timber blown down in the gales in the North-East of Scotland.
    Mr. Birch: A close watch is being kept on the position. If the responsible authorities ask for assistance from the Services, their request will of course be sympathetically considered.
    Captain Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware there is a big demand for unskilled labour which can only be supervised by skilled foresters? As there cannot be many very skilled foresters in the Forces, would my hon. Friend consider releasing them until this mess is cleared up?
    Mr. Birch: The consideration my hon. and gallant Friend has put forward will, of course, be kept in mind
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister extend this temporary release to all those whose families have had their livelihood or homes affected by the recent floods and gales, as was done last year when a similar disaster took place?
    Mr. Birch: That, of course, is a much wider question.

    PRISONERS OF WAR, KOREA
    Sir L. Ropnerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence the number of British prisoners of war captured in the war in Korea and still held by the enemy.
    Mr. Birch: Thirty-nine officers and 909 ratings or other ranks have been reported as prisoners of war in Korea. In addition, three officers and 36 other ranks are reported as missing, believed prisoners of war.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Government propose to make a further detailed statement on the war in Korea, and why should we in this House have to rely for our information on what is happening in Korea, particularly to our own Forces, on what appears in the American Press?
    Mr. Birch: Naturally my noble Friend is anxious to consult the convenience of the House in this matter, but he made a long statement not long ago. During this period of stalemate it is rather difficult to make a statement which differs in any material degree from the previous statement, but if there is any desire for a further statement it can be made.
    Mr. Shinwell: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that a report appeared in one of the American newspapers sent to hon. Members of this House to the effect that the Commonwealth Division was being taken out of the line completely for a period of rest? Is that not information that ought to be conveyed to this House and not in an indirect way? Does not the question I am now putting directly arise out of the question of what is happening to the prisoners of war in Korea?
    Mr. Birch: If the right hon. Gentleman desires a statement it can easily be made.
    Mr. Speaker: Captain Duncan.
    Mr. Nicholson: Those last two supplementary questions had nothing to do with the Question at all. May I ask about British prisoners of war, the subject of the Question?
    Mr. Speaker: The supplementary questions were relevant, and we must get on I am afraid it is frequently my painful duty to prevent hon. Members asking supplementary questions, otherwise there would not be a chance for the hon. Members who follow. Hon. Members must take it with patience. It is as painful to me as it is to them.

  MAURITIUS

    Drunkenness
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many cases of drunkenness were known to have occurred in Mauritius during 1952; in how many cases proceedings were taken against the people concerned; and for what offences.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): The number of cases of ordinary drunkenness reported to the police in Mauritius in 1952 was 1,832, but alcohol contributed to 3,025 other cases. I have asked the Governor for details of the cases in which proceedings were taken and will write to the hon. Member when the information is available.
    Mr. Rankin: Would the Minister indicate how the number of prosecutions in 1952 compares with the number in the previous year? Has it diminished or increased?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I regret I have not got those figures, but I will certainly obtain them.

    Intoxicating Liquor (Manufacture and Sale)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there are numerous restaurants in the main towns of Mauritius where alcohol is sold from the hours of 7 a.m. till after midnight; whether he is aware that this has very serious social repercussions on the population; and whether he will take steps to ensure that

    1235
    restaurants can only sell intoxicating liquor if they hold a licence and only within a stated period of time per day.
    Mr. Lyttelton: There are numerous restaurants in the main towns in which alcohol is sold, but a licence must be held for the sale of all intoxicating liquor, and the hours of sale are from 7 a.m. to midnight. The social repercussions on the population have already engaged the attention of the Government of Mauritius and an Ordinance has recently been enacted to restrict the number of licences granted.
    Mr. Rankin: Would the Minister look into the allegation as a great many of these restaurants are just off-licences camouflaged, and they are the seat of a great deal of the social trouble being caused, particularly in Port Louis and Rosehill?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The alterations in the regulation are designed to restrict the number of what I might call bogus hotels which have been selling liquor as the main part of their business.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will prohibit the manufacture, distribution and sale of liquor containing strychnine for the purpose of human consumption in Mauritius.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Under local legislation the addition of any substance to food or drink which will render it injurious to health is an offence, and the importation and disposal of strychnine is controlled. The Government of Mauritius is not aware that strychnine is an ingredient in any liquor manufactured, distributed or sold in the Colony and has no evidence that such liquor has been offered for sale.
    Mr. Rankin: My information, which comes from the Press of Mauritius, is that this strychnine is being used and is being injected into home-distilled liquor, particularly rum. Would the Secretary of State look into this matter a little more closely as these allegations are widespread?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I have given the official information and I think I cannot proceed further other than to ask the hon. Gentleman to give me any instances he has, which I shall be glad to consider.
    Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. Is it not the case that your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that hon. Members who put Questions to Ministers are responsible for the accuracy of the statements contained in those Questions? If the statement made by the hon. Member in the Question which has just been answered is inaccurate, what penalties are imposed upon the hon. Member?
    Mr. Speaker: Responsibility for any inaccuracies in a Question rests with the hon. Member who puts it.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not a fact that an hon. Member must get his information from somewhere? My information was from the Mauritian Press, and I am perfectly ready to hand it over to the Minister.

  KENYA

    Criminal Trials (Regulations)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he is aware that the new Regulations relating to criminal proceedings in Kenya which prevent or limit the preliminary hearing of a charge before a magistrate, or magistrates, and which direct that such a charge must go direct to the High Court for trial are contrary to the principles and practice of British law; and if he will make a statement on the subject;
    (2) what principles of law or justice are to be applied under the new Regulations promulgated in Kenya relating to criminal proceedings by the Attorney-General of Kenya, or other Agent of the Crown there, in granting or refusing his certificate that a criminal charge must go direct to the High Court without a preliminary hearing before a magistrate;
    (3) if he is aware that the new Regulations relating to criminal proceedings which have been promulgated in Kenya designed to reduce delay in executing capital sentences there, prejudice the right of convicted persons to appeal; and if he will make a statement on the subject.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I am aware that the procedure permitted by the Kenya Emergency (Criminal Trials) Regulations, under which a preliminary hearing before a magistrate can be dispensed with by a certificate from the Attorney-General,

    1237
    Solicitor-General or Deputy Public Prosecutor, is a departure from the normal practice of British law. The hon. and learned Member is, however, wrong in thinking that this is contrary to the principle of English law since it is open to the Attorney-General of England, by virtue of his office, to file a criminal information which would bring an accused into the Queen's Bench without an inquiry prior to commitment.
    The intention in making the Regulations is to shorten the period between the apprehension and sentence of persons convicted for offences arising out of the present emergency in order that the full deterrent effect of the sentence may be felt. The trial of accused persons by the Supreme Court will follow the same procedure as if a preliminary inquiry by a magistrate had been held, and the accused will be supplied at least seven days before the date fixed for the trial with a list of the prosecution witnesses and a statement of each witness's evidence.
    I recognise that the defence will lose the advantage of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and of adducing evidence in a preliminary hearing, but I am satisfied that no miscarriage of justice will result from the Regulations. The Law Officers of Kenya will obviously not issue a certificate for trial under these Regulations unless they are satisfied that there is at least a prima facie case against the accused.
    The Regulations reduce the time taken in proceedings only by shortening the period before the hearing of the case by the Supreme Court. The period between sentence and execution remains as before and the right of appeal is thus not affected.
    A copy of the Regulations has been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that during the present emergency one of the most essential things in Kenya is to inspire in the Africans an appreciation of British law and justice? Does he not think that making changes of this kind in the middle of the emergency, ad hoc, is calculated to inspire the very reverse feelings in the Africans and to make a settlement in Kenya still more difficult?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. and learned Gentleman's law is a little rusty. As I have already told him, there is nothing contrary to the principles of English law in what is being done. It is contrary to the practice, but Kenya has an emergency which does not exist in this country.
    Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that where a defence is deprived of the opportunity to see the witnesses it is at a tremendous disadvantage, and if the statements to be supplied to the accused have to he taken from the witnesses, why should those statements not be taken in the presence of the accused and his advisers? Why does it cause delay?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Delays have been very great. I have nothing more to add to the reply that I have already given.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sorensen.
    Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has made an imputation upon my knowledge of law and I should like to put a question arising out of that point. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that any lawyer would take very seriously an imputation upon his knowledge of law.

    COLONIAL TERRITORIES (SLAVE TRAFFIC)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that Africans in Uganda and the Cameroons are being seized by slave traders and sold into slavery in Arabia; what information he has to show whether slave trading has increased or decreased since the statement on this matter by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) on 22nd September, 1943; and what are the measures in operation against slave trading and slave raiding, particularly as affecting British administered African and other areas.
    Mr. Lyttelton: There is no evidence whatever that Africans from Uganda and the Cameroons are being seized and sold into slavery. So far as British administered territories are concerned, slave raiding and trading are illegal and have long ceased.
    Mr. Sorensen: Do I take it from the right hon. Gentleman that statements made by his predecessor on the Front Bench some 10 years ago indicating that there was still some amount of slave raiding and trading, is now inaccurate, that slave operations have entirely ceased since that time, and that all witnesses who say that there is slave trading are therefore incorrect?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I can only stand by the statement that I have made, which refers to happenings today. Among my numerous responsibilities cannot be included that of answering for the accuracy of statements made from the Government Front Bench 10 years ago.
    Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. Question 44 contains the allegation that there is slave trading in the British Empire. Again I ask what penalties are to be imposed upon hon. Members who make statements which are circulated throughout the world and which may cause great disadvantage to the British people?
    Mr. Speaker: There is no penalty, as I told the hon. Member before.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? If an hon. Member really believes the statement he is putting down, is not that sufficient?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Speaker: Hon. Gentlemen should take some steps to verify their statements. If, after that, they are satisfied, I see nothing that can be done.
    Mr. Lyttelton: It may help the House if I say that there have been sensational allegations in the French Press about slave trading in the British Empire. The object of my answer was to show that those allegations are unfounded.

    ANGLO-FRENCH TALKS
    Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent official conversations with the Prime Minister of France.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House on the subject of these conversations on 16th of February, to which I do not desire to add.
    Mr. Wyatt: Has the Prime Minister seen a report in "The Times" today which makes it quite clear that the fate of the French Government, and indeed that of the European Army, depends upon the answers which his Government give to the French proposals for a closer association with the European Army? Will he not remember that he himself invented the idea of the European Army at Strasbourg and suggested that we should be a member of it? Will he not summon forth the imagination which caused him once to suggest union with the French nation?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman seems to be more desirous of imparting information than of receiving it. Anyhow, I have nothing to give him.

SOUTH-EAST ASIA (DEFENCE PACT)
Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether he has any further statement to make on the association by Britain with other members of the Australian, New Zealand and United States defence pact for the defence of South-East Asia.
The Prime Minister: Not at the present time.
Mr. Wyatt: Has the right hon. Gentleman made it clear to the United States Government that it is quite intolerable that there should be a defence pact with New Zealand and Australia in Central and South-East Asia from which this country, which is bound to go to war if either of those nations is attacked, is excluded?
The Prime Minister: I do not think I ought to embark upon a complicated discussion of this kind at Question time. The hon. Gentleman will find that a great deal of this matter was settled by the Government of which he was, I believe, a Member.
Mr. Wyatt: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us some information? If we are not to get it at Question time, when can we get it, if we do not have a debate on the subject?
The Prime Minister: A great deal of information is given out in the House of

1241
Commons from time to time, and I do not see why any complaint should be made on that subject.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sorensen.

BALLOT BOOK (SIGNING)
Mr. Bowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to sign the book after a quarter past three in the House instead of in the "No" Lobby?
Mr. Speaker: I understand the Rule to be that signing the book is in order up to the time when the Ballot is taken.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Miss Burton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise with you a question affecting the rights of Private Members? On the Order Paper for today is the following Question, not for Oral answer, standing in my name:
To ask the Minister of National Insurance whether he has considered the letter from the national general secretary of the Old-Age Pensioners Association concerning the take-up of rationed foods; and what reply has been sent.

I put this Question down previously to the Minister of Food. May I say at once that I am not raising with you the question of a Minister transferring a Question because I know he has the power to do that. I tabled this Question to the Minister of Food on 4th February. On 5th February it appeared on the Notices for the Day for the Minister of Food for 11th February. On 11th February the Minister would have answered that Question as No. 47, but it was the first one not to be reached. The answer was in an envelope awaiting me if I had not transferred it. On 12th February I was informed that the Minister had transferred the Question. Is it in order, when an hon. Member has a Question on the Order Paper for one week and the Minister has been willing to answer it, for it suddenly to be transferred? Has
1242
the Member any redress when the Question has been on the Paper for that length of time?
Mr. Speaker: I have frequently ruled that the transfer of Questions is no responsibility of mine. It is the responsibility of Ministers to decide. If I understood the hon. Member aright, I gather that her complaint is that there was an unreasonable delay in transferring the Question. Am I correct?
Miss Burton: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: The only remedy is that Ministers should take note of the complaint of the hon. Lady and take such action as they can, if they transfer Questions, to do so as quickly as possible so that no further cause for complaints of this nature shall arise.
Miss Burton: With further reference to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance on this point? In the letter mentioned in my Question there were 20 items, of which 15 referred to food. Have I any redress in suggesting that the Question is for the Minister of Food, since 15 out of 20 items referred to the Department of the Minister of Food and not to that of the Minister of National Insurance? That is the burden of my complaint.
Mr. Speaker: Before I answer that, I should have to see the Question. If the hon. Lady will provide me with the facts, I will try to consider the matter.
Mr. Sorensen: May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, with all respect, that you called upon me to ask my Question, No. 47. What happens when you call an hon. Member and someone else intervenes?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must excuse me. I am afraid that we have passed beyond Question time and I should be breaking the Standing Order if I allowed the hon. Member to ask it now.
Mr. Sorensen: What can I do then?
Mr. Speaker: Put it down on the Order Paper again.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Arrangements have been made for a wide debate to take place on the flood and gale damage tomorrow in order to meet the views expressed across the Floor of the House when I made the business statement last week. It is, therefore, proposed to report Progress immediately in Committee of Supply and consider the Motion relating to the flood disasters, which appears on the Order Paper today. The House may consider it best to pass that Motion after a few brief speeches, and then it is proposed to move the Adjournment of the House, upon which the main debate will arise. I hope that these arrangements will commend themselves to the House.
Sir H. Williams: May I ask whether this means that we shall have our usual full opportunity of discussing in Committee of Supply the Supplementary Estimates?
Mr. Crookshank: It does not affect the Supplementary Estimates because we shall not be passing any Estimates tomorrow. They will still come before the House. They must be passed before the end of the financial year.
Mr. Pannell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, although we shall be discussing the flood disasters on the Estimates—
Mr. Crookshank: I am sorry if I did not make myself quite clear. There is to be a Motion. After that, it is hoped that we shall get on the Adjournment, on which the debate will take place.
Mr. Boothby: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, as the gale damage in Scotland differed rather sharply from that in England, some arrangement can be made whereby part of the debate tomorrow can be devoted to a consideration of purely Scottish affairs, or whether that would be difficult?
Mr. Crookshank: I could not answer that off-hand since it has not been put to me previously. Perhaps it can be discussed through the usual channels? I am sure that everyone wants to have a useful and profitable debate.
Mr. H. Morrison: In deciding our own procedure on the Adjournment, we have handled it in such a way that Scotland will come into the picture, as it should. Indeed, one of my right hon. Friends who is a former Secretary of State for Scotland will be speaking. No doubt the Government will take care of that aspect, but it is quite open for Scotland to come in.
Mr. Burden: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that photographs, mosaics and intelligence reports showing the flood damage are now available in the Library and would be of great interest to hon. Members taking part in the debate tomorrow?
Mr. Crookshank: I was not aware of that, as I dare say many other hon. and right hon. Members were not. Perhaps they will take note of it.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  CHRONIC AND AGED SICK (ACCOMMODATION)
  Mr. Janner: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 6th March, I shall call attention to the problem of accommodation for the chronic and aged sick, and move a Resolution.
  WORLD GOVERNMENT
  Mr. Morley: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 6th March, I shall call attention to the need for a world Government, and move a Resolution.
  ENGINEERING INDUSTRY
  Mr. Chapman: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 6th March, I shall call attention to the present position and future prospects of the engineering industry, and move a Resolution.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  IRON AND STEEL BILL
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 17th February.]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Clause 10.—(RESEARCH AND TRAINING.)
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 11.—(PROVISION OF FUNDS FOR BOARD.)
  3.39 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Harvey (Harrow, East); I beg to move, in page 10, line 9, after "funds," to insert "required."
  I hope that this Amendment will find favour not only with my right hon. Friend, but with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because in the discussion of another Bill they were at some pains to try to abolish the levy. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the levy which Clause 11 empowers the Board to raise shall only be raised when absolutely necessary. It is the spirit of this Bill that the Board shall be of assistance and shall not be an imposition upon the industry. It is for that reason that this small Amendment has been tabled, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be prepared to accept it.
  The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Even without the insertion of the word "required," I am doubtful whether the Board could legitimately raise contributions beyond those needed to meet expenditure actually incurred or definitely foreseen. However, if it is thought that there is any uncertainty on this point, I am sure that the Committee would be prepared to see the Amendment accepted.
  Amendment agreed to
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I beg to move, in page 10, line 22, to leave out "and," and to insert:
  "being a method which relates the amount of the contributions of any such producer to his output of, or capacity to produce, iron and steel products or to other matters directly concerning his production of those products, and the scheme."
  The Amendment makes it clear that in the case of a business comprising other
  1246
  production—such as, for example, engineering—as well as iron and steel, the basis for assessment of contributions payable to the Board must be related only to the iron and steel side of the business. By the "iron and steel side" I mean, of course, that side of the business which comprises one or more of the activities listed in the Third Schedule.
  I think that that is what the existing drafting of subsection (2) means and the Committee understand it to mean. We thought, however, that there was an advantage in further clarification, and even though we are satisfied that the Board would not have made a mistake, we hope the Committee will agree that the Amendment is desirable and will accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 10, line 25, at the end, to insert:
  (3) The said scheme may contain provisions for imposing, as respects any period, a limit on the amount to be raised by the Board by means of contributions under the scheme to meet the expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them during that period in respect of all the matters or any one of the matters included in subsection (1) of this section.
  This Amendment proposes to introduce a new subsection (3), which will make it clear that the contributions or levy scheme of the Board may contain provisions for fixing limits, first, upon the total amount of money which may be raised by the Board during any period and, secondly, upon the amount of money which may be raised by the Board in respect of each of their functions and the other matters in subsection (1) separately: for example, imports, research, training and education. administrative expenses, and the Board's remuneration, allowances or pensions.
  The Amendment is so drafted that the Board themselves can, if they wish, write such limits into the scheme. In this case, when the draft scheme is published interested persons will have an opportunity of representing to the Minister under the existing subsection (3), which will now become subsection (4), that different limits should be imposed. If the Board do not include limits in the scheme which they publish, interested persons can represent to the Minister that limits should be imposed.
  In any event, whether the Board do or do not include limits in the scheme, the Minister will now be able, if he thinks fit,

  1247
  to include limits on the total amount of contributions in any period or on the amount of contributions in respect of any of the particular matters which I have outlined. I think the Committee will agree that this check is desirable, and I hope that they will accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Clause permits the Iron and Steel Board to raise a levy on the iron and steel industry for the purpose of carrying out certain duties of the Board. I should like to ask the Minister of Supply a number of questions about the powers of the Board in this respect, the extent to which they may overlap the existing industry fund and exactly what the Board's relationship shall be to the industry, Steel House and himself in regard to levies over the industry.
  It is quite clear that in one respect, at any rate, the levy which the Board may raise upon the industry may overlap the money raised at present under what is called the industry fund. For example, the Board are permitted to raise money to pay any of their outgoings under Clause 9. Clause 9 enables the Board to import material from abroad and, with the Minister's permission, to sell it at a price lower than they paid for it. In other words, a loss may be incurred.
  It is not clear to me at the moment whether that loss would be paid for out of the levy raised by the Board or out of the industry fund, out of which a subsidy is at present paid for materials bought abroad if bought at a high price and sold at a lower price. Plainly, unless we have a satisfactory explanation, it would appear that the Board would have to reimburse themselves by means of a levy on the industry for losses sustained in that way. At present, such a loss would be paid for out of the normal operation of the industry fund. Therefore, my first question on this possible overlap—and there are many other possible overlaps so far as I see—is to ask what is the position of the Board in relation to the industry fund?
  We might also take the opportunity to ask the Minister a wider question. The
  1248
  Board are here given powers to raise a levy. At the moment a levy, and a substantial levy, is raised by the industry itself in order, not to ensure equalisation of cost of production, but to ensure that abnormal charges which are temporary should not fall on any particular producer or section of producers.
  The incidence of the industry fund has an enormous effect on the prosperity, the profits or losses, of individual firms in the industry, and the question arises as to whether, as the Board are here given power to raise a levy for certain purposes, it is right that the Board should have, if not the full power, a substantial authority in deciding to what extent the present fund should be raised, where it should be raised, and how it should be distributed. My purpose in rising is primarily to ask the Minister to what extent he has thought about this matter, what his conclusions are, and what responsibility should rest on the Board in deciding matters concerning the industry fund—matters of vital importance to every producer in the iron and steel industry.
  At the moment, the matter is very largely in the hands of Steel House, who prepare schemes—they have a scheme in operation at all times—for the industry fund. Levies are paid by some firms, and out of the fund other firms get bonuses or payments—"remissions", I think, is the word which is usually used—and the whole thing is done primarily at the instance of Steel House. Sometimes, however, the Minister of Supply comes into it; certainly, he comes into it when any change in the level or the incidence of the industry fund affects the final iron and steel prices.
  As a Board is to be set up covering the whole industry, unlike the Iron and Steel Corporation which covers only part of the industry, we think that they should have special authority over the industry fund, deciding its level, the method by which the money should be raised and how it should be distributed. It is not generally realised how important this industry fund is. I believe that last year it amounted to something near £100 million. It was money raised from certain producers and redistributed in the way which was considered to be equitable.
  The sum no doubt was larger last year than it is this year because of the very

  1249
  high import of semis from abroad owing to our shortage in this country but this year it will still be substantial. It accounts for a very high proportion of the price particularly of the heavy steel products. I do not know the exact figure at the moment but the levy last year was £5 12s. on ingots equal to 25 per cent. of the cost.
  That is a substantial figure and any change up or down must have a considerable effect on the iron and steel industry and maybe on the prosperity of the individual makers in that industry. There is a 20s. levy on bought scrap. The price of our scrap in this country is low. It is kept low because there is a control and so users of scrap get a levy of 20s. Those on the other hand who have to use pig iron get a remission of I think 35s.
  I am not complaining of the existence of the fund. I think that something of that sort is essential. Nor am I complaining of the present distribution of the money in the fund or of the way it is raised. The point I am making is that it is an exceedingly important levy and I am asking to what extent it should remain outside the control and authority of the Board.
  There is constant need for readjustment of this fund. Conditions change and a case is put forward from time to time for the reduction of a levy or an increase, or some important change which may well affect the price of iron and steel products and certainly affects the prosperity and profits of individual producers substantially. Some of the biggest producers contribute many millions of pounds a year to this industry fund. No doubt those who contribute very large sums may sometimes think they have to contribute too much. Others who are beneficiaries may think they do not receive enough.
  There are a number of conflicting interests here which, at present are sorted out at Steel House. They do what they think best and a scheme is finally devised which may be good or may not be good but there is a voluntary arrangement under which all firms agree to abide by the decision. Action is taken by some section of the industry to get a change in the fund in its incidence when it is
  1250
  believed that something is wrong or maybe the industry as a whole think that there should be some change in the balance, and when that affects the final prices of products the Minister steps in and says maybe that the proposed change is entirely wrong and vetos it.
  Up to now all this has happened between Steel House and an occasional recourse to the Minister but now a Board is being established with certain broad responsibilities about the efficiency of the industry and so on. Unfortunately as we have complained it has practically no authority nor powers to see that its suggestions are properly carried out. We have moved Amendment after Amendment to give it that authority but every one has been turned down.
  Here is a case where surely the Board should have some authority. I am not arguing at the moment—I am not certain until I hear the reply of the Minister—exactly what that authority should be, whether it should be the Board which finally decides the balance of the industry fund or the Minister. It should be one or the other; maybe it should be the Minister on the recommendation of the Board. I am sure that it cannot be left in the hands of Steel House. That is certain.
  The Board must come into the picture in some way in an authoritative capacity. It is set up to have a broad supervision of the whole industry, not of one section, and no one would be in a better position than the Board to consider such matters if it were properly equipped and had an independent staff. I doubt whether it will have, but, assuming that it has, it will be better equipped to deal with this matter than any other body. We want to know what say the Board are to have in deciding these matters and what relations there are to be between Steel House and the Board and the Minister in raising this levy which last year amounted to nearly £100 million. We particularly want to know if there is a possible overlap which I suggested might arise if the Board acts under Clause 9 and buys materials abroad.
  There is a third levy and I should like the Minister to give us information about this. This is a special levy for Steel House, a separate affair. It does not amount to such substantial sums; it

  1251
  amounts to 1s. per ton but under competitive conditions 1s. per ton may be very important. As there are 16 million tons being produced at the moment that means about £800,000 per annum. That is quite apart from the levy for research. This is money which goes to Steel House. It comes to 1s. per ton and I think there should be some public accountability for this. I think the Board should step in. We should like to know how the money is spent. I know there will be the strongest objection to the way in which some of the money is spent at the moment because it is spent on political propaganda.
  It is outrageous that money which is largely contributed by publicly owned companies should be devoted to drawing up, issuing and publishing pamphlets supporting the Government's denationalisation Measure and ridiculing the case of the Opposition in favour of maintaining the companies under public ownership. That is what Steel House is doing, presumably with this money raised from the industry by a levy of 1s. per ton.
  I maintain that that is quite outrageous and I am speaking from knowledge as I have a pamphlet here if anyone would like to ask me to quote from it. I think it entirely wrong and that Steel House should be ashamed of itself for doing anything of this sort. It is using public money, it is mostly public money, in taking part in a political campaign demanding that public property should be handed to private individuals. There is a strong case on those grounds alone why that levy should come under some sort of supervision by the Board to see that the levy on steel produced in this country should not be used in this way. I hope the Minister will be able to make some comment about that also. I know that he is not directly responsible but his relations with Steel House are no doubt reasonably close and perhaps he can give some explanation, or if anyone who can speak for Steel House in the Committee can do so he will be welcomed.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to give some information on all these points. The existence of the industry fund is a matter of life and death for the industrial producers in the iron and steel industry. This matter cannot be left to Steel House but should come under the
  1252
  purview of the Board. We think that later on when we come to Report stage it may be necessary if the Minister is not prepared to do so, for the Opposition to move Amendments to ensure that the Board are given some authority in this field. At present we are exploring the situation. We are asking questions. We want to know what the Minister has in mind. Perhaps it is something which will satisfy us. We ask him to say that the authority given in Clause 11 to the Board to raise a fund for certain limited purposes, should be widened so as to permit the Board to have similar or at any rate a large authority over the industry fund at present raised by Steel House.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I listened with interest to the comments of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and the points he raised will no doubt be clarified by my right hon. Friend. There are, however, four points which I would like clarified in connection with this Clause. Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of the costs of operating the Board on an annual basis and whether those costs will, in the most part, relate to the costs of administration and the costs of paying salaries and expenses to the members of the Board; or whether there are any extraneous costs likely to be incurred which will be directly or indirectly of a financing or production character?
  I think there might be some incongruity between the text of Clause 11 and the text of Clause 3. Clause 11 refers to the provision of funds for the Board which will be raised from iron and steel producers. Clause 3, on the other hand, defines the principal purpose of the Board as the exercising of supervision over the iron and steel industry. The two things are not necessarily the same. Under the jurisdiction of this Board are brought something in the order of 2,000 iron foundries. There are also a number of firms other than iron foundries who will come within the jurisdiction of the Board who are not primarily iron and steel producers.
  If the expenses of the Board in the form of a levy, or a contribution, or whatever it may be in the terms of Clause 11, are to be derived only from iron and steel producers—which would be the literal interpretation of the Clause—the corollary is that there are thousands of

  1253
  firms who will be supervised by the Board, but who will not contribute to the administrative costs of the Board. I should like my right hon. Friend to tell the Committee whether the contributions to the Board are to be derived only from those firms who produce iron and steel, or from all the firms coming within the jurisdiction of or supervision by the Iron and Steel Board.
  My third question is in connection with subsection (3) of Clause 11, dealing with the Board submitting a scheme to the Minister for the collection of these contributions. As my right hon. Friend will know, there is always a good deal of controversy in trade associations and similar organisations about how contributions should be made, and on what basis they can be computed. For example, certain large trade organisations base the method of contribution on the number of employees engaged in an individual undertaking. Other associations base it on the value of the turnover of the firm concerned. In the case of an industry such as iron and steel it could conceivably be based on the tonnage of output of each individual firm.
  Those are three alternative methods by which the contributions to finance the Iron and Steel Board might be calculated. It would be helpful if we could be told what my right hon. Friend has in mind about the basis on which a scheme shall be drawn up to cover the contributions of the constituent members coming under the jurisdiction of the Board and who are to be supervised by it.
  The fourth question I wish to ask is one of academic importance, but I think it should be referred to at this stage. Evidently the Iron and Steel Board are to have considerable finances. It would be interesting to know whether their annual balance sheet is to be published; in what form it is to be published; whether it is to be brought to this House; whether it is subject to statutory inspection by my right hon. Friend, and, or, in what other fashion, or by what other means, hon. Members of this House and the general public can examine the finances of the Board, and see how the funds they are raising by statute are being deployed—
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison; On a point of order. Is not that matter dealt with in Clause 14?
  Mr. Nabarro: If that is so, I am sorry, but it arises as a direct result of the content of this Clause and I hope I may be forgiven for bringing it up at this stage.
  Mr. Ian Winterbottom: I hope that I shall be proved wrong when I say that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is an optimist if he expects clarification on the subject of the industry fund. I think we require clarification at this stage because the whole fund is wrapped in mystery. There are two contributions, the levy on serap, iron and ore, and so on, and the 1s. levy on ingot tonnage to cover the purposes of the administration of the fund. No accounts are made public and there is another rather interesting feature. The Iron and Steel Corporation have fought very hard to get representation on the various committees of the Federation. In fact, they have no representative on the finance committee of the Federation which determines how this fund shall be allocated. I assume that the ingot tonnage levy—the political levy, if we can call it that—and the ore levy are kept separately in the internal accounting of the Federation. In fact, however, there is no evidence to this effect.
  The subject is one of great public interest. The "Economist," commenting on the first annual report of the Iron and Steel Corporation, said that it considered that one of the greatest-public services the Corporation could render in its last year would be to make a study of the industry fund and publish fully in its annual report what it discovered, having made that study. The "Economist" was assuming that the Corporation would render a report for the year ending 30th September, and that that would be its last public function. That is the point of view of an independent and, so far as we are concerned, a somewhat critical paper. I urge the Minister to consider the recommendations of the "Economist" on that subject.
  The amount of money that is raised, not from the levy as a whole, but the 1s. an ingot ton, is such a large sum that it becomes a subject of public concern. Twenty million tons of steel a year means £1 million a year coming into the Federation. I believe that this fund was first started in 1939 to raise money for

  1255
  any purpose considered desirable by the industry as a whole, that is to say, by the Executive of the Federation. That is far too much money to entrust to a trade association for functions which must be much wider than the simple running of the affairs of Steel House.
  I support my right hon. Friend in urging the Minister to give the Board some authority over the industry fund and to let them have their representative on the finance committee of the Federation. Perhaps the Federation would be willing to accept that while it would not be willing to accept the suggestion that a representative of the Corporation should serve on the inner and most powerful committee of the Federation which is, therefore, the guiding committee of the industry as a whole.
  These large sums of money should be subject to public supervision. I urged the Minister to consider the proposals I make and, if possible today, to throw as much light on the subject as he can.
  Mr. Sandys: Perhaps it would be convenient if, first, I reply to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who discussed slightly different matters than those raised by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I assure my hon. Friend that the industry will not be asked to pay contributions to the Board to meet extraneous costs beyond those which are specified in subsection (1) of this Clause, which are those incurred:
  "in the exercise and performance …"
  of the functions of the Board, and:
  "in respect of remuneration, allowances or pensions of members of the Board; or in respect of the administrative expenses of the Board."
  That is, in the main, administrative costs, those arising from the importation of raw materials and finished steel, and expenses in connection with the promotion of research, training and education.
  My hon. Friend said that, as the Bill was drafted, many firms who are not iron and steel producers would be supervised by the Board but would not be able to be called upon to contribute to their funds. If that were so, I agree with him that it would be inconsistent; but my hon. Friend will see on page 24 the
  1256
  following definition of the words "iron and steel producer":
  "a person carrying on in Great Britain a business comprising any of the activities included or deemed to be included in the Third Schedule to this Act."
  Therefore, the definition embraces all the activities which will be supervised by the Iron and Steel Board.
  My hon. Friend also asked about the basis of the Board's scheme for raising contributions from the industry. That will have to be decided by the Board subject to approval by the Minister. Since any such schemes have to be submitted to the Minister for approval it will be open to Parliament, if it so wishes, to question him about them. It would be impossible to try, in an Act of Parliament, to define the basis of these schemes for raising contributions over a period when one cannot foresee what circumstances might exist. It should be left to the Board to decide, subject to approval by the Minister and, in the last resort, to debate in Parliament. In addition, there is the safeguard that any section of the industry which is not satisfied with the scheme can make representations to the Minister before be decides whether to approve it.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom) said that, at present, the levy arrangements were a mystery. They may be a mystery to him but I do not believe that they are to his right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R Strauss). The levy arrangements are, in fact, based upon an agreement concluded between the Federation and the right hon. Gentleman when he was Minister of Supply.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: That does not apply to the special levy about which my hon. Friend was speaking of 1s. a ton, raising nearly £1 million. I have not the remotest idea what happened to that money.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Sandys: It is as well to remember in this discussion that the British Iron and Steel Federation is a voluntary trade association. Though it is important and powerful it nevertheless enjoys the same status as any other important trade association. The levies raised to cover the internal administration of the Federation are contributed voluntarily by

  1257
  its members. These members have joined the Federation voluntarily and they are perfectly free to resign and not pay contributions if they so wish. There is no question of public supervision of expenditure of money raised voluntarily by a trade association or of its internal arrangements.
  Mr. Ian Winterbottom: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be advisable that the levy for the equalisation of the price of raw materials should be kept separate from the 1s. a ton levy on the industry as a whole which was introduced in 1939 long before by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss)?
  Mr. Sandys: I do not know exactly what the hon. Gentleman means by "kept separate." Obviously, it is accounted for separately by the Federation and it is used for entirely different purposes. I do not understand in what way the hon. Member wishes it to be separated more than it is already.
  Mr. Winterbottom: So that hon. Members would be able to see public accounts made available of that section of the funds relating to raw materials and scrap.
  Mr. Sandys: I have not got the facts before me now, but I do not think that there is any secret about the amount of money levied to cover the importation of raw materials or finished steel. I do not suppose that there is much difficulty in calculating the balance since the amount per ton is known and the number of tons are known. But without the precise facts, I should not like to commit myself. However, I do not think that there is any mystery about this since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall said that he had evidence with him to show exactly upon what this is being spent.
  The main point raised by the right hon. Gentleman concerned the relationship between the Board and the Federation in regard to the industry funds.
  Mr. Jack Jones: We all realise how the right hon. Gentleman, in his usual courteous way, has put the case about voluntary organisations, but those of us who follow this business carefully realise the levy paid to balance the cost of importations of raw materials runs at the rate of approximately £5 12s. a ton
  1258
  on roughly 18 million tons a year, and amounts to £100 million annually. Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us what is his purpose in denying us or the Board the right to have some knowledge as to what happens to the 1s. per ton levy which is raised internally by the Federation.
  Mr. Sandys: I will just come to that point. We must be clear about our object. We are setting up a Board to supervise the iron and steel industry, and to exercise certain defined powers in respect of raw material supplies, development, research, training, and education. We are not setting up an organisation to run the iron and steel industry. There is a difference in their approach, but I do ask hon. Members opposite to recognise that, whether they approve of it or not, that is the purpose of this Bill. It is not to set up another Corporation under another name to own and run the industry, but to set up a single body, and to make its supervision effective. That is the idea.
  Under the umbrella of the Board, there will, quite rightly, continue to exist a number of trade associations which will represent the various branches of the industry. The largest and most important will be the British Iron and Steel Federation, but there will be other bodies, such as the Joint Iron Council, the Council of Iron Foundries Associations, and other bodies representing different sections of the industry which will come under the supervision of the new Board.
  It is not our intention that the Board should supersede trade associations or try to do their work. We are providing the Board with certain powers to intervene in the event of the trade associations of the industry failing to make the arrangements which the Board considers necessary and vital to the prosperity and efficiency of the industry. The notable example of this is in regard to the provision of raw materials. We maintain that the industry must continue to manage its own affairs, and so run its own industry funds.
  It is not our intention that the Board should, for example, when it is appointed, set up an organisation to import raw materials, which is the largest element in the levy raised by the Federation. We expect that the Board will at

  1259
  once review the raw materials position and decide for itself whether the existing arrangements for importation are satisfactory, and, therefore, whether it need intervene. So long as the Board does not intervene in the importation of raw materials, it will not have to raise any levy on this account since this will continue to be done by the industry under its own arrangements. If the Board does import raw materials and sells them without loss, then no question of a levy will arise.
  I leave out of account administrative expenses, which I do not expect to be large, and concerning which I am moving an Amendment later to ensure that the Board shall not be able to charge an excessive amount for its own administration. The problem is most likely to arise when the Board is importing raw materials—the industry having failed to make satisfactory arrangements itself—and is maintaining the present policy of importing high-priced foreign materials and equalising their prices with those of domestic raw materials, the loss being covered by the levy raised from the different iron and steel companies.
  The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked me if there was any danger of overlapping and duplication. The Board would only intervene if it thought that the industry was either failing to make efficient arrangements for the importation of materials or not arranging to import sufficient quantities. The Board could then decide either to import everything that it thought was necessary for this industry, or, alternatively, to import additional quantities. In either event, there is no likelihood of overlapping, because the Board would import what they thought right, and would compulsorily raise from the industry the levies required. There is no likelihood of the industry itself raising a double contribution from the iron and steel companies.
  We must always remember that the payments by the iron and steel companies to the Federation are voluntary. Let us suppose that the Board is importing all the raw materials which it thinks necessary for the industry. It is inconceivable that the Federation would—though perfectly entitled to do so, as the Bill stands—try to duplicate these services and import large quantities themselves since the
  1260
  certain result would be that the firms would refuse to pay the double levy for materials which were not needed.
  The gist of what the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Nottingham, Central asked for was that the Board should have an effective say in the industry funds. I expect that the Board will normally leave the industry to plan its own importation arrangements, and to decide what should be the size of the levy to meet expenditure incurred in equalising prices, if that was the policy at the time. However, that does not mean that the Board is not going to have, not only a very effective influence upon these arrangements, but, in the last resort, the last word and the final say, and for two reasons.
  The first, as I have indicated, is that the Board can itself organise the importation of raw materials. This would cause the Federation to cease importing raw materials, and, as a result, to cease raising a levy to meet the costs of importation. Secondly, and perhaps more effectively still, as well as more conveniently, by its price-fixing powers. In the last resort, the iron and steel companies and the Federation, in fixing the levy, are dependent on being able to reckon it as part of the cost of production reflected it the prices of iron and steel products which they sell.
  4.30 p.m.
  It will be open to the Board to decide—here we come to the 1s. a ton referred to earlier—whether the levy raised by the Federation from the various iron and steel companies is reasonable or unreasonable, whether it is fair for those companies to reckon all or part of the levy in their production costs, and whether it is right for that amount to be included in the prices to be fixed by the Board. If the Board come to the conclusion that the levy raised by the Federation is unjustifiable, they will no doubt decide not to allow it in the maximum prices which they fix for iron and steel products. If that is done, it will have an immediate effect upon the policy of the Federation and will no doubt very greatly restrict the amount of the levy which the Federation feel able to ask from the industry.
  For the reasons which I have explained, I maintain that, while leaving the industry to run its own affairs, and

  1261
  while preserving the independent and voluntary status of the trade associations within the industry, the Board will none-the-less on the financial side, and particularly in relation to the levy for the industry's funds, have a very effective say in what happens.
  Mr. George Chetwynd: The Minister's speech has confirmed our worst fears about his conception of the capacity of the Board. In his own words, he has proved our case that the Board have no real power whatsoever. We wish the Board to have some say in the industry. It must be clear that if we give it no real powers to control this finance, the Iron and Steel Federation will remain supreme in this respect.
  I very much regret that when the industry was nationalised the Iron and Steel Corporation did not see fit to set up their own organisation for this purpose. Reasons such as the need to avoid duplication were given at the time, but I believe the Corporation would have been in a much stronger position if they had gone ahead with their own purchasing arrangements and their own allocation of levies instead of trying to co-operate with Steel House about it.
  Anyone who reads Chapter VI of the Annual Report will see that from the beginning there was a tug-of-war between the Corporation and the Federation for control in this vital sphere. In the end the Corporation had to agree to a compromise which under no circumstances was satisfactory. I regret very much that the Corporation did not deal with the matter themselves. If they had done so, we should not be faced with the present situation.
  The Minister has made it clear that, except in administration, the Board have no real powers and no activities under the Clause. He says about Clause 9 that he can hardly conceive a time when the Board will have to enter into arrangements about certain imports. His view is that the existing arrangements will prove satisfactory all the time. Thus the Board have no power to intervene in that field and, that being so, they have no power to raise a levy under Clause 11. Thus, the levy scarcely arises here, and the Minister says that we can safely leave matters where they are and that the Federation can run the business as
  1262
  they are doing at present. I believe that to be a fair statement of the Minister's attitude, and we dissent from it.
  Mr. Sandys: If that is what the hon. Gentleman means, it is fair to say that so long as things are satisfactory there will be no need for the Board to intervene and therefore there will be no need for them to raise a levy to deal with matters which are being satisfactorily organised by the industry.
  Mr. Chetwynd: My view is that we cannot leave the matter there. The Board ought to have control over the fund and run it in the national interest; it should not be left in the hands of Steel House. We must insist upon certain safeguards, the sort of safeguards upon which the Corporation had to insist in its compromise agreement of July, 1951, whereby the Federation recognised the duty of the Corporation to act as the sole shareholder, as is laid down in Chapter VI of the Report, and the Corporation had the right to appoint people to certain committees of the Federation.
  It seems to me that the scheme which will be drawn up by the Board will hand everything, lock, stock and barrel, over to the Federation to run. If we are to safeguard the position of the Board as the supervisory element over the whole industry we must ensure that they can make their voice heard in the various committees of the Federation, such as the raw materials co-ordinating committee and the price policy committee.
  We must, therefore, have an undertaking, similar to that referred to on page 16 of the Report, that the Federation will secure the approval of the Board before any new expenditure is authorised by their finance committee or incurred by the British Iron and Steel Corporation Ltd. The Federation must undertake to supply to the Board every six months a statement of the income and expenditure of the special fund. I take it that the special fund is the one to which reference has been made as the political fund. It seems that under the agreement the. Federation had already committed themselves to providing details of the fund to the Corporation.
  We are entitled to know exactly what was forthcoming under those reports. We are also entitled to know whether such arrangements will continue in future so

  1263
  that the steel industry itself will not be using the £1 million to engage in activities which are outside the scope of the production of iron and steel. Unless we get a guarantee that the Board will remain supreme over Steel House, we can only regard Clause 11 as in keeping with the rest of the powers of the Board, a mere sham, and can take it that the real power still resides in Steel House.
  Mr. Spencer Summers; I should have hoped that by now hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), would have realised that they cannot expect from the Bill some of the things which they would have put into it if they had been in office. The complaint to which we have just listened about the real content of Clause 11 is that it will not give the Board the selfsame powers which hon. Gentlemen opposite gave the Corporation when they were nationalising the industry.
  My hon. Friends and I approach the function of the Board quite differently from the way hon. Gentlemen opposite do, and that is the cause of some of the criticisms which have been ventilated. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees wants a driver for the coach, the coach being the iron and steel industry. My hon. Friends and I want a policeman to see that those who drive the coach do so in the public interest.
  Mr. Jack Jones: The type of policeman hon. Gentlemen opposite want is one who will make certain that the driver goes the way they want him to go.
  Mr. Summers: I said that we wanted the coach driven in a way which would satisfy the public interest. The hon. Gentleman must not deny me the end of my sentence. It is made clear in the Bill in many places that the function of the Board is to ensure that the steel industry complies with the public interest in the efficient management of its affairs.
  It is quite wrong to say that in the last resort in this field of levy the Board have no power to see that sensible and satisfactory arrangements are carried out. The Minister made it quite plain that they have very effective methods available to them to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are arrived at, namely that they have the power to ignore that part
  1264
  of the levy made on an individual firm when they are assessing the price which they ought to be allowed to charge and thus can decide whether that element is a reasonable or unreasonable feature of the cost. To have the power to ignore certain charges is a very effective weapon.
  Hon. Members opposite are very anxious to pose as champions of the public interest in this matter but, by being able to ignore certain levies, the Board have the power to safeguard the interests of the consumer which, after all, is one of the most important functions that they can fulfil. By their power over prices they are enabled to safeguard the consumer's interests. It is perfectly reasonable to assert that with that power the Board have the means to ensure that a sound, satisfactory levy system is applied within the industry.
  Mr. H. A. Marquand: I had hoped that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) would enlighten us and give some of the answers to the points put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) about the spending of some of the money raised by the 1s. levy, because it is possible that that lies within the knowledge of the hon. Member. Unfortunately, he did not do so and I should like to reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) to the Minister to tell us a little more than he has yet done.
  The Minister suggested that if the Board found that the amount of money raised by that levy was unjustifiable or unreasonable it would lie within the powers of the Board, using their pricefixing power, so to adjust prices as to eliminate some of that levy from the final price. That may be, but how are the Board to decide that the amount raised is unjustifiable unless they inquire into the way in which the money is spent? Does the Minister envisage the Board finding out how the money is spent?
  The right hon. Gentleman says that the Federation is a private trade association, like many others in industry, which has a right to raise money like any other association and spend it as it pleases. That is a plausible argument, but it has not been unknown for trade associations in other industries to spend money on the pursuance of monopolistic tendencies.

  1265
  The right hon. Gentleman says that it is his desire—and, indeed, he has put it in the Bill—that in the steel industry there shall not be unfair monopolistic practices. Will he empower the Board to make sure how the money is spent, and particularly that some of it is not spent on fostering, carrying out or sustaining monopolistic practices? How will the right hon. Gentleman find whether the levy is justifiable?
  Mr. Summers: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the Committee on what grounds he seeks the right to be given to the Board to investigate the spending of manufacturers' money if that spending is not to be a charge on the consumer?
  Mr. Marquand: Quite simply, on the grounds that it is generally recognised that this is an industry fraught with great public interest and ought to be brought under public supervision. If the industry has nothing to be afraid of, let it shed the light of day on how the money is spent.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Mitchison: I think that one ought to look at what the Board have to do under this Bill and consider whether the financial arrangements of this scheme are satisfactory to enable them to do it, having regard to other arrangements in the industry. As I see it, the levy will provide for administrative expenses for pensions, for repayment of advances, and so on, but substantially the main charge on it, outside those obvious and necessary things, is expenditure incurred in importing or distributing raw materials or other products when existing arrangements are unsatisfactory. That is particularly and obviously important, because the Board are expressly empowered to do that in certain circumstances at a loss.
  I doubt whether there is any difference in principle between arrangements of that kind and tariff arrangements. Importations at a loss distributed over the industry have a great deal in common at any rate with tariffs; and it is curious how this industry has always been tied up with some special form of arrangement about tariffs, protection or subsidies or something of that kind as a means by which is was thought that the Govern-
  1266
  ment of the day might be able to exercise control over it.
  But the industry has always been a very refractory subject because of its size and exceeding importance to the country. It was not only difficult to control because it was large and varied but also because any step taken in the matter of control had to be watched particularly carefully owing to the social and economic repercussions which it was bound to have. If we examine the last Report of the Corporation to discover what the history of this "voluntary trade association"—I quote the right hon. Gentleman's words—has been, we find that it says:
  "Many factors contributed to the building up of the position and influence of the Federation in the industry. In the pre-war years it had a special relationship with the Import Duties Advisory Committee."
  Perhaps that is a euphemism for bureaucratic marriage, or at any rate for a connubial relationship, because they were so close at times that it became difficult to distinguish between them. The Report goes on:
  "Later …the Federation was largely instrumental in setting up and staffing the Iron and Steel Control."
  I am not an expert on this industry. My idea was that the Federation had called itself by another name for war purposes, but perhaps that is a rather exaggerated view. At any rate, here again, when it came to controlling the steel industry, it was quite remarkable how useful and all-powerful Steel House became for the purpose. And it is not altogether surprising in these circumstances, when we are setting up a Board which is supposed to review this industry and which, under Clause 4, has the general duty to consult.
  "…with a view to securing the provision and use by iron and steel producers …"
  of what I may shortly call proper production facilities in the country—a Board with such wide duties—that this little toothless instrument which we are creating should be the object of our most tender solicitude when it obviously has to deal with such a giant having such a formidable record.
  Not only has the giant during two wars been the apparent chosen instrument of the Government of the day for dealing with the industry in which the giant is a

  1267
  voluntary trade association but, in addition, when the industry was nationalised this was the only case in which a voluntary trade association succeeded in defying the Government of the day for a sufficient number of General Elections to let the opposite party into power and, in the long run, prevail successfully over the spirit and intention of a Parliamentary democracy. That is a considerable achievement. This Federation is no small matter. As my hon. Friend has already pointed out, the last stage is that after negotiations, in which, in my view, the Federation as usual did pretty well, the Federation was at long last going to say every six months what it did with the special levy and was going to give some account of the expenditure out of the industry's fund.
  What I should like to know is this. I have to accept reluctantly and against all my own convictions the workings of the Conservative mind in the form of this Bill and in the result that the industry has, as the Minister put it, to manage its own affairs. But that is not the end of the story. Its affairs impinge so extensively and to such an important degree on the whole welfare of the community that the matter cannot be dismissed like that.
  These two levies constitute one point at which contact between the industry and the community becomes exceedingly important. I should like to know what is to happen to this information. To whom is it to be given? Is it to be given to the Minister, to the Board or to Parliament, or is it to be published; or is the special levy, which somebody had pulled a quarter of the way out of the hole which it has occupied for so long, to shake away this inquiring hand and return at once to the hole down which it habitually lives? That is the question which we should like to have answered.
  The point about the political use of this money is not to be dismissed by the silence with which I noticed the Minister thought it better to treat it; nor is it to be regarded purely as a party matter. There is a public aspect of this. We are told that the Tory Party are certainly not prepared to protest, even in the case of such an industry as this, against the use by a voluntary trade association of a levy raised on the whole industry for
  1268
  party political purposes. Nobody has challenged that; nobody has protested against it. We are told, "That is all right. The money will be spent in this way for all we care, and when it has been spent it will all be put right because the industry will not be allowed to charge a price which includes that levy."
  Then we had a most remarkable phrase from the hon. Member for Aylesbury, if he will forgive me, to the effect that it was not going to come out of the consumer in any way but that it was to be the manufacturers' money. The manufacturers' money, in a case like this, is obtained by selling iron and steel, and I cannot see a distinction in the receipts from iron and steel as between the manufacturers' money on the one hand and what the consumer is charged on the other hand. Directly or indirectly, it stands to ordinary common sense that the consumers, the country—that is us and the people whom we represent—are to pay in order to enable the iron and steel industry to use its funds for political purposes.
  It is absolutely scandalous in an industry of this character. My opinion is that it is scandalous that it should be done at all by public companies. I have been a director of public companies for a great many years now, and I would never sanction any expenditure, for any political purpose of my own party or the party opposite, of money which was intended specifically for business use. I know from the recent decision in the Tate and Lyle case that it can be done, and that nothing can be done about it under the law as it stands. But, in my opinion, the law ought to be altered.
  Can there be a clearer case in which the whole country—for we all are consumers of iron and steel—is really paying for this misuse of the industry's funds? That is one case that we know about. This levy is down its hole. We happen to know about this one, but what about the rest of them? What about the expenditure generally? It touches so closely on what the Board has to do and the way in which the Board itself is to levy money that I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is quite impossible to leave this question in the confused and uncertain state in which it is at the moment.

  1269
  For these purposes I have accepted the new Tory view of independence in industry. I am doing my best to adapt myself. But I am not arguing the main point. I am simply saying that if the Board are to do their job properly, to supervise this industry and take action in certain cases which are contemplated in this Bill, and if it is to have money raised for that purpose under this scheme, it is quite impossible to leave out of consideration the similar levies made by the Federation and their use. We ought to have, in the form of a Ministerial statement if we cannot have it in the Bill, a clear definition recognising the peculiar position of this industry and the extreme importance of the activities of the Federation in connection with the industry and, therefore, with the country as a whole.
  Mr. Summers: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been giving us the benefit of his views on what it is proper or improper for a trader to do with the resources at his disposal. He regards the expenditure of any money on a political object to be improper. He told us that if he had influence he would prevent it in any company with which he is associated. Does he carry his censure of such practices to the Co-operative societies, who, without question, use some of their resources for that purpose?
  Mr. Mitchison: I quite agree that I was a little illogical. I went rather far—
  The Chairman: If the hon. and learned Gentleman went any further he would be out of order.
  Mr. Mitchison: I do not know whether I can satisfy the hon. Member and, at the same time, be in order. I doubt whether I can, but I suggest that he knows quite well that there is a considerable difference between the Co-operatives and the iron and steel industry.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Robson Brown: I have listened with close attention to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and in many of our discussions on this Bill he has made some useful contributions. But this afternoon he stopped short of justice and fairness. There is one point in particular on which I must take issue with him. He said
  1270
  that the British Iron and Steel Federation, the personnel at Steel House and the leading members of the industry, formed the iron and steel control during the war. I believe that that redounds to their credit. They rallied to the cause in the interest of their country and concentrated everything they had upon the pursuance of the war and its successful conclusion.
  Mr. Austen Albu: Why not?
  Mr. Robson Brown: Why not? Of course; but why indict them for it? This is something outside the general aspect of the debate we have had—
  The Chairman: It is also outside Clause 11.
  Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member is quite mistaken if he supposes that I was blaming the individuals for doing what they did. On the contrary, I am considering the position of the Federation.
  Mr. Robson Brown: It did not sound like that to hon. Members on this side of the Committee.
  Mr. Nabarro: It was a wicked imputation.
  Mr. Robson Brown: It linked up with many things which have been said by hon. Members opposite in connection with this fund. The whole emphasis underlying the criticisms of this particular levy has been upon the application of moneys to political ends. I assert that the iron and steel industry has an excellent record in the way in which, by and large, it has kept itself outside the political arena. Whatever moneys have been spent have been infinitesimal in comparison with the sums of money we have been talking of this afternoon.
  There is not the slightest reason why any voluntary organisation or company should not embark on any activity—political, public or otherwise—which they consider to be in the interests of their shareholders and of the country. I go one stage further than that. No man should be indicted or pilloried because he takes an attitude one way or the other on political issues. Hon. Members opposite consider nationalisation to be a desirable thing; but more than half the country do not—or we should not be here today.

  1271
  It is entirely unfair that in a debate of this kind all this matter and material should be dragged in. The fundamental fact is that any voluntary organisation, association, trade union or body of people has to raise levies. I concede that what we have to be satisfied about is that those levies are not excessive and that the use of the money is a reasonable and proper one for the proper conduct of the association or federation. If a levy were imposed that were excessive it would unquestionably be a charge, directly or indirectly, upon the production of steel or any other product.
  But one has to take a reasonable measurement of this question. I am quite satisfied that the Board themselves, in considering all the factors that make up the price structure of the industry and any representations made to them, will challenge anything that is unreasonable. These factors and representations are all familiar. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) always took them into account and if he or his advisers had thought that any particular action was unreasonable he would have challenged it, and he would have been perfectly right to do so. We think the Board should be in precisely the same position.
  The money has to be raised. Hon. Members have talked about 1s. a ton, but when one considers the wide range of expenditure necessary to be covered by this amount the situation is seen in its proper proportion and perspective. We are dealing with an enormous industry and the moneys raised are raised only for the proper running of that industry—its central organisation, its general efficiency. Whatever measurements are taken—and hon. Members have cited education, training, research, pension schemes and all the other elements that go into the proper and intricate working of a great federation of industry, this expenditure is necessary.
  I cannot think that what some hon. Members opposite have said has been anything other than a letting off of air and a little parading of the past. In that matter, again, a great deal of injustice has been done. If we go back to 1932—I want to refresh the memory of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—we find that the industry
  1272
  enjoyed no protection of any kind. It was open to competition from all over the world. Protection was sought and the Trade Imports Advisory Committee was set up. It was the first step by an enlightened Government to see that industry and Government moved together—to see that unreasonable or unfair protection was not given and that the protection which was given was not used unreasonably or unfairly.
  The Chairman: This is quite beyond the subject of Clause 11.
  Mr. Robson Brown: I am sorry. These matters have been raised by hon. Members opposite and I think they must be answered.
  The Chairman: I tried to stop them being raised.
  Mr. Robson Brown: I am sorry.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I want to deal strictly with one or two points which have been raised and which I am sure come within the scope of Clause 11. The first is the question to what extent the Board's power to raise money—to levy the industry—should be extended. We have had two answers to the case which I put up. Neither was satisfactory. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will appreciate that neither the answer of the Minister nor the speeches of his supporters have satisfied us in the least.
  We are discussing two levies here. One is the industry fund, and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) and the Minister have put up the argument that the Board will be able to control that fund by their control over prices, because there cannot be any change in the balance of the industry fund without there being some effect on prices. That is an answer; but it is not a complete one. There might well be some significant changes in the balance of the industry fund without prices being affected. But that is a matter which I should like to consider with my colleagues between now and the Report stage, before deciding whether it is necessary to put down any further Amendments on it.
  The other question which has arisen is that of the special fund, and whether the Board should have control of that. Here we disagree entirely with the attitude of the party opposite. If they do not

  1273
  see our case, the public—if they understood what is at issue here—would do so. We are told by the Minister and other people that the Steel Federation is an ordinary trade association; that it should be allowed to mind its own business and that on domestic matters this supervisory board should not intervene.
  We disagree completely with that argument. We do not believe it is possible for the Iron and Steel Federation, with the important status which it has in the British economy to be looked upon as an ordinary private trade association whose affairs are unimportant to the public. Secondly, we say that in view of the attitude and the record of that so-called ordinary trade association, it is most desirable that when a public supervisory board is set up to look after the industry and protect the public interest that board should have some authority at least to find out how the money which is raised by the Federation is spent, and its findings published to Parliament and the country.
  If it is then found that the money is used for ordinary staff purposes—for keeping its organisation alive, paying its rent and so on—everyone will be satisfied. But we do not know that that is so. We have a strong reason for believing that it is not so and we want to find out. We are entitled—not only the Labour Party but the public as a whole—to know how much this industry is an instrument of political propaganda and anti-Labour propaganda. If, by some freak of chance, those in control at Steel House were Socialists and were using the money raised by the industry for Labour propaganda, hon. Gentlemen opposite would be the first to complain. They would say, "This is outrageous; this is a scandal; we want to see the figures; we want to find out to what extent this is true."
  Mr. William ShepherdIs the right hon. Gentleman now telling the Committee that an industry—and I am speaking generally not specifically—has no right as an industry to use any of the resources which may come from its members in order to meet any attack, if it is attacked or told that it will be attacked and nationalised?
  Mr. Strauss: That is a trite question. I may not be in order in answering it, but I can answer it in a sentence. It is
  1274
  my view that no industry should use its money for any political purposes, because the money is derived from the profits of the shareholders and the industry of the workers in it. No board has any idea what political views are held by either individual shareholders or the workers.
  Mr. Robson Brown: Does that mean that they should not be allowed to make representations about the Budget and about taxation on industry?
  Mr. Strauss: That is an entirely different matter. I think the board of a company are perfectly entitled to inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer of their views on the Budget or to write a letter to the Press expressing a certain point of view on the Budget, but if it comes to spending may be, as far as we know, hundreds of thousands of pounds—we do not know and we want to know—on political propaganda, we say that that is entirely wrong. We say that those facts should be published and that somebody, in this case the Board, should know about them and should inform Parliament.
  In particular, it is wrong in this instance because of the past behaviour of the Iron and Steel Federation in this matter. Not only did they carry out a very extensive political propaganda throughout the country before we nationalised the industry, inducing the public to believe that the industry should not be nationalised—and it was a well carried out and most competent campaign—but also, after the industry had been nationalised, they used the money of the nationalised industry in propaganda demanding de-nationalisation.
  Mr. Peter Roberts: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Can you enlighten me how this argument is in order on this Clause?
  The Chairman: I think a good deal of the debate has been too wide. I have been trying to keep it within bounds, for I think it has gone a little wide.
  Mr. Strauss: I submit that I am in order, Sir Charles. My argument is that the Board are given power to levy money on the industry and that that power to levy should be extended very substantially so that all the industrial levies and not just a small section should come under the Board. I am submitting reasons

  1275
  why the powers of the Board in this matter should be substantially extended.
  The answer given that the amount of money involved is not very large and does not greatly affect the price to the consumer, because it is only 1s. a ton, is true; but this is a big industry, and the total amount comes to about £1 million a year, derived from the iron and steel industry. We say that the Board, who are given powers to levy under Clause 11, should have powers to investigate how that money is spent.
  It is significant that the Iron and Steel Federation would not allow any member of the Corporation to sit on their finance committee. They wanted to keep secrets from the Corporation, which owned three-quarters of the companies—judged on a financial basis—which made up the Steel Federation. They would not allow the Corporation representative to sit on the Finance Committee. In view of the challenge I issued today, that the iron and steel industry have produced this pamphlet and possibly others and have entered the fray of the nationalisation or denationalisation debate, it is also significant that no hon. Member opposite has risen to defend that action. Even though the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) is closely associated with the Iron and Steel Federation and has made a number of most valuable and interesting contributions to our debates, he has not risen to speak on the subject and certainly has not denied that action or defended it.
  I suggest to the Committee that the Federation's action is contrary to the accepted ethics of public behaviour. It is because the Federation have in the past acted in that way that we feel we are entitled to ask, on behalf of a party which represents half the electorate, that we should be told whether the industry will continue to act as a political propagandist for one party. We ought at least to know the facts. We say that the Board should have some authority and some control here and should at least be able to investigate the matter.
  We believe that the action of the Federation in this matter in the past has been scandalous, but we accept that we do not know the facts. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering
  1276
  (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out, the facts have been kept secret. Publish them; let us know. It may be that we are wrong. We think we are right, but if we are wrong we shall be the first to apologise for any imputation we may have made. But, for heaven's sake, let us know about it.
  As the hon. Member for Aylesbury said, the Board should act as a policeman in this connection—a policeman for the industry on behalf of the public. Let the Board, acting as policeman, see that the £1 million which the Federation get every year from the special levy from the industry is not used for an improper purpose.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Sandys: I should like to say a few words in reply to some of the later speeches. It is perhaps an indication of how peaceful our debates on the Bill have been that this little, almost agreeable, banter which has been taking place in the last half-hour or so is about the most turbulent passage we have had on the Bill. This shows the extent to which the Committee have concentrated upon improving, from a technical standpoint, the efficiency of the organisation which is being set up under the Bill. I pay my tribute to hon. Members opposite, who I know are not happy about the general setup proposed in the Bill, for the way in which they have applied themselves to trying to improve the various Clauses.
  We are concerned here with two levies, as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) pointed out. One is the industry fund and the other is the special fund. The right hon. Gentleman said there might be a change in the balance of the industry fund which would not affect prices and therefore would not come under the influence of the Board through their price control powers. He said he wanted to consider that matter further.
  I submit that if there is a change in the balance of the industry fund—and I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman means by that phrase—which does not affect prices, then, by and large, it is not a matter of very great concern. The important things from the general standpoint of the industry fund are these. First, it should be applied to a useful purpose and should secure the results

  1277
  required—that is, in the main, the importation of raw materials and finished steel. Second, it is for the Board to judge whether it is conducted economically and administered in such a way as not unduly to increase prices. Are prices unaffected and importation arrangements efficient? I think those are the two main considerations which should be in the minds of the Board. The right hon. Gentleman may, of course, have some other point in mind, and we shall await his Amendment, if he puts one down, on Report stage.
  I come to the special fund, which is the 1s. a ton levy which has excited a certain amount of attention this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman said he does not accept that the Federation is an ordinary trade association. I think we all agree that it is not an ordinary trade association; it is a very important and unusually large and influential one. Nevertheless it still remains a trade association, composed of the firms who make up the industry and supported by voluntary contributions from them.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the Board should have authority to find out how the money in the special fund is spent by the Federation. I would question that. I really do not see why either the Board or Parliament should require to know how money raised by a trade association is spent. I would submit to the Committee that the Board have two interests in this matter. One is to ensure efficient production, and the other is to ensure a fair price to the consumer. It is only in respect of those two considerations that the Board would have a right to ask for information about how this fund was being used. Except for those two considerations, I do not consider it is the business of the Board to inquire how this money is spent.
  The right hon. Gentleman, and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, said no industry should use its funds for political purposes. It is a question that I do not propose to go into today, for I think you have indicated, Sir Charles, that it is hardly in order on this Clause. The question is whether companies whose independent existence is threatened have the right to spend their shareholders' money to try to protect their shareholders' property. That is the issue. I just pose it. I do not think that we could arrive at any conclusion without pro-
  1278
  longed debate, and I have no doubt that we should still be divided at the end of it. However, that is not the point on this Clause.
  Mr. Jack Jones: On this question of efficiency, which we are all for, and on which the Committee is united, would the right hon. Gentleman explain to me how he can expect workers in the industry to be efficient, satisfied, and happy about their job, if one of the first things they have to earn is money which is to be used against their political interests.
  Mr. Robson Brown: That has not been proved. That is the point.
  Mr. Sandys: I do not want to exacerbate the hon. Gentleman on this point.
  Mr. Jack Jones: It is efficiency that is important.
  Mr. Sandys: Yes, but any such money would, at the end, come out of the profits that are distributable to the shareholders. If the shareholders prefer to have some of their money spent on preserving their existence, rather than have increased dividends, I do not think that is a matter of great public interest.
  Mr. John Freeman (Watford): Would it not be fairer if the Minister were to put it in this way—that once this industry had come into public ownership the Federation or company were using their shareholders' money in order to remove shareholders' rights from the shareholders—and not the other way round?
  Mr. Sandys: Who were the shareholders? The public were the shareholders—through the Corporation—and were still in a position to object if they wished to do so. Of course they were.
  Mr. Freeman: I am not sure that the Minister has got the point. The point he was making a moment ago was that it is perfectly reasonable for a trade association to use shareholders' money in order to prevent those same shareholders' property being filched from them. That is a point of view. What he omitted to tell us was that once nationalisation had taken place—and what we are charging is—the Federation deliberately and secretly used this fund, the shareholders' money, against the interests of those shareholders.
  Mr. Sandys: I do not think we ought to get involved in this. In the first place,

  1279
  the shareholders could object if they wished to. In the second place, so far as I am aware I have seen none of this political propaganda to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring. If he is referring to the pre-nationalisation period, then it is a question of the industry defending itself against the threat of nationalisation. There have been strong and continuous attacks made upon this trade association, the Iron and Steel Federation. I do not think it surprising if from time to time they state the other side of the case. I do not think that they have done any more than that. However, that is not the point I am trying to make today.
  Leaving aside the question of whether it is right or wrong for a trade association to spend money for political purposes—it is an issue upon which there is no agreement in the Committee—I recognise that political expenses, or, for that matter, any extraneous expenses, which are not concerned with production of iron and steel and the efficiency of the industry, are expenses which it would be quite proper for the Board to exclude in assessing the production costs of the industry for the purpose of fixing prices; I am not questioning that for one moment. If the industry spends money on things which do not, in the opinion of the Board, relate directly to efficient production, then the Board, in my opinion, is perfectly entitled not to take such costs into account in fixing prices.
  On the question of the industry's special fund, this 1s. a ton which has been spoken about so much, I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that the speeches have been as though this were entirely a political fund concerned with nothing but making political, anti-Socialist propaganda. In point of fact, apart from anything to which they can object, this 1s. a ton is used for administrative expenses of the Federation, for training schemes, for the scrap drive publicity, and for that very large statistical organisation from which hon. Members receive information.
  Mr. Marquand: What we want to know from the right hon. Gentleman is whether the whole of the 1s. a ton goes on these
  1280
  things or whether some of it goes to something else.
  Mr. Sandys: I am not a member of the Federation. I am merely saying that this special fund is to cover all these things, in addition, no doubt, to a number of other things that I have not mentioned, and that there is no question of its being a political fund of 1s. a ton. But at the end—let me say what I have said before—the important thing is to ensure efficient production, and to protect the consumer from excessive prices.
  The Board will be able to ask the Federation for any information it wishes about what money the Federation raise and what money they spend, and how they spend it. It will be for the Federation to decide, in regard to these internal matters, what information they will give to the Board. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I should like hon. Members to listen. At the end, the Board will have the last word, because they will say to the Federation, "Will you tell us how you spent"—I hope I may have the right hon. Gentleman's attention, because I am trying to answer his point. The Board will say to the Federation, "We understand you raised a levy of 1s. a ton on iron and steel companies. Will you, if you wish that to be taken into account in the fixing of prices, satisfy us that the whole of it is being used for the promotion of efficient iron and steel production?" To the extent that the Federation can satisfy the Board that that money, all or part of it, is being used to promote efficient iron and steel production—to that extent—the Board will, I have no doubt, reckon it in the prices they fix. To the extent that the Federation either fail to satisfy the Board or, alternatively, refuse to inform the Board, that element will, I am sure, by any sensible Board, be left out of their calculations of maximum prices.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: Not because we disagree with the purpose of the Clause, but in view of the most unsatisfactory answers we have received to the questions we have put to the Government, we propose to divide the Committee.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 236.

  Division No. 97.]

  AYES

  [5.30 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Markham, Major S F.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Gammans, L. D.

  Marples, A. E.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Maude, Angus

  Arbuthnot, John

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

  Maudling, R.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Glyn, Sir Ralph

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. F. (Blackburn, W.)

  Godber, J. B.

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

  Mellor, Sir John

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Gower, H. R.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Banks, Col. C.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Barber, Anthony

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Grimond, J.

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Grimslon, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Birch, Nigel

  Harrison, Col, J. H. (Eye)

  Odey, G. W.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

  O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Boothby, R. J. G

  Harvey, lan (Harrow, E.)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Bowen, E. R.

  Hay, John

  Orr-Ewing, Charles lan (Hendon, N.)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Braine, B. R.

  Heath, Edward

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Holland-Martin, C. J

  Profumo, J. D.

  Bullard, D. G.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Hope, Lord John

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Redmayne, M.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Horobin, I. M.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Campbell, Sir David

  Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

  Robertson, Sir David

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Robson Brown, W.

  Channon, H.

  Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Jennings, R.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Russell, R. S.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Salier, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr, Albert

  Kaberry, D.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

  Lambton, Viscount

  Scott, R. Donald

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Scott-Milier, Cmdr. R.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Shepherd, William

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Simon J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Linstead, H. N.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Speir, R. M.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Donner, P. W.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Low, A. R. W.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Storey, S.

  Drewe, C

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Duthie, W. S.

  McAdden, S. J.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Summers, G. S.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Erroll, F. J.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Teeling, W.

  Fell, A.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N

  Fort, R.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Tilney, John

  Foster John

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Turlon, R. H

  1282

  1283

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Wills, G.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Watkinson, H. A.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Vosper, D. F.

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Wade, D. W.

  Wellwood, W.

  York, C.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Mr. Oakshott and

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Mr. Richard Thompson.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Orbach, M.

  Albu, A. H.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)

  Oswald, T.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Padley, W. E.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Pannell, Charles

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Hamilton, W. W

  Paton, J.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hardy, E. A.

  Peart, T. F.

  Balfour, A.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Bartley, P.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

  Popplewell, E.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Hastings, S.

  Porter, G.

  Bence, C. R.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Been, Hon. Wedgwood

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Benson, G.

  Holman, P.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Beswick, F.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Blackburn, F.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pursey, Cmdr, H.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Rankin, John

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Reeves, J.

  Boardman, H.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Bowden, H. W.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Richards, R.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Janner, B.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Ross, William

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Short, E. W.

  Carmichael, J.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Champion, A. J.

  Keenan, W.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Chapman, W. D.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Slater, J.

  Chetwynd, G. R

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Coldrick, W.

  Kinley, J.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Collick, P. H.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Snow, J. W.

  Corbel, Mrs. Freda

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Sparks, J. A.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Steele, T.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Daines, P.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Dalton, Rt, Hon. H.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  McGovern, J

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  McInnes, J.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  McLeavy, F.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Delargy, H. J.

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Mallalieu, E. L, (Brigg)

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Edelman, M.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon H A

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Thornton, E. (Farnwerth)

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Messer, F.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Mikardo, lan

  Tomney, F.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Monslow, W.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Moody, A. S.

  Viant, S. P.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B, W.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Finch, H. J.

  Morley, R.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

  Follick, M.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

  Weitzman, D.

  Foot, M. M.

  Mort, D. L.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Moyle, A.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Mulley, F. W

  West, D. G.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Murray, J. D.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  Nally, W.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C

  Oliver, G. H.

  1284

  1285

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Wigg, George

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Williams. W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Yates, V. F.

  Willey, F. T.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Winterbottom, lan (Nottingham, C.)

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Hannan

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Winterbollom, Richard (Brightside)

  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  IRON AND STEEL BILL

    Clause 12.—(TEMPORARY BORROWINGS AND INVESTMENT BY BOARD.)
    Mr. Frederick Willey; I beg to move, in page 11, to leave out lines 33 and 34.
    We return from the turbulent to the placid now that there is no question of hon. Gentlemen opposite protecting the Federation or of their lifting a corner of the curtain regarding the Conservative Party's political levy. What we are now dealing with is the Board.
    This Clause deals with temporary borrowings and investment by the Board. Subsection (5) gives the Board power to invest, as they think fit, any moneys which for the time being they are not using. So far so good. So far, I congratulate the Government because this represents a considerable advance over the attitude taken by the Conservative Party during the discussion of the Iron and Steel Act, 1949.
    Then, the Conservative Party did not intend the Corporation to have any power to invest at all. Led by the Solicitor-General they voted against the appropriate Clause, and so abhorrent was the suggestion of giving the Corporation power to invest that they expressed no reason for their opposition but merely voted against the Clause as a whole. They did not agree that the Corporation should have any power of investment whatsoever. What they should do with their money was a matter which the Conservative Party kept quiet about.
    What the present Bill does is to give the Corporation power to invest such moneys in such way as they think proper. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary could perhaps help us later by telling us why, in this case, it should be "as they think fit." I do not know whether there is any importance in that distinction. The proviso to which the Corporation is at present subject is of an entirely different character to the one proposed here, to which we are objecting.
    The present Act makes the power of the Corporation to invest, subject to the
    1286
    proviso that the Corporation shall have no power of making a company a subsidiary of the Corporation or of using their powers to enable the Corporation to exercise an effective influence over the policy of the company. That is an understandable proviso. It is interesting that a similar proviso is not suggested in this instance at all. It may be said that the circumstances are different, and that perhaps such a proviso would be inappropriate, but I should like to know why that procedure was not followed. It may be that, with the enthusiasm of turncoats, the Government did not take such a vigorous step and took the present one, which I hope the Committee will not accept.
    What the present proviso does is to prohibit the Board from investing in iron and steel shares. I should have thought that there should be a good reason for that, and the onus is on the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why they should provide in legislation for such a proviso. Perhaps in the right hon. Gentleman's brief there is the usual reference to Caesar's wife, although on this occasion it is really irrelevant. There is no relation at all between the Board and Caesar's wife, and I think that it is bad to legislate on the assumption that the Board will take the worst possible course.
    5.45 p.m.
    I do not think that we should assume that at all. I think that we should assume that the Minister is sincere in his enthusiasm for the Board that he intends to set up and on which there will he qualified persons of wide experience who will use their experience collectively in the interests of the industry. That being so—do not put shackles on the Board; do not put a reflection on the Board; leave it to them. I agree that it is conceivable, of course, that the Board might invest in iron and steel shares in a manner which might reflect upon the Board or bring suspicion upon the Board, but that is not a reason for legislating against that.
    There is a whole series of contingencies that one could envisage. I

    1287
    should have thought that it was far better for the Government to say, "We are setting up this Board and will leave it to the good sense of the Board to determine how to invest such moneys—they cannot be very substantial—as may arise under this Clause." They certainly cannot say that the Board should be prevented from investing in iron and steel shares because that would be a wrong and unprofitable investment. The whole purpose of the Bill is apparently based on the assumption that it will be a profitable investment. They cannot say that the Board cannot invest in iron and steel shares because they are not knowledgeable of the advantages and disadvantages of so doing. This is a matter on which they are particularly knowledgeable. All that one can say is that it would, on the face of it, appear wrong, or might appear wrong, that there should be such financial association.
    I would urge the Minister to refrain from legislating against that possibility. Of course, there is the possibility that the Board may do a lot of things which might prejudice them, but the confidence he has in the Board should express itself in the terms of this Bill, and unless he can produce some very cogent reason, which I have not been able to anticipate, I hope for the sake of the good name, prestige and respect for the Board he will accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Low: I think that I can probably satisfy the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), and perhaps I should begin by giving him an assurance that there is no reference to Caesar's wife in my brief. He made the point to the Committee that the proviso in this Clause is a different proviso from that in Section 36 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1949. He gave the Committee an explanation of the reason for the proviso in the Act of 1949. I do not quarrel with the explanation, and I hope that he will not quarrel with the explanation which I shall give for the inclusion of the proviso in Clause 12 (5) of this Bill.
    The reason for it is quite simple. We have, throughout this Bill, taken the view that it is essential that the Board should not be either directly responsible for any production facilities or directly engaged in any, nor have any interest in any of the firms in the industry which might affect the impartiality of the Board. The most important thing, in our view, is
    1288
    that the Board should be completely impartial and have no special interest in any one of the iron and steel companies, and it is for that reason that the proviso it in the Clause.
    We have had the same point running through a number of the Clauses. We have from time to time differed on the point. From time to time hon. Gentlemen opposite have argued that it would be a good thing if the Board undertook certain things, but they have never argued so far that it would be a good thing for the Board to have an interest in one of the many iron and steel producers whom they have to supervise. That being the explanation, I hope the hon. Gentleman will think it right to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry): I hope the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) will see the force of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and will reflect that there would appear to be an ample field for investment outside the iron and steel industry.
    Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation. I feel that he is unduly cautious, but I will not disturb his caution. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13.—(POWER OF BOARD TO OBTAIN INFORMATION.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Sandys: This Clause deals with the question of the obtaining of information by the Board. As hon. Members know, I have tabled a revised Clause which appears on the Order Paper among the new Clauses, and I suggest that it would be to the convenience of the discussion if we postponed the debate on this Amendment, and that, if you, Mr. Bowles, or the Chairman of Ways and Means were agreeable, we might take the discussion on the new Clause in connection with my Amendment. Clause 27 also deals with the question of obtaining additional information. I think it would be a more intelligible debate if we proceeded in that way.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles): As far as I understand, that is agreeable to both sides of the Committee.
    Mr. Jack Jones: On the assurance that any comment we may wish to make on this particular Clause will not be prejudiced on the subsequent discussion on the new Clause, we on this side of the Committee shall be perfectly happy to agree to the arrangement.
    The Temporary Chairman: I will report that to the Chairman of Ways and Means.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause 14.—(ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS OF BOARD, PUBLICATION OF STATISTICS, ETC.)
    Mr. G. P. Stevens: I beg to move, in page 12, line 25, at the end, to insert:
    Provided that no person shall be qualified to be so appointed unless he is a member of one or more of the following bodies:

    The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;

    The Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors;

    The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;

    The Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants;

    The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland.

    In moving this Amendment, I must declare an interest, because I am a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the first of the bodies named in the Amendment. Approximately 120 years ago a fire occurred which burned down the then Palace of Westminster. That fire was caused by the destruction of the tools of the trade of book-keeping, by the burning of the notched wooden tally sticks, the splitting of which between the buyer and the seller was the method used at that time for recording transactions between two persons.
    Thirty-five years after that fire took place a number of men met together in the City of London to decide whether or not something could be done to raise the trade of book-keeping to the level of a a science of accountancy. To that end, these men applied for and in due course were granted a Royal Charter by which
    1290
    no person could practise as an accountant or auditor in England or Wales and call himself a chartered accountant unless he had survived certain tests imposed by the council of the body thus formed, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
    It was not long before the more backward brethren of the order in Scotland established faculties in accountancy in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow, and soon after in Ireland as well. As the years went by other bodies anxious to establish the same high standard of accountancy—I refer now to the two other bodies named in the Amendment, the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors and the Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants—also set themselves a very high standard. They prevented membership of these bodies until the applicant had passed these high tests.
    There is no doubt that the bodies which took these steps improved the status of their own members, but they did very much more than that. They ensured that the public was given very much better service than that given in the days of the old tally sticks. For those two reasons, it seems to me that these bodies should be rewarded. This Amendment would encourage them, and, at the same time, the public would be protected.
    It is perfectly true that this is an application of the "closed shop" principle. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite say "Hear, hear." I wonder what would be their view if any of them had a house to buy or sell and the conveyance of the property was carried out by a gentleman calling himself a solicitor and a commissioner for oaths but who was, in fact, the local dustman with no qualifications whatsoever. I can imagine that they would become the most ardent advocates of the "closed shop" principle as applied to a craft union.
    Furthermore, this is a closed shop with a very open door. The door is open to all those who set their sights high and who deliberately set their standards as high as the bodies named in the Amendment. I am not asking for a precedent in any shape or form because the nationalisation Acts already on the Statute Book incorporate just such a description. All

    1291
    I am asking for is the further encouragement of the bodies named in the Amendment and the protection of the public. For those two reasons, I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Albu: The hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) certainly declared his interest. He has taken us on our customary tour of the lower corridors of the House, a tour which we take when we seek to explain the origins of the building. I was glad to have the confirmation that the story which I tell to my younger constituents is strictly accurate.
    I am interested in the Amendment which, as the hon. Gentleman says, is a "closed shop" Amendment, but one which, I think, provides a certain safeguard. However, I am not quite sure whether it goes wide enough. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that in the nationalisation Acts which we introduced some similar safeguard for the adequacy and accuracy of the duties imposed was introduced. But in looking up the Iron and Steel Act, 1949, I find that a number of other bodies were included, and it looks as if the hon. Gentleman and his friends have attempted to narrow the field.
    He referred in the course of his remarks to the fact that his friends in Scotland were rather behind hand in promoting to a profession the older craft of bookkeeping. That is something for which he will have to answer to his Scottish friends. But why has he left out of this Amendment the Society of Accountants in Edinburgh. the Institute of Accountants and Actuaries in Glasgow, and the Society of Accountants in Aberdeen, or has there, perhaps. been a merger in the interval?
    Mr. Stevens: I did not mention those bodies for the simple reason that they no longer exist. Since the nationalisation Act they have amalgamated into the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland.
    Mr. Albu: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information, but it is the business of the Committee to safeguard the interests not only of the consumers, but of those who work in industry and the professions, and we want to be quite sure that the hon. Gentleman and his friends are not, in fact, trying to acquire
    1292
    for themselves a monopoly in this particular work. I believe there are some other bodies which may be left out. We want to be careful that we do not finally exclude other bodies which may reach professional status in this field. I do not think it would arise here but it might arise in connection with some of the reports that the Board will have to make on the working of the industry.
    It might be advisable to include among those who are responsible for preparing reports and sets of figures members of the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants. I fully understand that the older professional bodies always frown on any new bodies with a specialist function. I am a member of one body, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, which sometimes is regarded as a splinter from the Institution of Civil Engineers. Senior bodies do not recognise these younger bodies, even when new functions come into operation and they become necessary for industry.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Stevens: I do not think the Committee should be misled. The hon. Member mentioned the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants, but he must realise that the type of work for which the members of that body are trained is completely and entirely different from the work normally done by chartered accountants.
    Mr. Albu: Certainly, but tins Clause and the Amendment do not relate only to audits. They go a little wider than that. They deal of course with accounts, but also with other records, and we shall be coming in a few minutes to other Amendments which some of us on this side of the Committee have put down and which deal with what the reports should contain.
    I am only pointing out that it might be necessary to include members of other professional bodies, including cost accountant bodies, amongst those who have to draw up the report and deal with figures and the accounts which the Board have to prepare. I am not opposing the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, but I am warning the Committee that we must be careful. We do not wish to narrow the field. The Amendment as it stands is narrow, and there may be other bodies

    1293
    which could attend to some of the functions which will be dealt with under this Clause. Chartered accountants may not cover all the functions in this connection, and it may be found that the bodies here mentioned are not entirely adequate for the purposes that this Clause envisages.
    Mr. R. Jennings (Sheffield, Hallam): I feel that in supporting this Amendment I, too, should explain my interest to the Committee. I also am a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I have had the pleasure, not only on the Floor of this House but also in Standing Committee upstairs, of supporting similar Amendments in nationalisation Bills. One of the things that I feel about this matter is that there is a sort of tendency to compare one body with another. We must not be drawn down to that level.
    I want to explain to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) that the Amendment deals entirely with the question of audits, because if he looks at line 25, on page 12 of the Bill, he will see that it refers to the Board's accounts being audited and the accountants being approved by the Board. This is, therefore, particularly auditing. I feel that the highest possible skill should be brought into the preparing of these accounts and of the auditing of the accounts annually so that we know they have been done with the best possible skill.
    I do not want to waste the time of the Committee, and I feel that anything further that I say might draw me into the comparison of one body with another. I do not want to drop to that level. The position is purely one of skill, and I know that the bodies which have been named here are the best in the country. I feel the Committee will accept the Amendment in that spirit.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I have a great deal of sympathy for this Amendment, but I do not know whether the Minister will accept it or not. Before we proceed further we should see where we are getting to. The hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) said that he did not want to make comparisons, but no one can seriously support such an Amendment as this without making comparisons. I have the greatest admiration for the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Institute of Incorporated
    1294
    Accountants and Auditors and the other bodies mentioned in this Amendment.
    The only possible object of this Amendment can be to exclude a certain number of people who would otherwise have qualified for appointment to act for the Board. That may or may not be a good thing, but if it is a good thing in connection with this Board it may be a good thing to do generally. If it is not a good thing generally, why should it be done in connection with the Iron and Steel Board?
    Mr. Jennings: Because I consider that the skill engaged in auditing and reporting on these accounts should be the highest possible skill in the country.
    Mr. Fletcher: That remark seems to me to defeat the hon. Member's whole argument. The hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens), who moved this Amendment, referred to the tally sticks downstairs by which the Exchequer accounts of Her Majesty's Government in the Middle Ages used to be kept. I have not the slightest doubt that in those days the tally clerks who worked with those sticks were perfectly well skilled and efficient, but that is not the point.
    The question involved in this Amendment is this: in connection with certain other professions like the law, medicine, dentistry and so on, it may well have been desirable for Parliament to lay down certain rights and general principles. It may perhaps one day be desirable for Parliament to consider the same matter in connection with the profession of accountancy. All I would say is that until we reach that stage there must be some degree of invidious distinction and comparison in introducing this kind of limitation into a Bill.
    I would ask the Minister and hon. Members who support this Amendment to explain how it can be brought forward without it involving an invidious discrimination against those accountants who, for all I know, are perfectly well qualified as accountants and skilled in their profession, but who do not happen to be members of these particular bodies.
    Mr. Stevens: If they are so very skilled can the hon. Gentleman tell us why they are not members of any of these bodies. because membership is open to all with the requisite skill?
    Mr. Fletcher: I do not know why they are not. Presumably, they have good reasons for not being members. All know is that those gentlemen who practise as accountants but who are not members of any of these five bodies are, as the law stands at the moment, entitled to practise their profession of accountancy. Either that is desirable or it is not desirable. If it is not desirable, then I should have thought it was time that some Bill was introduced into this House in order to regulate the whole profession of accountancy on a national basis.
    What I am doubtful about is whether it is wise for us as a Legislature to do something of this kind in connection with the auditing of the accounts of one particular concern. I hope in the interests of those accountants perfectly entitled to practise their profession and who will be discriminated against by this Amendment that the Minister will consider whether this is the right method of giving effect to its object.
    Mr. Shepherd: I must say at once that I oppose the Amendment. I am satisfied that it is not necessary, because a Board of this standing would not choose accountants who were other than fully and properly qualified for the purpose. I have an objection to the Amendment which goes beyond that point. I do not like closed shops in general, and I do not like those which are arrived at by this method.
    I do not know a great deal about the various accountancy bodies. Occasionally I pay accountants, and I assume that I get good value for money. I do not know. I am being asked to decide upon the competency of these bodies without knowing sufficient about them. I certainly do not know whether in 10 years' time there will be a split in a professional body and a new body will arise of accountants who will be wholly desirable and recognisable but who will be prevented by the provisions of the Bill from auditing the accounts of the Board. That seems to me quite wrong.
    It may well be that it is desirable to have a standard of accountancy, and it may be that we ought to exclude certain people from acting as auditors and accountants, but if we want to do it, the Bill is not the place. If we reached a general conclusion that there should
    1296
    be established by statute a standard up to which people should measure before being allowed to be called "accountants" or "auditors," let us have a Bill to provide for that, as we have had for many other professions. Then we can discuss the matter. We can know what is required and Parliament can be versed in the problem. We are being asked to establish this sort of statutory standard by what are really backdoor methods without adequate knowledge of what we are doing. For the reasons I have given, I ask my right hon. Friend—I do not say this with very much optimism—to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. George Darling: I think we are all in favour of the purpose of the Amendment, but, like the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), I am not sure whether this is the right way to achieve our purpose. I do not feel strongly enough against the Amendment to vote against it.
    I hope that we all agree that it is right and proper that a craftsman's job should be done by a qualified craftsman, but I am not sure whether that should be achieved by statute or by the Board themselves exercising their intelligence by giving the job over to craftsmen. According to the Amendment, evidence of competent craftsmanship is membership of an organisation. There are many craftsmen in industry and trade, such as in the engineering side of industry and in the steel industry proper, whose only evidence of craftsmanship is membership of a trade union. They were not indentured apprentices. If the demand for a closed shop comes up from those sections of industry, I sincerely hope that the trade unions asking for the closed shop will be supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite, if the Amendment is carried.
    Mr. Low: It might be a good thing if I intervened at this point of the discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) began his remarks by saying that he was quite certain that the Board would be sensible and would employ proper accountants to audit their accounts. That is the view that the Government have held about many of these matters, but from time to time doubt has been expressed, and we have thought it right to seek to amend the Bill ourselves or to recommend the Committee to accept

    1297
    Amendments proposed by other hon. Members in order to remedy reasonable doubts. This Amendment is just one of them.
    6.15 p.m.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle said that this was the wrong place to insert a list of bodies recommended by Parliament as qualifications for suitable accountants. That may be his opinion, but this is now quite standard practice in a number of Acts of Parliament. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) and other hon. Members have pointed out that this proviso is very similar to the proviso inserted in the 1949 Act, and in other nationalisation Acts. It has one difference, on which the hon. Member for Edmonton commented and which was most satisfactorily and accurately explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens).
    Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful for the explanation that my hon. Friend is giving, but does not he realise that I expect more of him, and that I do not expect to be told that what the late Government did is a good precedent?
    Mr. Low: I am quite aware of that. Nor dc I expect my hon. Friend to say that he expects much more of me before I have even got into my stride in making my speech.
    The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), though he expressed sympathy with the Amendment, wondered if we were not excluding accountants who now have the right to, and in practice do, audit accounts. I am advised that we are excluding no such accountants. The Companies Act, 1948, which the hon. Member will probably know much better than I do, provides, I understand, that a person is not qualified to be auditor of a public company unless he is a member of a body of accountants recognised for the purpose by the Board of Trade, and the bodies of accountants recognised for the purpose by the Board of Trade are these bodies. There need be no fear in the minds of hon. Gentlemen that we are excluding any people who are now fully qualified accountants.
    Mr. Summers: Does that mean that it will not require an Amendment of the statute if a new institute of professional people came into being and that mere
    1298
    recognition by the Board of Trade will have the same effect?
    Mr. Low: It does not mean that here. I have not the advantage of having the Companies Act in front of me, but if my hon. Friend asks me a question on that point I think I should be out of order in answering it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle has stated his objection—that the organised bodies of accountants are here named. The hon. Member for Edmonton suggested that it might he necessary and wise to include others, and he referred to an organisation with costing functions in industry. It has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) that the proposed proviso refers only to the auditing of accounts. Therefore, we ought to confine our attention to the auditing of accounts.
    The Government's view is that the Amendment should be accepted by the Committee. I am most grateful, as I am sure the Committee is, to my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone for the interesting way in which he introduced the Amendment. On the whole, having listened to all the arguments, we think it good that the Bill should contain a list of organisations, which will be helpful rather than unhelpful, and we recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Mitchison: May I say how glad I am that the Treasury shows an interest in this matter, and ask whether there is not also a question of Commonwealth relations involved in this Amendment? I see that under the Bill the Board may appoint a wild Irishman whose auditing of accounts in Belfast may create difficulty. It is obvious that his supervision of the accounts in Northern Ireland may lead to trouble; and if Dublin, why not Sydney or Cape Town or a Canadian town? It is rather tactless.
    Mr. Low: If I may say so, I do not think it is any more tactless to do it here than it was when it was done in the 1949 Act when the hon. and learned Gentleman supported Section 38 throughout.
    Mr. J. Freeman: Two days ago the Minister accepted an Amendment from one of his own supporters and then, on reflection, he qualified his acceptance and said he would consider some of the arguments put to him before the Report stage.

    1299
    Will he do the same here? As I understand the point, it is a really important one.
    I do not think any of us on this side of the Committee quarrel seriously with the contention of the hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens). I know that a list was put in a previous Bill, but it is no better for that reason. If we incorporate such a list in the statute we shall be tied to the list and, if the situation changes so that other bodies subsequently acquire professional status, there will be difficulty. If there were no alternative solution, it would not be worth pressing the point, but as there is a Board of Trade approved list, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should consult with his right hon. Friend between now and the Report stage and adopt that solution if possible.
    Mr. Summers: I support the idea that has been put forward. It was in my mind when I interjected during the speech of the hon. Gentleman because, subject to what the mover of the Amendment may feel, it seems to me that since there is no distinction between this list and those approved by the Board of Trade, the object would be equally attained by a provision requiring, as auditors for this Board, only those approved by the Board of Trade. That would automatically give flexibility in the future without need for revising the statute. I hope that idea will commend itself to the mover of the Amendment and to the Minister.
    Mr. Stevens: The idea does not commend itself to me in any way. Such a suggestion would add confusion rather than reduce it. I look forward to the clay when there is one body of accountants, just as there is one for solicitors, and anything that can be done to help that day along is a good thing. I should not dream of accepting that suggestion.
    Mr. Low: Without commenting on what my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) has said and without arguing against his aspirations for his Society, I will, as I have said on a number of occasions, carefully consider what has been said. The points made by the hon. Member had already been taken into account in deciding our attitude on this Amendment. There is some advantage in certainty, however, by listing the
    1300
    bodies that are recognised, though I see the disadvantages of it—
    Mr. Joseph T. Price: Advantages to whom?
    Mr. Low: Advantages to hon. Members of this Committee who would not otherwise see a list—and to a number of others. Also, it is standard practice. Despite both points, however, I will gladly consider the matter. Meanwhile, I recommend the Committee to accept this Amendment on the assurances that I have given on behalf of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Jack Jones: We have had a fairly healthy and a not too long discussion of this question. It now appears that the Tory Party are in favour of the closed shop, and that some hon. Members on this side of the Committee may be supporting breakaway, splinter unions. May I say that in view of the assurances given by the hon. Gentleman, we have no intention of supporting anybody who may wish to see this Amendment defeated.
    Mr. Jennings: I have moved and supported similar Amendments when the Opposition were in power, and the same sort of speeches were made then and on the same grounds. Yet we are still in the same position. Whatever happens hon. Members opposite will have to come back to the proposition which their own Government had to accept when in power.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Albu: I beg to move, in page 12. line 25, after the words last inserted, to insert:
    (3) The said report and the said statement of accounts shall show separately, so far as is practicable, the results of the performance by the Board of their functions under each of sections four, seven, nine and ten of this Act: so, however, that in the said statement of accounts the Board shall be under no obligation to divide up their expenditure in respect of remuneration, allowances or pensions to members of the Board or their administrative expenses.
    With your permission, Mr. Bowles, I propose to speak also on the next Amendment, to line 25, in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison):
    (3) The said report shall include a statement of the circumstances of and reasons for any determination under section seven of this Act.
    Mr. Sandys: May we be quite clear which Amendments are being taken? I thought there was yet another one.
    Mr. Albu: The Amendment to line 33 deals with a substantially different point.
    We are now on the Clause which deals with the way in which the Board will inform the Minister annually of their activities and the Minister, by laying the report and accounts of the Board before the House, will inform Parliament and the public. We have been told that the funds which the Board are to have at their disposal will be quite minor funds. Because of that, although the actual status and authority on the training of those who are to audit these rather small accounts is fairly important, it is much less important than the question as to how the Board shall report and the subjects they shall cover.
    6.30 p.m.
    All through the stages of this Bill the Government have been at considerable pains to make clear where they differ from as on this side of the Committee in regard to the way the Board should opera to and the functions they should perform. They have continuously emphasised that they do not want the Board to perform really an executive function or to participate in any of the activities connected with the running of the industry. Their function is supervisory and advisory to the Minister in practically every case.
    Nevertheless, the Government have also assured us, although we have expressed doubts about it, that it is their intention that the Board should have very considerable powers of supervision; they recognise the force of the arguments which have been used for many years by my right hon. and hon. Friends that the industry is too large and too important to be left without public supervision. After so much argument, we must begin to take the Government at their word and we must begin to believe that it is really their intention—I freely admit that the Minister has been very accommodating during the course of the debate—that the Board shall have real powers of inspection and supervision.
    If the Minister accepts the view that the industry is so important that it must be supervised and that the Minister himself may from time to time have to intervene in the activities of the industry, on the advice of a Board who have been set up, it is equally important that the way
    1302
    in which that is done, the way that the Board fulfil their functions and what they do, should be fully open to public inspection and public debate.
    The House of Commons in recent years has been considerably occupied with the way in which it should control the activities of the nationalised industries. I cannot go into very great detail, because I happen to be a member of the Select Committee which has been set up to discuss this matter and which has made only one report on one certain aspect; but I think there is no question at all that the House would not accept that a new body which is set up, not, perhaps, for managing or running an industry but, at any rate, for exercising supervision or control over it, should not be subject to the sort of Parliamentary Question and debate to which the nationalised industries are subjected, within the terms of the Bill as it is drafted. Those terms and the functions given to the Board do not satisfy us, but nevertheless the Board have very considerable functions, and the Minister has repeatedly stated that he intends that those functions shall be carried out.
    The best way that the industry can avoid the sort of criticism to which it has been subjected this afternoon from this side of the Committee, and to which hon. Members opposite took so much exception, would be by having as much of its activities as possible fully open to public inspection. I cannot see any reason why there should be anything to hide. I agree entirely with the views expressed by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who said that the best way of ensuring the efficiency of great industries in public or private hands was by measurement and publicity.
    The first of the two Amendments is designed to ensure that the report that is rendered by the Board shall give due weight to all the functions which the Bill, under the various Clauses which define their functions, calls upon them to perform: the provision of production facilities, the fixing of maximum prices, the importation and distribution of raw materials, and supervising or seeing that there is adequate provision of research, training and education. Unless we get a very full description of the Board's activities under these various heads every year, it will not be possible for the House to make up its mind whether the purposes

    1303
    which the Board was set up to fulfil, which have been emphasised continuously throughout the debate, have in fact been fulfilled or whether they are adequate.
    The right hon. Gentleman and his friends have throughout claimed that the powers that have been given are adequate. I see no reason why the Minister should object to the adequacy or otherwise of those powers being subject to debate from time to time in accordance with the report; and in order that that debate can take place in an informal way, it is important that we should have a very full description of the way in which the functions under each section of the Act have been performed during the year. That is with regard to the general report that is to be rendered to the Minister and to the House, and which, I hope, will frequently be the subject of debate.
    As regards the question of price fixing, the second of the two Amendments demands that the report should
    "include a statement of the circumstances of and reasons for any determination under section seven of this Act"—
    That is the price fixing Clause. The question of the fixing of prices for a whole industry is, of course, an extremely difficult one. I do not think that the difficulties are avoided by taking the duty away from the Minister and giving it to an independent Board.
    We had some difficulty, for instance, over the Transport Tribunal, when the fixing of fares and rates was not so much to be undertaken as to be controlled or permitted by an independent board; but that has not prevented, at least, in the last year or two, the discussion of fares and rates in the House or political intervention in the fixing of fares and rates. I do not believe, nor do I think it is desirable, that the fixing of prices for an industry of this sort, which would have a very considerable effect on the whole economic life of the nation, should be taken away from the control of the Minister and of the House, and not be subject to any explanation as to the principles on which the prices are fixed.
    We had a quite interesting debate last year on the prices of steel products when the Minister raised the prices. I do not know whether the debate was entirely satisfactory, but it is certainly the case that the principles by which steel prices
    1304
    are determined and the factors which are to be taken into account are of major economic interest. From time to time it is not by any means certain whether prices should be lower or higher. I can conceive of situations in which there are good economic grounds, quite apart from cost grounds, for steel prices to be high. On the other hand, the situation may be such that it is highly desirable to keep the price of steel down to the very lowest level.
    However the detailed prices are fixed, there should be some statement in the annual report, when prices have been changed, as to the principles on which those prices have been fixed and on which the changes have been made, and of the factors that have been taken into account.
    There was a little feeling of emotion on the other side of the Committee when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) made some reference, which I thought slightly out of order, to the iron and steel control during the war and the fact that it was entirely staffed by members of the Iron and Steel Federation. I believe the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) protested that these gentlemen had performed a patriotic service during the war and should be complimented. I quite agree, but on this question of prices the position was not so entirely satisfactory.
    I want to remind the Committee that in repeated reports by the Comptroller and Auditor-General during and since the war he said that he was unable to obtain any information as to the factors which were taken into account or the way in which steel prices had been fixed. This argument has gone on ever since. Practically every Report of the Public Accounts Committee refers to the quarrel which has gone on between the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Ministry of Supply on this question.
    During all that period the Ministry of Supply were themselves fixing prices. I think they had some right on their side when they said, "We are fixing the prices for the whole industry and, therefore, the question of prices of steel products supplied to Government Departments or establishments is not really a matter for control by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee." Now the Minister, except in emergency circumstances, is handing the

    1305
    power to fix prices to the Board. I suggest that the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee may again be extremely interested—more interested—in the prices at which steel products are supplied to Government establishments.
    I think that their interest might be assuaged if some statement was made in the reports of the Board as to the principles on which the prices were fixed and the factors which were taken into account. It is to ensure that this shall take place that we have put down the second Amendment to line 25. It may well be that under Clause 8 the Minister himself may intervene. I think he has to lay an order and then the matter becomes public. But then it is only right and proper, if the Minister has taken any part in the fixing of prices by the Board. that that should be recorded and reasons given for it in the annual report.
    I hope that no hon. Member opposite will say that in moving these Amendments we are trying again, as we have tried so frequently throughout the Bill—I freely admit it—to restore something of the powers over the industry which exist in the 1949 Act. We are doing no more than to ask that the way in which the Board carry out their functions, the reasons in detail for their actions under each Clause of the Bill and particularly the principles taken into account in fixing prices, shall be made fully public and, therefore, subject to debate in this House.
    Mr, J. E. S. Simon: I feel a great deal of sympathy with the intention behind both these Amendments. In regard to reports generally, I suggest that prima facie it should be a general principle that public functions should be performed publicly. One cannot carry that to its extreme conclusion, but certainly when we set up public boards we ought to know as much as is reasonably possible about how they are performing their functions. Otherwise this House would have no real information on which to interrogate the Minister and to see that public control is indeed being exercised in the public interest.
    6.45 p.m.
    So far as the actual details of the Amendment are concerned, I suggest that it would be unreasonable to isolate the circumstances of Clause 7. I should have
    1306
    thought that the words of Clause 14 (1) are quite wide enough to cover the situation which the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) has in mind:
    "The Board shall…make a report to the Minister as to the exercise and performance of their functions under this Act."
    Clearly, if they are to carry out that duty properly they will have to pay great attention to what, to my mind, is one of their primary functions under this Measure. That is the price determination under Clause 7. We on this side of the Committee feel, and have felt, that that price fixing by a public Board is the right way to deal with any condition of monopoly or semi-monopoly in an industry. It is clearly a matter of very great importance that in the functions of the Board, of any board, performing their duties properly—reporting properly and carrying out their duty—to
    "make a report to the Minister as to the exercise and performance of their functions"
    they must deal fully and appropriately with that matter. On the other hand, I see no reason for singling it out in the way in which this Amendment seeks to do.
    I hope my right hon. Friend will tell us whether the words as they stand are not sufficient to carry out the objects which the hon. Member for Edmonton has in mind. On price fixing the situation will be quite different from that of which the Comptroller and Auditor-General has, on occasion, complained, because here the Board will be in very much closer touch with the industry than has been possible for the Minister when working through another organisation. In this case there ought to be almost direct contact between the Board and the actual constituent producers in the industry, although no doubt there will also be full consultation with representative organisations. There is full power under the Bill and under the new Clause my right hon. Friend proposes to move to obtain information.
    I also feel great sympathy with the first of these two Amendments. I would approach it from a slightly different angle that under Clause 12 the Board have very extensive powers of borrowing and investment and can make a levy on the producers in the industry. It is surely necessary, not only for the public but also for the producers who are con-

    1307
    tributing towards the administrative expenses of the Board, to know how the money is being spent. That is their right and the public who are contributing under Clause 12, the investment Clause, have a right to full information. What is necessary, quite clearly, is that one should have, separately, a revenue account and a capital account.
    Once the residual powers of the Board under the various Clauses come into play quite a different situation arises. For example, under Clause 4, the development Clause, it would be quite unnecessary to isolate the ordinary expenses of the Board, not merely in consultation, but encouragement, correlation and so on. Similarly, with Clause 7, which is particularly mentioned in the Amendment, it is very difficult to see how any Board could isolate the expenses which are related to their price fixing duties.
    Mrs. Eirene White: In the first Amendment it is quite specifically stated that there is no obligation on the Board to try to divide up administrative expenses, remuneration and so on. Perhaps that will meet the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. Simon: I am obliged to the hon. Lady. I have seen those words and I was proposing to deal with that point. But this is more than ordinary administrative expenses. There is no obligation
    "to divide up their expenditure in respect of remuneration, allowances or pensions to members of the Board or their administrative expenses."
    That does not meet the point. I do not think it would be construed in the way the hon. Lady contends, because there is an isolation of functions under Clause 7. I suggest that, under the price fixing section, that would be under expenses other than administrative expenses.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am glad to hear the hon. and learned Member say that. This relates both to the report and the accounts. It is quite obvious that the words at the end of the Amendment, taken out of Clause 11 (1, b) and (c), cover all possible expenses except those under Clauses 9 and 10. But it has been drafted to provide for separate reporting on the four Clauses and separate accounting on the two Clauses where they put in other expenses than those of the kind in
    1308
    11 (1, b) and (c). If it is badly drafted, that is another matter.
    Mr. Simon: I follow what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. I have already dealt with the question of the report, that any reasonable report will certainly deal separately—indeed it must—with each of the main functions under the Bill. I was addressing the Committee on the accounts and pointing out that, together with the ordinary duties relating to development, price fixing, raw materials, etc.—though not perhaps regarding research, where there is only, so to speak, the residual duty of making arrangements if existing arrangements are not satisfactory—they must supervise all existing arrangements. Certainly so far as development and raw materials is concerned the residual duties and functions of the Board are highly important, and probably will involve the expenditure of a very large amount of public money.
    It is important to ensure that the accounts presented by the Board shall include both revenue and capital. One way to do it would be to say that the accounts must be such as to comply with the Companies Act, 1948. On the other hand the Companies Act, which is suitable for the protection of a shareholder and for the information of an ordinary investor, is not entirely suitable for a public board. I suggest it would be desirable to ensure specifically that the accounts are full and informative and particularly that they take account of both capital and revenue expenditure.
    Concerning the first of these two Amendments, I see no reason to encourage the Board not to divide up their expenditure in respect of remuneration, allowances or pensions to members of the Board or their administrative expenses. Taking that class of expenditure in two groups, the remuneration, allowances or pensions to members of the Board ought to be dealt with separately from administrative expenses. As the Amendment is drawn, there is certainly an encouragement to the Board to lump all those matters in together under the heading of administrative expenses. Apart from that, I feel great sympathy with the spirit behind these Amendments, that the report should be full and informative as one would expect from the type of board which is being set up—and that the accounts shall be equally informative.
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) stressed the importance of there being adequate and detailed information upon which Parliamentary debates could take place on the progress of the iron and steel industry and the discharge by the Board of its functions under this Bill. We all agree that is desirable, and it is certainly the intention of the Government. On several occasions I have said that we recognise that Parliament should be able to review the activities of the Board through their annual report and accounts, and the powers of the Minister which appear in various parts of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the report should give a full description of all the main activities of the Board. There again we can agree that that is what one would expect in the report of a board of this kind.
    Before I deal with the substance of the Amendment, I wish to reply to the hon. Gentleman upon a somewhat extraneous point with regard to the refusal of the Government to explain the principles on which they fix iron and steel prices. I have here the Report of the Public Accounts Committee which explains the position. It states that the Treasury, in a minute to the Committee, explain that as the Minister of Supply had a statutory obligation to fix the maximum control prices on behalf of the consumer of iron and steel products generally, and it was a main part of his duty to ensure that the consumer did not pay an exorbitant price for these products they do not think that the Committee of Public Accounts would claim the right to investigate the fairness of those prices nor to examine the precise methods by which the Minister arrives at his decisions. That does not mean that Parliament is not in a position at any time to question the principles upon which any price order is based.
    Mr. Albu: I think that the difference here is that under Clause 7 the power to fix maximum prices is given to the Board. I am aware there is the emergency power in Clause 8, but I imagine the intention of the Government is that the prices of iron and steel products should be fixed by the Board. I think that would make a considerable difference to the Public Accounts Committee, because the prices are not now determined by the Minister as they have been in recent years.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Sandys: I will come to that later. I do not disagree. It is different when the Board fix prices than when the Government fix them. This Amendment, and the one which follows, seeks to prescribe in the Bill the precise form and content of the annual report and accounts of the Board. We can take it for granted that a responsible Board can be relied upon to present to Parliament a satisfactory and comprehensive report and statement of accounts, dividing them in a way which will enable Parliament to take an intelligent view of the work of the Board.
    There are many thing which we have not taken for granted and, as an Amendment has been put down, I am prepared to discuss this matter in detail. This Clause requires the Board to report:
    "as to the exercise and performance of their functions."
    Those are the words in this Bill, and they happen to be precisely the same words as those used in the 1949 Act. Wherever it was feasible, and where they were applicable in the same sense, we have borrowed the words from the 1949 Act. The Act of 1949 did not specify in any greater detail than that the nature of the Corporation's report to be rendered to the Minister each year.
    But despite the fact that the Corporation were only given this very general instruction in exactly the same form as we have used in this Bill, they presented, in their first report, a most detailed statement of all their main activities and the progress of the industry under many heads. This made possible a close and careful examination of the progress achieved and the manner in which the Corporation were discharging their functions.
    I believe that the new Board can be relied upon to be equally forthcoming. There is no objection in principle to specifying the subjects which the Board should cover in their report and the heads of their statement of accounts. But if we do this we must be sure that the list we set out in the Bill is really comprehensive. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) said, there is danger in singling out certain matters because any omissions take on a new significance. The Board are bound to wonder whether the fact that certain matters have not been men-

    1311
    tioned implies that Parliament attaches less importance to them and that they are not normally expected to report upon them.
    The Amendment specifies that the report and accounts should cover development, prices, importation of materials, research, training and education. Those are the matters covered by the Clauses mentioned in the Amendment. There is no reference to the Board's primary duty of keeping under review the efficient production of iron and steel which is the main reason for bringing the Board into existence. There is a danger in selecting certain matters and leaving others out altogether. Even if we were able between us to compile what was today a complete and comprehensive list there is no reason to suppose that it would be comprehensive for all time.
    Had this Bill been passed two years ago we should not have included any reference to the Schuman Plan, but on the Order Paper there is a proposed new Clause which refers to that Plan. We do not know what other similar Plans there may be in the years ahead. There is serious danger in trying to lay down for all time a complete and comprehensive catalogue of all the subjects and all the headings under which the Board should render their report and accounts.
    I come to the question of the form which the accounts should take. I accept the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that the Amendment deals with the report as well as with the accounts. The Amendment requires that the accounts should cover separately the expenditure under Clauses 4, 7, 9 and 10. No expenditure is to be incurred under Clauses 4 and 7. Under Clause 9, the Board are empowered to spend money on the importation of materials, and under Clause 10 they are empowered to spend money on research, training and education. I do not think that an intelligent Board in rendering their report or accounts would mix up the importation of iron ore with arrangements for training and education; but there is nothing like being clear if the hon. and learned Member wishes it.
    The Bill does not specify the form which the accounts should take. The 1949 Act laid down that the Corporation's accounts should be rendered:
    1312
    …in such form as the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, may direct …"
    That definition of the form of accounts is no more precise than the words used in this Bill, which are, "proper accounts" or some such phrase. The only difference is that it reserves to the Minister the right to specify from time to time what form the accounts should take and to ask that certain items should be specifically referred to under separate heads. There is perhaps some advantage in that. It avoids the difficulty of setting out in advance a complete list of all the heads under which at all times the Board might be required to render their accounts. At the same time it gives the initiative to the Government and to Parliament, because they can bring pressure and make representations to the Government, to give necessary directions to the Board.
    There is some advantage in the procedure adopted in the 1949 Act. This is especially so since the adoption of my Amendment to Clause 11 under which the Minister is now to he empowered to set a limit to the Board's expenditure under certain specific heads. Naturally the Minister will wish to verify at the end of each year that the Board have complied with the limits which he has set. I have no doubt that the Board will render their report, and accounts in such a way as to enable him to do so. On the other hand, there may be difficulty in drafting the Bill so as to put him in a position to ensure that.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman coming back to that point, because he has rather left us in the air? He has told us that there is advantage in drafting the Clause in such a way as the Minister may be able to instruct the Board as to the form of the report, but he is now going on to another point when he has not told us how far he agrees with that drafting.
    Mr. Sandys: I shall come back to it, and deal with that point in a moment. I am dealing with two Amendments at the same time, and I hope to sum them up later, if that is convenient to the right hon. Gentleman.
    The second Amendment asks that the report shall include a statement of the circumstances of and reasons for any determination under Section 7 of the Act, which deals with price fixing. The hon.

    1313
    Member, in moving the Amendment, did not really address himself to its wording. What he said was that it was desirable and necessary that the Board's policy in regard to price fixing should be brought out in its report, but he did not say that their reasons for any determination should be set out in their report. I submit to the Committee that that would be very much too detailed.
    At present, we issue quite a number of price-fixing orders of various kinds, which contain hundreds, if not thousands, of different prices to be fixed, and, when the Boards are set up, I have no doubt that they will adjust prices more frequently than we do at present. Because of the procedure of laying these orders before Parliament, there is a natural desire to wait until there is a number of adjustments to be made, and then present a comprehensive order. If that procedure is no longer followed, I have no doubt that the Board will make minor adjustments as and when they are necessary, and will not always want to bring them forward in a comprehensive review, as we do now because of Parliamentary procedure. I think the hon. Member for Edmonton agrees with the point of view I am expressing, but what he said was that the report should set out the principles on which the prices are being fixed.
    Mr. Albu: And changed.
    Mr. Sandys: Yes, fixed and changed; in other words, what the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I agree with him, is that the report of the Board should explain in general terms the principles which have guided them in making changes upwards or downwards in the prices during the year under review.
    But the suggestion that they should give a detailed explanation in regard to any determinations made under Section 7 of the Act goes into far too much detail, and I do not believe that the House will wish to receive a report of that kind. I agree, however, that the report would not be complete without some statement of the principles and broad policy behind the fixing of the prices under Clause 7.
    To sum up, for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman and others, my view is that it is not feasible to try to set out in the Bill all the subjects and heads under which the Board should report and render their accounts each year. So far
    1314
    as accounts are concerned, I think there is an advantage in reverting to the formula of the 1949 Act, under which the Minister may from time to time direct the form which the accounts should take.
    7.15 p.m.
    What I suggest to the Committee is that we might extend that formula to cover the Board's report as well; that is to say, not only will the Minister be entitled to specify the form which the accounts should take, but he should also be able to say to the Board "I would like your report in the coming year to deal specifically with the following points, in which interest has been expressed in Parliament." In that way, I think we might get the best of both worlds, and have control of the form in which the Board's report and accounts will be presented, instead of being tied to some rigid list which might rapidly get out of date. If such a solution appealed to the Committee, I should be happy to undertake to introduce an Amendment to carry it into effect on the Report stage.
    Mr. Albu: I think the Minister's argument is very interesting, and that the suggestions he has made are generally acceptable to us, but there is one other point I should like to mention in the hope that he will think about it. I agree that it would be impossible for the Board to give reasons for their determination in every single change in price, and that was not the real intention of the Amendment, but I think there ought to be, apart from the Minister's instructions to the Board, a standing instruction to give, in some detail, a description of the factors and principles which are taken into account in the changes made during the year. It is not good enough to say, at the end of a year, that certain factors have operated during the year, and to allow that blanket to cover all the price changes which have been made. I should have thought that we might perhaps have included in the next stage of the Bill power not only to instruct the Board but also to give some permanent directions on this matter. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would agree to look into that point?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think we shall have any difficulty about this. Perhaps I may put down my Amendment, and then hon. Members will have a look at

    1315
    it. In addition, the Minister has power to ask the Board for any information that he requires for the discharge of his duties under the Bill. His duties under Clause 8 include price fixing, so that it is always possible to get information from the Board about the trend of policy on prices, so that the Minister may consider whether he ought to intervene under Clause 8. I do not think that, in practice, we shall have any difficulty, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the general idea I put forward, and, no doubt. he will look at the Amendment when I have tabled it.
    Mr. Albu: In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Albu: I beg to move, in page 12, line 33, at the end, to insert:
    Provided that the Board shall compile and publish, or secure the compilation and publication of, the annual accounts of the companies which on the appointed day are subsidiaries of the agency constituted under Part III of this Act in such form as on or last before the appointed day was in use by those companies or in such equally comparable form as may from time to time be prescribed by the Board after consultation with such accountants or bodies representative of accountants as the Board may think fit.
    This Amendment is rather more controversial, and deals with a substantial point, but I hope, in view of the attitude displayed by the Minister, that it will not be considered unreasonable in present circumstances, whatever the actual form of words. We now agree that the industry should, as the Americans say, "live in a goldfish bowl," and that it should not be frightened of public examination and criticism. One of the most difficult things about dealing with the affairs of large undertakings and large companies is the difficulty of comparing their accounts.
    This is an old complaint of auditors and accountants, and also, of course, of investors. In the past there were very good reasons for directors and shareholders framing their accounts in such a way that it was impossible to tell what they were doing, how they were trading or what was the value of their assets. That state of affairs has been changed very considerably since the passing of the
    1316
    Companies Act, 1947, which makes it easier, though not entirely easy, to understand the accounts of public companies.
    Nevertheless, there are very great differences of practice in the drawing up of the accounts of companies which lead to considerable difficulty. There is no doubt that from the point of view of public examination and inspection one of the great achievements of the Iron and Steel Corporation was the bringing into uniformity both the period of accounting and the form of accounting of the companies owned by that Corporation.
    I wish that the hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) was present because he will no doubt have seen the eulogy published in the "Accountant"—the journal of the Institute of Chartered Accountants—of August last year of the activities of the Corporation in this field. It gave great credit—no doubt to some of the Institute's own members—to those who had been successful in consolidating the accounts of the companies comprising the Corporation, some of them subsidiaries of the main companies.
    The journal said:
    "Although not obliged to produce consolidated accounts in its first financial year if the task was considered impracticable, the Corporation realised that its own accounts would not sufficiently reflect the progress of the industry as a whole. Accordingly, steps were taken to ensure that the subsidiaries followed common accounting principles in preparing their accounts, and to arrange for the submission of the additional information necessary for the preparation of consolidated accounts by the Corporation."
    I realize, of course, that it is the intention of the Government that the industry shall not, in fact, be in a consolidated form, and nobody, of course, is suggesting that under this Bill the industry should be asked or forced in any way to produce consolidated accounts. Nevertheless, if we are to discuss the affairs of the industry in a reasonable manner, bearing in mind the factors in which Parliament will be most interested—investment, capital development, depreciation, and so on—it is essential to try to maintain the accounts of the companies in similar form. The law has, in fact, progressively tried to get public companies to produce their accounts in a comparable manner.
    I realise that this may not be easy to achieve if these companies remain in private hands over a period of time.

    1317
    Nevertheless, I should have thought that the Board, with their supervisory powers and their power to ask for information, and so on, would be in a pretty strong position to get the companies to maintain their accounts in the form in which they are presented at the present time and for the present periods of accounting. I should like to hear arguments from hon. Members opposite connected with the industry or from the Government why this should not be done. I cannot conceive that this would in any way interfere with the competitive position of the companies. The argument that the disclosure to competitors of details of the activities of the companies might affect their trading cannot really be applied to this industry, though it may apply, I agree, to certain small undertakings.
    It is very important that the industry should give the public the maximum information of every sort. They will have to go a long way in this direction if they are to succeed in winning the approbation of the chartered accountants, who say, in the article to which I have already referred:
    "Whatever restraint has been put on the long-term policy of the Corporation by reason of the political uncertainty which has attended it since its inception, the factual and forthright manner in which its first period of stewardship has been accounted for is wholly admirable. Both the report and the separate volumes containing the accounts and consolidated accounts of the subsidiaries to September 30th, 1951—issued by the Corporation to comply with Section 38 of the Iron and Steel Act—are worthy of study not only for the insight which they give into the iron and steel industry, but also for a proper appreciation of how one of the largest and most difficult exercises in financial integration ever attempted was achieved."
    It would be a very great loss to those of us concerned with the economic planning and progress of this country if that stewardship of accounts was not maintained by the industry. I hope that, even if the actual form of words used in this Amendment does not entirely achieve the object we have in mind, the Minister will feel that its purpose is worthy of being carried out and will, if necessary, move a further Amendment himself to this end.
    Mr. Sandys: This Amendment requires that the accounts of companies now nationalised should continue to be published together in the same form even after some of them have been returned to private ownership. In other words,
    1318
    it requires that any companies which have been nationalised shall, so far as their accounts are concerned, always be treated differently from the iron and steel companies which have not been nationalised.
    It was perfectly right, I am sure, for the Corporation to publish collectively in one book the accounts of all the nationalised companies. Although I am anxious to meet the views of hon. Members opposite on this point, I really cannot see the justification for preserving after denationalisation this distinction between companies which were nationalised and companies which were not. At the moment, the nationalised companies have a common financial year ending in September, but it may be that for one reason or another they will, when de-nationalised, wish to revert to their previous accounting periods.
    All accounts will, of course, have to be published in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, but, as hon. Members know, that Act, which was passed by the late Government, allows some latitude in the way accounts are presented. I do not think it would be right to lay down for all time that just because certain companies were nationalised they are to be deprived of the latitude allowed by the Companies Act for the presentation of their accounts. I do not see the purpose of that, and I do not understand the justification for making a permanent distinction between two classes of iron and steel companies.
    Therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment. I should, however, be prepared to go a very little way, and arrange that the Agency should publish in a single book, as has been done before, the accounts of the companies which it continues to own. But I could not guarantee that the form of those accounts would continue to be precisely uniform, as it is at present. Our intention is that, after the passing of this Bill, there should be as little distinction as possible between the status of a company owned by the Agency and a privately-owned company.
    7.30 p.m.
    We do not wish to make these distinctions, and therefore I cannot give an assurance that the form of accounts will remain precisely the same. But for the convenience of hon. Members who feel that they have a special obligation to

    1319
    interest themselves in the progress of companies which continue to be owned by the State, I am quite prepared to arrange that the Agency should publish together, in a convenient form, the accounts of the companies which they own.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins (Birmingham, Stechford): I am sorry that the Minister has not felt able to go further to meet the aim of this Amendment. I think that the reason why he did not feel able to do so was that all the time he was considering this matter of the presentation of accounts from the point of view of its being a burden on the company concerned, and not at all from the point of view of enlightening the public about the affairs of the company.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) brought forward very striking quotations from the "Accountant." It is agreed that during their existence the Corporation have worked out an admirable method of getting the accounts of all subsidiary companies presented so that they show a picture of the financial operations of the industry in a better way than it has been possible to obtain before. I should have thought that it would have been a great pity from the point of view of the Government themselves to retreat from that position. After all, the Government are now imposing on the steel industry for the future the sort of framework which presumably they want for large-scale industry in this country, and I should have thought that one of the things which hon. Members opposite would have wanted to see in the organisation of large-scale industry would have been the clear presentation of accounts.
    I wonder whether hon. Members opposite have read the principal article in the business world section of the "Economist." Referring to the difficulty of getting risk capital into the industry the "Economist" said—and I thought that it attached an exaggerated importance to getting the savings of the smaller people into the industry that if small savings were to be attracted into industry it was absolutely essential to have the accounts far more clearly presented than they have been presented in the past. I agree that if one wants to have smaller savings invested in an industry like steel it is
    1320
    essential to present accounts much more uniformly and clearly than they have been presented in the past. The Minister ought to bear that consideration in mind.
    If the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment I agree that it would be a slight burden on these companies. On the other hand, the Government ought to set an example to the rest of industry by showing a clearer picture of accounts to the public generally, and I should have thought that that consideration, at least, ought to have been set alongside the considerations which the Minister advances.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: I want to express briefly my regret that the Minister has not been able to accept the Amendment, which is perfectly reasonable and fair. The right hon. Gentleman asked why we want to segregate this section of the industry from the other firms. The answer, quite plainly, is that the section with which we are dealing is the big section of the industry, which produces 90 to 97 per cent. of the basic iron and steel products of this country. It was exceedingly convenient that the accounts of these firms were made up in the same way. There was some point in it. The Corporation did not ask that it should be done for fun. It was done so that there could be a reasonable comparison.
    This change in presentation of accounts was made and it was not difficult, though there was considerable resistance to the change on the part of some companies who were against sending in any accounts at all. They did carry out this requirement, however. The public interest lies in making sure that all these big companies continue to publish their accounts annually in the same sort of comparable form, so that we might know how they are doing while they are temporarily in private ownership. I do not see why this proposal should not be accepted by the Government.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) spoke about putting a slight burden on these companies. It is not really a burden to produce one's accounts in a perfectly intelligible form and in a way which has been accepted by leading accountants as most convenient and satisfactory from the point of view of public presentation, and on which everyone concerned has been congratulated by authorities on accounting.

    1321
    It is a slight restraint, wholly unimportant. I cannot imagine that anyone would want to change back into the old form, unless there are particular idiosyncrasies and whims amongst certain directorates.
    I should have thought that the Government would have agreed that it is in the public interest that big firms in an industry of this sort should continue to publish their accounts in a form which would enable comparisons to be made. There cannot possibly be anything against it. I should have thought that the industry itself would not have wanted to bother to change the form of presentation of accounts, only to have to change back again in a few years when we re-nationalise the industry. I should have thought that it would have been considered unwise to do so.
    I had hoped that the Government would say that these firms who, under the aegis of the Corporation have changed the presentation of their accounts in such a way as to give the public better information than was ever given before, should not break away and each one publish its accounts in its own individual way and in a form which makes comparison impossible. This is not a matter of major importance and we do not consider it to be one of the worst features of the Bill. We do not attach as much importance to it as many other features, but I think that the argument in favour of asking these firms to keep their accounts in the same form as previously is quite a strong one, and we regret that the Minister has not seen the force of our argument.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Marquand: I should like to say a few words about a thought which occurred to me while I was listening to the discussion on the preparation of the Board's report on the working of this new scheme. I recognise that the Minister has gone a long way to try to meet the point of view expressed from this side of the Committee about the nature of the report and the kind of information which it should contain. Everyone who has spoken so far has spoken about the need to inform Parliament of what is going on. My hon.
    1322
    Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) has spoken about the desirability of giving the potential investor plenty of information about what is going on and what may happen.
    I should like to remind the Committee of the need also to inform the men who work in the industry. There are in this industry many men who are perfectly capable of reading and understanding all that is in the report which is presented to Parliament. Many of the men in this industry have for a long time been pillars of the workers' educational movement. I have had the pleasure of teaching some of them in their classes in a bygone existence of mine, and I know full well that they are perfectly capable of analysing, dissecting and understanding very well the sort of report that is presented to this House.
    There are others in the industry, however, who have not that particular aptitude. Therefore, I hope that the Board, when they are framing their report, will have in mind the need for an explanation and for giving plenty of information in a more simple form than are customary in blue books and the like. The National Coal Board has set a good example in what can be done in this way. I hope that the Board, as well as presenting a printed report full of illustrations, etc., for the benefit of those who are less accustomed to reading complicated documents, might also consider the desirability of presenting some part of their report from time to time in the form of a film.
    I see the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) looking at me, and he is probably thinking of an occasion when we were both present, and when the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) introduced at a private meeting for Members in the Committee Room in Westminster Hall a film under the auspices of the British Institute of Management. Two companies had tried to set out their balance sheets in films. One was an American company and the other was Imperial Chemical Industries. I think we all felt that the film was the better of the two because it tried to do the job not as a piece of propaganda but objectively and factually, describing in a film what is usually shown in figures and words, and doing it pretty well.

    1323
    It is most important for good relations in industry to give the workpeople not merely information but explanation. It is necessary to explain what has happened and why it has happened. A film could show not merely the profit and loss account but the explanation of how a price was arrived at and why it was changed; all this can be done effectively in graphic form. I hope that the Board will bear that sort of idea in mind when they face their new task.
    Mr. Robson Brown: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and to support what he has said because I think he has touched on a very important point. First, on the report of the Board, I should like to amplify his suggestion by saying that in addition to making the report available to all of the men in the works at all levels, it might be wise to print what we call in these days a popular issue amplifying certain sections of it in simple language, particularly that part dealing with finance and the like. The right hon. Gentleman's idea of a film might well be explored; in fact, all avenues should be explored so that the operations of the Board should be completely and conclusively understood by the steel men in the mills, the management and staff all the way through the industry.
    There is another aspect of this subject of the companies' balance sheets. Many hon. Members, including myself, feel that the balance sheets should be freely available to the workpeople whom they employ, and that trouble should be taken to choose competent men to explain the implications of the balance sheets to the men either in writing or preferably once a year at a meeting of the men at some central point wherever that is feasible. In some of the larger organisations, of course, that would not be physically possible, but in many of the companies it is quite possible and it has proved to be extremely valuable and helpful to them.
    This idea which we have on these benches of creating within the industry an atmosphere of good will, mutual confidence and co-operation all down the line, can be strengthened and improved on the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, and by means of some of the points which I have explained.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mrs. White: I am sure that we were all glad to hear the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) supporting the principle that accountability should be extended to the workers in the industry. If all employers had acted in the enlightened way in which he has suggested, we might have had far less industrial tension and stress in the past. We in this Committee have a particular responsibility as Members of Parliament, and I am glad that the Minister has seen fit to indicate that he is prepared to assume some additional responsibilities. That is a step in the right direction, and one which we welcome because it will enable us to perform our functions more effectively.
    Those of us who have advocated public ownership of major industries have done so partly because we believe in this principle of public accountability. Therefore, it is for us to ensure that even with this hybrid organisation—this proposed organisation of the steel industry—where there will not be public ownership, the principle of public accountability shall be recognised and implemented as far as possible.
    I am a little concerned about the accounts. As I read the Clause, the accounts will not be laid before Parliament. The report will be laid before Parliament, according to subsection (1), but there appears to be no obligation on the Board or on the Minister to lay the accounts before Parliament. I am well aware that the major part of the expenditure of the Board will be met from funds levied on the industry, which subject we discussed earlier this evening, but the public have nevertheless a certain financial interest in this body, because in Clause 12, to which we have agreed, the Board may in certain circumstances borrow up to £1 million under Treasury guarantee, and although the Treasury is obliged to see that Parliament has a report after the event, I should have thought that that fact in itself gave us a certain interest in the accounts.
    As I read this Clause, all that the Board are obliged to do is to make available for inspection at their offices a copy of the accounts and of the auditor's report thereon. It seems to me that if we are to discharge our obligations fully, the accounts as well as the report should be

    1325
    laid before Parliament and the Board should also have an obligation to publish the accounts. These accounts will deal with matters such as the disposition of raw materials, education, research and training, which are of great interest to the persons to whom we have been referring, including the workers in the industry. Why should an interested worker in my constituency have to go to Chester Street or Tothill Street, or whereever the Board will be located, in order to read the accounts?
    Surely it is an elementary principle of public accountability that the accounts should be available to the public at a reasonable price. In Section 38 of the 1949 Act it is specifically stated that the statement of accounts and reports shall be made available to the public at a reasonable price, and that the Minister shall lay a copy of every such statement of accounts before each House of Parliament. I recognise that the circumstances are not quite the same in the case of an industry which is not to be publicly owned. Nevertheless, there seems to be a very strong argument in favour of the course I am suggesting.
    Another, and rather smaller point, is that subsection (4) says:
    "The Board shall compile and publish, or secure the compilation and publication of, such periodical statistics and reports relating to iron and steel products as may appear to them to be expedient."
    The Minister has agreed that he shall take some responsibility for the form in which the accounts shall be produced. I suggest that he should also take upon himself a responsibility concerning the publication of statistics and other information. I am not saying that the steel industry is not a well-documented industry. On the contrary, I should think its statistical service is much better than most other industries. Nevertheless, one can conceive that circumstances might arise in which it would be in the public interest for some information to be made available in a certain form. Under the Bill as now drafted, the Minister would have no power to ensure that information was supplied to the public.
    Reverting to the 1949 Act, Section 38 (5) says:
    The Corporation shall compile and publish periodical statistics and returns … and the Minister may give directions to the Corpora-
    1326
    tion as to the form of those returns and the manner of publication."
    Again, although I recognise that the circumstances are somewhat different, it might be advantageous if the Minister took upon himself a responsibility—which he would probably never have to exercise—to ensure that that information should be made available as he thinks best. For instance, in subsection (4) of this Clause statistics and returns relate to iron and steel products. There is no mention of raw material supplies, for instance. In some circumstances it might be desirable for the Board to see that those details were published.
    I make these few suggestions merely because I feel that this Clause, although not highly controversial—I think we are all at one in hoping to have the best possible information available—is an important one. We are trying to establish the principle of public accountability and it is our duty as Members of Parliament to see that the means of doing so are as perfect as we can make them.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Are we to have some reply from the Minister to the points raised by my hon. Friend? She has raised two important points. One was on the question whether the accounts as well as the report are to be published, and the other was concerned with the direction to publish statistics, in relation to subsection (4). I do not know whether the Minister proposes to make any comment on those two points.
    Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) referred to the question of popularising the Board's report. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East also suggested that a film of the report and accounts of the Board might be made. I must say that I would read more statements of account if they were presented as films, but I cannot give any assurance this evening that the Board will be provided with funds to enable them to go into the film business—desirable though that form of presentation might be.
    All who are concerned about the productivity of industry—as we all must be—recognise how important it is that every one in industry should be kept fully informed of the progress and the problems

    1327
    which confront his industry. Practical problems of markets, prices, competition and all the related financial problems should be made clear to him. The more those engaged in a particular industry know what that industry is up against in the form of national and competitive difficulties the more they will work together as a team to produce better results. Therefore, anything that can be done in that direction will receive the Government's fullest support and encouragement.
    The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White)—who, if I may say so, never speaks in the House without putting her ringer on some pertinent point has very briefly drawn attention to two issues. One of them is in regard to the presentation of the accounts to Parliament. She points out that these accounts are not to be presented to Parliament in the same way as the report. The reason is that under the Bill, Parliament is giving the Board certain specific duties and public functions. Parliament therefore asks the Board to report on its discharge of those duties and functions.
    The expenditure of the Board is in a different class, because the money which is to be spent is not public money; it is being raised from industry. I did not know that this rather technical point was going to be raised, but I think I am right in saying that, if the Board formally presented their accounts to Parliament, although it is not spending public money it would be brought within procedure for the control of public money. This would be inappropriate in the case of a body spending money which has been raised from industry.
    However, the hon. Lady has made a good point in saying that it is undesirable that she and others should have to go for a long walk in order to inspect or obtain copies of the accounts of the Board and, without saying what I can do, I shall look at it to see how any inconvenience that might be caused to hon. Members can be obviated.
    The second point was in regard to the publication of statistics. The hon. Lady suggested that the Minister should assume responsibility for that. That would be going a long way. This industry publishes a great many statistics itself and the Board, supervising this whole field, will,
    1328
    I am sure, make it one of their most important functions to see that comprehensive statistics are published. I do not envisage that arrangement breaking down. I regard it as such an important function of the Board that it would be a pity to duplicate those duties and make the Board feel that the responsibility to provide statistics was not placed fairly and squarely on their shoulders.
    Turning to the question of raw materials, I am advised that this point is covered in the Bill. It would be undesirable if the statistics did not cover raw materials, but if the hon. Lady will look at Clause 14 (4) she will see that it says,
    "The Board shall compile and publish, or secure the compilation and publication of, such periodical statistics and reports relating to iron and steel products …"
    I think it is quite clear that "relating to would include anything which relates to iron and steel products. Obviously, the raw materials needed to make those products would be included within the terms of the subsection.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 16.—(DUTY OF IRON AND STEEL HOLDING AND REALISATION AGENCY TO RETURN IRON AND STEEL UNDERTAKINGS TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.)
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Jack Jones: I beg to move, in page 13, line 13, after "Treasury," to insert "and Board."
    There are several Amendments on the Order Paper in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself on this subject. At the outset, I wish to ask the Minister's pardon in warning him that the barometer, having been set fair this afternoon, may change slightly. Perhaps it would meet the convenience of the Committee if we also discussed the Amendments, in page 13, line 16, at the end, to insert:
    "and—
    Provided also that no sale or other disposal of any securities or other assets by the Agency the total consideration for which exceeds one hundred thousand pounds shall be valid unless the Minister shall have previously signified his approval thereof; and his approval shall not be effective, until he shall have so signified

    1329
    it by a direction in that behalf to be given by a statutory instrument which shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament and shall not come into operation unless and until affirmed by a resolution of that House,"
    and in Clause 17, page 14, line 34, to leave out "consult with," and insert "obtain the approval of." I hope the Committee are satisfied that these Amendments can be taken together as seeking the same objective.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): On a point of order. May we have your Ruling, Sir Gordon, on whether we may discuss these Amendments together? I think it would be highly convenient to do so.
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): It is a matter for the Committee, but I think it would be convenient.
    Hon. Members: Agreed.
    Mr. Jack Jones: I understood that this arrangement had been approved by what are known as the usual channels. No doubt, because of the other work which he has to do, the Financial Secretary was not aware of it.
    This afternoon the Committee have reminded me of a reasonably contented and happy family—the sort of large family which everyone can imagine and which discusses things quite happily during life but in which there is quite a different atmosphere on the day when the will is read. I suggest that we have now reached that part of the Bill where the will is about to be read—who is to have what and how much and when and where; and that, of course, raises some very important issues.
    As has been said so often, we desire to make the Bill work and, as far as possible, to remove all unnecessary work from the Board as they go along. In arranging for the disposal of Britain's finest assets, John Bull's Steel Company, Limited, which has been doing a grand job, and in the allocation of these assets, we want to see that the best possible job is done.
    This Clause deals with what is known as the duties and set up of the Realisation Agency. We would give it a different name, but I am assured that if I were to use some of the names which we have
    1330
    suggested, I should be both un-Parliamentary and out of order. We look upon the Realisation Agency as the body which will be called upon to dissipate those assets to the best possible immediate advantage, if finance and finance alone is allowed to decide. I shall come to that in a moment. In other words, the Realisation Agency are to be given the sole power to determine. We want the words to be "Agency and Board"; we want the Agency and the Board to determine and not the Agency alone. But the Bill lays down that the Agency shall determine what shall be done with the steel industry.
    We are very gravely concerned about this. Already, as we know, interested parties are looking at the potential financial gain which might accrue. There are two aspects to which very serious consideration should be given. First, there is the short-term, financial grab aspect—get what you want as quickly as you can and as much as you can without paying too much regard to the ultimate potential. Secondly, there is the wiser precaution of seeing that, before the smash and grab begins to operate, every possible avenue is explored so that, as a result of the sale of these great assets, which the country now owns, the units at the disposal of the national need will be viable units of the best possible size and technical efficiency. In other words, we want the public interest to be safeguarded.
    We seek, in the first instance, to insert the words "and Board." We have been told repeatedly by the Minister—and I give him credit for believing that what he promises will in fact happen—that the best brains which the country can find will be brought in for this work—people who are qualified to talk about scientific research, technical people, financial people, those who have had to deal with trade unions, and, in short, a company of people who know all there is to know about the existing situation and all there is to know about the future potential of this great industry. But we are told by the Bill that an agency set up by the Treasury, consisting entirely of financiers, are to deal with the disposal of these assets and we are told that they alone shall determine what is to be done.
    We think that is completely wrong. We think that the Agency should be, if not subservient to, certainly under some form

    1331
    of direction from, and working in close connection with the Board. We believe that to give financiers the power to sell these assets, without the regard which we claim should be paid to the future of the industry, is wrong, and we therefore seek to insert the words, "and Board." I know that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us later that the Bill provides that there shall be consultation with the Board, but we are tired of hearing this phrase "shall consult with." We want the Board to have some real say and we want to ensure that attention is paid to their views and that their advice is followed.
    The Agency will set about the job of selling the assets. We believe that it would be in the best interests of the industry and the country and, indeed, of the speculators who are prepared to put money into the privately-owned sector, if, before the assets are sold, the Board expressed its views to the Agency, bearing in mind all the knowledge they will have at their disposal. There are all sorts of considerations. I can visualise a situation in which the financiers, with no real knowledge of this great industry but with a deep knowledge of the difference between 3½ per cent. and 3¾ per cent., will make bids for some sections of the industry.
    The Bill provides that the Agency may sell any company or part of a company and may integrate companies, bring together groups of companies, may hire or lease or otherwise dispose of companies. We have yet to discover what this term "otherwise dispose of" means. Does it mean that some part of the industry will be part of a national lottery or will be given away? We shall try to find out later in the Bill. We suggest in the first instance that the Board shall act in conjunction with the Agency and determine the issue. We do not suggest "consulted." I have been in the steel industry and I have consulted with a great many people in it. We never were able to come to a determination, so that consultation was frittered away. We say that should be avoided by making the word "determined." We want to see the Board brought into close contact with the work of the Agency to determine what is going to happen.
    1332
    Lots of things are being said about the possibilities through the selling out of these great assets. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may think that what I am saying is farcical, but I always like to put into their minds the general position in the industry, particularly those who are remote from it. We know that there are those who will be in a position to make the highest bids and that the Treasury will be listening avidly to the higher rather than the lower bidder. We are concerned with the type of person or type of financial organisation that will make offers for any part of our great industry. Reference has already been made to the fact that some very intelligent, well-read steel workers of this country have been inquiring about the possibility of some of the money at present accruing to Herr Krupp finding its way into the British steel industry.
    We want to know something about this. I personally cannot say anything. Everyone knows I am not a financier. I am more at home with a No. 14 shovel than a financier's pen. I do not intend to go into high finance, but these are questions that are being asked. Others want to know to what extent American dollars will come into the industry. In other words, to what extent can outside money, other than British money, be brought into this industry. The Agency has been told to get rid of Britain's steel assets, and I am hoping that we shall get some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman at the end of the debate on this series of Amendments.
    There is the question of viability of the units to be sold. There has been a considerable integration of a technical character in this industry. There has not been so much geographical integration, but there is still room in my opinion for it, and the Board could advise prior to sale what are the best types of viable units to be floated on the market. That is the sort of thing we believe they ought to be called upon to do, not when this thing has taken place but before the sales are undertaken. I could go into great detail on this matter, but I will refrain from doing so. If I were a person in a position to bid for some parts of the iron and steel industry as I know it, there are some healthy looking parts I would be prepared to bid for, but there are other

    1333
    parts I would not. I know sections of the industry which through integration would be a very fine asset.
    8.15 p.m.
    We on this side of the Committee make no excuse for telling the Government that we want to see the best possible form of units sold with the highest peak of efficiency under the conditions obtaining. We suggest to Her Majesty's Government that it is of vital importance that instead of the Treasury being the determining factor in this case, the Board should be brought into the scheme to operate and supervise the units, and that they should be brought in earlier than is proposed. We suggest that they would do a much better job if they were brought in first rather than last, and that they would prevent an enormous amount of mischief afterwards.
    We must remember that the workers' interests are concerned here. The Minister in his last statement to the Committee used the phrase "whole or part of it." It has become accepted by the Government that part of this industry cannot be sold, and it will be that part that will require the greatest and most serious attention. It will be the inefficient part, and it requires to be assured of the best type and quality of raw materials and technical resources.
    Mr. Sandys: I was talking about the accounts. What I was referring to was that the accounts will have to be presented in this coming year, for example, and no one is going to suggest—we did not suggest it in the White Paper—that the whole industry would be sold off in the first accounting period. But I never said anything to suggest that we did not believe that all the companies would not be sold. I said nothing of the sort.
    Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman agreed that a ready sale of the whole of the firms is not immediately feasible. Indeed, it lays it down in the White Paper—the Government's own declaration—that it will be some considerable time before certain units of the industry are sold. We believe that as the privately owned sector is improved upon and furnished with raw materials and looked after, the position of that part left in public ownership will be worsened and not bettered. It will become more diffi-
    1334
    cult to sell as the years go on. It is logical to make that assertion in this Committee, because we think that events will prove that to be the case.
    I want to go back to the question of grouping. We believe that it would be right and proper for the Board to make suggestions that after the day's shooting the pheasants should be mixed a little with the crows. Those who come along and want the fat pheasants should take one of the crows along with them. That is one way of putting it, and probably hon. Members will remember the story of the man dividing the shoot at the end of the day. One of the men kept saying "A crow for you, a pheasant for me." When the birds had been distributed, it was found that one man had all the pheasants and the other had all the crows. But we will not dwell on that.
    We sincerely suggest that the Board should be brought into the picture along with the Agency and act in conjunction with it. We are opposed to them being brought in and consulted at the end of the day. As laid down in the Bill, the Agency is to determine what is to happen, but if our suggestion is adopted then a lot of mischief can be prevented.
    We come to the second part of the Amendments before the Committee. These lay down that the Agency shall act under the supervision of the Board, and will comply with such directions as will be given from time to time by the Board to the Agency. The right hon. Gentleman might take a serious exception to that. We are not submitting this Amendment in the sense that the Board should dictate to the Agency. We do not suggest in any shape or form that the Board should have anything at all to do with the actual holding of the finances or the allocation of the price and the money, and so on. We think, however, that they should have everything to do with the bringing about of the best possible type of viable units to be sold. We suggest that these directions might be allowed to guide the Agency in doing what they and the Board in its wisdom—and it will have great wisdom—believe to be in the best interests of the over-all situation and of the country.
    We submit the Amendment to leave out the words "consult with" and to insert "obtain the approval of" in the spirit of trying to improve the Bill and

    1335
    to prevent unnecessary trouble in the future. This great industry is one unit now, owned and controlled by the State, but it is to be dismembered, hacked about, torn limb from limb. We want to see that in this hacking and tearing, this dissipation or selling out of the assets—this is not so serious a term as "dissipation"—the best possible job will be done, having regard to the future potential production of the industry rather than to the immediate, short-term consideration of getting hold of the money. It is one thing to sell quickly and then wish we had not done so, but it is far wiser to take time over it.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite have the numerical majority, and we accept democracy as it stands. The Bill will go on to the Statute Book, but we want to see the best possible job made of it. The Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary in replying will probably use legal phrases which are easily understood by the lawyers, but we want to be very sure that the intentions of the Bill are laid down in words that we understand, in simple language. It is in that spirit that we move the Amendment.
    We could go on and talk about the effect of wrong grouping, and the effect of the Bill on the women and children dependent upon the companies who will be left outside the privately owned sector. It is said that the Board will look after their interests, but we know that tremendous pressure has been put upon the Board to look after the interests of those who will make tenders for purchase. No one will purchase the parts of this industry without getting assurances about raw materials, labour, housing, new types of steel, the trend in world markets, and so on. We are gravely concerned about this Clause. We are trying to ensure that, instead of wishing after the mischief has taken place that we had taken a little more time, we shall not let ourselves get into that position. We are hopeful that the Amendments will be accepted in the spirit in which they are moved.
    Mr. Summers: The subject matter of this group of Amendments has been described by the sponsors as "smash and grab," "pheasant shooting" and "tearing limb from limb." I was beginning to wonder whether the subject matter of
    1336
    the Amendments was hunting, shooting or fishing.
    The idea put forward by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) was at variance with the fundamental structure of the Bill, and the Amendment ought to be rejected by the Minister. In considering what type of asset shall be sold at any one moment, the question of the grouping within the industry is irrelevant. The Treasury, as trustee for the taxpayers' money, will have an interest in getting as reasonable a price as it can. There are technical considerations and financial considerations. It seems a very logical set-up, in the light of these possibly divergent considerations, to have on the one hand an Agency concerned primarily with finance and a Board concerned primarily with the efficient conduct of the industry. and, where there is a conflict between those two considerations, for the Government, through the Treasury, to arbitrate to decide which of the two considerations should have the greater weight.
    If the Amendments were accepted, the Board would be pulled out of their proper sphere of responsibility, namely the efficient running of the industry. It is already provided that the Agency shall consult the Board to make sure that technical considerations are taken into account. The suggestion is made that the Board should be paramount in such matters and be able to override the Agency in the case of financial matters which the Agency may put forward. That is an undesirable position in which to put the Board. The Treasury ought to consider, in the name of the Government, which of the two considerations should be paramount, and should vary or approve the recommendations which may come to them from those two bodies.
    I hope, therefore, that the functions of the Board will be kept to the technical responsibilities which are already provided for under other Clauses, that those of the Agency will be kept to financial considerations, and that the Treasury will be the paramount agency through which the views of the Government of the day are brought to bear on cases of this kind.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: I do not find myself going quite so far in my opposition to these Amendments as my hon. Friend the Member for

    1337
    Aylesbury (Mr. Summers). I find myself in some sympathy with the thought behind them, although wholly out of sympathy with the form in which they are cast—a dilemma in which I often find myself in regard to Opposition Amendments. It seems to me that the Amendments make for confused responsibility. The first one, on behalf of which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) spoke, lays it down that the Agency shall act with the approval of the Treasury and the Board. But suppose they gave contradictory advice? Which is to prevail? The Amendment does not tell us and, if we adopted it, we should be prescribing for a stalemate.
    I do not think hon. Members have that kind of confusion in mind, but in so far as they want to move away from that confusion the whole bias of the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham lay towards giving entire responsibility to the Board. That, of course, would mean transferring the question of sale from the Treasury to the Ministry of Supply, and that would seem to me to be a very questionable constitutional procedure.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing a false point and I want to hear his argument on the true point. His argument is that if the words we suggest are here inserted, namely, that the Board also should give their consent before the sale, there might be conflict between the Board and the Treasury which would lead to constitutional difficulties. The trouble is that at the moment the Board are not to be consulted at all, only the Treasury has to decide on the question of sale. We say that the Board have as great an interest in the question of sale as the Treasury and we want the Board to come into the picture.
    Mr. Jones: I am aware of the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman has described and I was about to suggest a way out of it. I do not think he is quite right in saying that the Board are not to be consulted at all because Clause 17 lays it down that the Board are to be consulted on regrouping. I sympathise with the fundamental thought of the hon. Member for Rotherham, which I take to be that industrial considerations may be in conflict with the financial considerations.
    Mr. Jack Jones indicated assent.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: I think the hon. Member is exaggerating the possibility of conflict but I can see that it might exist. We are all agreed that no regrouping shall be undertaken in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the economic well-being of the industry. I should have thought we could have found a form of words which would provide that if the Board were to raise objections that a certain plan was not conducive to the economic welfare of the industry the Agency would not proceed with it; we could impose a limitation or restraint of that kind on the operations of the Agency.
    At the same time it seems to me that the responsibility must be absolutely clear. The responsibility must be that of the Agency and of the Treasury working within that limitation. I should be prepared to go that far to meet the hon. Gentleman, but not to the extent that these Amendments ask.
    Mr. Robson Brown: This issue is an important one and it is well that we should debate it on the Floor of the Committee and have our minds quite clear about it. One thing that must be made evident to the country is that any financial transactions, regrouping, realignment and re-arrangements within the industry are in the general interests and betterment of the industry as such and are seen to be so.
    Two bodies are being set up under the Bill. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) described the Board fairly accurately when he said they will be an extraordinarily competent, well-informed, technically efficient group of people with a certain measure of financial experience and judgment. The Agency will of necessity consist largely of financial minds. I feel that when technical issues are being decided, particularly re-grouping or re-alignment, the weight should be on the side of the Board. I do not know what form of words can be devised, but I appeal most sincerely to the Minister and to the Treasury to see whether some form can be found which will ensure that.
    Here is a distinct and positive opportunity, that may not occur again, for making within the industry some efficient re-adjustments and regrouping that perhaps would otherwise be delayed for

    1339
    many years. Here is a chance where, for greater efficiency and for the greater benefit of the industry, certain re-arrangements might be made.
    There is also another angle. There are within the industry many extremely efficient firms doing a first-class job of work, under personal leadership. We on this side have emphasised that again and again in our beliefs with regard to the way that the industry should be handled and the quality of the men in it. It would be a sad thing, and not a good thing, if sometimes one of those companies, because it had been extremely efficient, should be arbitrarily lumped in with another group.
    Mr. Jack Jones: Or sold for foreign in vestment.
    Mr. Robson Brown: I think that that will be taken care of.
    The hon. Gentleman introduced an extreme point when he said that foreign finance may come into the industry. I think that the Treasury are well seasoned in the way that that would be dealt with. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) that the main thing is to find some form of words which would make it quite clear that on technical matters the last word regarding technical decisions should rest with the Board.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: It has been of great interest to us on this side to hear the views expressed by the hon. Members for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) and Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones). I sincerely hope that the occupants of the Government Front Bench will pay very great heed to what they have said. I turn briefly to a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers). The hon. Member seemed very anxious to separate the financial functions of the Agency from any other functions to do with the steel industry. I am in entire agreement with that, but can we have the hon. Member's opinion as to what is to happen with regard to those sections of the industry which are still held by the Agency because, for one reason or another, they have not been sold—and the period during which they hold those sections may go on for some quite considerable time?
    1340
    It is the duty of the Agency to promote the efficient direction of their subsidiaries. In other words, there will be this Treasury body, in effect, running the steel industry. If that is not bureaucracy gone mad, I should like to know what it is. We have heard a good deal about farming from Whitehall in one connection or another. Now, not only is the steel industry to be run from Whitehall, but it is to be done from the holy of holies—the Treasury.
    Mr. Summers: My view of the role which the Agency will play towards those companies whose assets are not sold is that they will represent the Treasury as shareholders of those companies, but not as managers of them.
    Mr. Mallalieu: It may be that they will not represent them as managers, but at the same time they have to promote the efficient direction of that part of the industry. That is in the very Clause which we are dealing with. If the Treasury is to promote the efficient direction of those companies, ultimately it will be responsible for management. It will have the shareholders' control and can turn out the management, and it will, therefore, be ultimately responsible for those, perhaps, very large sections of the industry.
    I feel that that is a catastrophe and that we should not allow that sort of thing to happen. I hope that I am under a misapprehension. If I am, no doubt the hon. Gentleman who is to reply will enlighten me, but I sincerely hope that we are not to have the steel industry run from the Treasury of all places.
    Mr. Robson Brown: I notice that the second Amendment in page 13, line 16, is being discussed with the other Amendments. So that there may be no misunderstanding, my personal view is that this would be a wholly undesirable Amendment from every point of view. It would virtually mean that the Board would be managing the industry, which I think should not be the case.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I do not think there is very much between the two sides of the Committee on the objectives we are seeking on this point. Granted the decision to de-nationalise the industry, I imagine that hon. Members on

    1341
    both sides want two things. They want first, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) so well put it, that the industry shall be in decent shape. They equally want to be sure that this valuable piece of public property is sold at a fair and proper price. Those are the two objectives.
    The discussion which arose on this series of Amendments is how best to secure these two objectives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) said, the relationship between the Agency and the Board is a very important part of the whole proposals of this Bill. The scheme, which my hon. Friend described very vividly in a couple of phrases, does provide for the Board to supervise the industry as a whole and the Agency to undertake the work of disposal. In considerable degree those are distinct and separate functions which are perhaps best kept distinct.
    The proposals in this series of Amendments provide in rather varying degrees for subordinating the Agency to the Board. The second Amendment, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) referred a moment ago, appears to go very far indeed. It provides, subject to such limitations as there might be in the Bill, for the Board to give directions to the Agency over the whole sphere. That seems to me to go very far. It also poses this difficulty which I ask hon. Members to consider—the difficulty of establishing responsibility.
    Under the Bill as it stands the Treasury, which is responsible for the Agency, has to approve of all the disposals. As a consequence, of course, Treasury Ministers are responsible to this House. The ordinary methods of Parliamentary procedure can be used to bring home that responsibility. If in this matter the Board were given mandatory powers, interfering with and over-riding that responsibility, we would hopelessly blur the whole chain of responsibility and neither my right hon. Friend nor I could justify decisions to dispose of property if, in point of fact, we had not ultimately the authority to regulate disposals.
    Most hon. Members will agree that when we are disposing of public property of great value in the narrow financial sense, and equally of enormous value in the broad economic sense to the well-
    1342
    being of this country, it is very proper that there should be a strict chain of Parliamentary accountability. That inevitably would be blurred if the Board were given this over-riding power, particularly as hon. Members will recall that the Minister of Supply does not have general overriding powers over the Board. We might be put in the position that among those responsible for this very important handling of public property of considerable value there was no one accountable to the House. That would be a result which all hon. Members would profoundly regret.
    I would be prepared to concede this to the hon. Member for Rotherham. I agree that when we come to the subject matter of regrouping for the purpose of sale we are touching something which bears very directly upon the efficiency of the industry and upon the sphere, therefore, which is properly within the concern of the Board. The difficulty, as I understand it, is to reconcile those two somewhat conflicting considerations which I have tried to put before the Committee. I have been impressed by what has been said, particularly on this regrouping angle. That is the point, I think most hon. Members will agree, where the responsibilities and concerns of the Board and the Agency most obviously intersect and where it is perhaps a trifle unrealistic to pretend that their concerns cannot legitimately overlap. I cannot agree, for the reasons I have given, to provide as is suggested—which is indeed the main tenor of these Amendments—to make the Agency the subsidiary of the Board. That would go against the main structure of the Bill and the proposals which, for better or worse, we are putting forward as a solution of this far from easy problem. Equally, it would blur responsibility where, in my view, responsibility ought not to be blurred.
    8.45 p.m.
    But if the Committee wish, it might be possible on the next stage of the Bill to provide a solution along these lines. If, in the case of a re-grouping, the Board were so seriously concerned that they would certify that the proposals would prejudice efficiency and the economic and adequate supply of iron and steel, then the Agency should not, by itself, have the power to over-rule them, but that responsibility should be placed directly on my right hon. Friend

    1343
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend would lay a Treasury Minute and no action would be taken for some period—shall we say 14 days—after that Minute had been laid before this House.
    I am not in a position tonight, even were I allowed to do so, to tender a manuscript Amendment embodying that proposal. But if the Committee felt that would be a satisfactory way of meeting the genuine apprehensions which have been expressed, without prejudicing other considerations to which we attach considerable importance, my right hon. Friend and I would be prepared on Report stage to embody such proposals in an Amendment and to submit it to the judgment of the House.
    So far as I can—and without sacrificing considerations which seem to me at least as important as do the others to him—I have tried to meet the point expressed by the hon. Member for Rotherham with his habitual sincerity and force. I appreciate that these somewhat complicated proposals are difficult to comprehend as they are spoken, and are perhaps more easily understood when read in the OFFICIAL REPORT. But a solution along those lines may appeal to the Committee as a sensible way of reconciling conflicting considerations of importance.
    Mr. Jack Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman say something about the fears of those in the industry about the possibility of foreign money being brought into this question?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will not say anything now, because that issue is directly raised in an Amendment to Clause 17. If the Committee desire I shall have something to say when we reach that Amendment. I should not like to inflict the same arguments upon hon. Members twice.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to consult with the Minister about the possibility of submitting a manuscript Amendment before the end of the Committee stage? If this matter is deferred until Report stage the discussion will not be so satisfactory as it would be on Committee stage.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate that point and would meet the hon. Member if I could. But he will understand that the drafting of such proposals is not a matter which any sensible person would undertake off the cuff. It would be more convenient if this came in at Report stage, but I will see that it is tabled as early as possible so that hon. Members may have time to study it properly.
    Mr. Summers: Am I right in assuming that the intention of the Minister to bring forward a solution to this problem will have the effect, in those circumstances where there is a conflict of interest between the financial and the technical considerations involved, of placing upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the ultimate responsibility for the solution of that inter-play of forces?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That would be so, subject to the overriding authority of the House of Commons and to the fact that the steps I have outlined would be designed to ensure that Parliament was fully aware of the issue and could make up its mind on it.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: We appreciate what the Financial Secretary has said. He need have no fear about the clarity of his statement. We understood it fully. We realise that he has gone some way to meet us on one Amendment, but we are not satisfied on another. The Financial Secretary told us that our Amendment in page 13, line 16, where we seek to put the Agency under the general direction of the Board, is unacceptable. Bearing in mind the previous Amendments which have been rejected, his case was logical.
    We sought to make the Board responsible to the Minister of Supply so that we could always tackle him about any matter affecting the efficiency of the industry. There would have been a Minister constitutionally responsible to Parliament for the actions of the Board; but now that the Board is not to be responsible in any way to the Minister, and the Minister cannot give directions, our case for putting the Agency under the Board is much weakened. Although we still think that the Agency should follow the general orders and directions of the Board, we agree that our case is much weakened.
    I admit that the Financial Secretary has gone some way towards meeting our

    1345
    Amendment to Clause 17, page 14, line 34, where we seek to ensure that, in regrouping, the approval of the Board should be obtained. We want to be sure that technical points affecting the efficiency of the industry should be considered as more important than the financial aspect, and that the Treasury in its desire to carry out its duty to sell units should not sacrifice the efficiency or the prosperity of the industry by some regrouping which the Board thought was undesirable on technical grounds.
    We will consider carefully the extent to which the proposals which the Government have made to amend the Bill meet our point of view. If it is possible to put down the Amendments before we conclude the Committee stage, so much the better; but we will look forward to seeing the proposals at any rate on Report stage. I can go no further now than to accept the statement and to thank the Government for going some way to meeting our point of view.
    But on the Amendment now before us we have not been met at all. This Amendment concerns the duty of the Agency to sell the assets of the industry now held by the Corporation. That is to be the sole responsibility of the Treasury. It is for the Treasury to say which units are to be sold. We hold the view, which I think would be accepted by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, that here again the efficiency of the industry is at stake.
    There are two conflicting forces. There is the Treasury which is given the job of selling the assets of the industry and there is the Board whose job it is to look after the efficiency of the industry and to ensure its future prosperity. Those two bodies may well be in conflict. The Treasury may say, "We have got a reasonable offer to sell a certain unit," but it may be that to sell that certain unit would upset the plans which had been made for re-organisation, for co-operation or future regrouping and that sort of thing. As the Bill stands, the Board do not come into the picture at all. It is the Treasury which will determine which units are to be sold, as well as the terms on which they are to be sold.
    We propose that the consent of the Treasury and the consent of the Board should be obtained before any unit is sold, but we have not been met in that
    1346
    argument in the slightest degree. We think that it is essential that the Board's point of view should be put forward and that the Board's consent should be obtained, and, further, that if there is any conflict in the matter, it can come before the House, the Minister of Supply can step in and the matter be determined in some way. At the moment, it is solely the Treasury whose decision has to be obtained.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: Surely, there are two distinct considerations here? The first is the one of regrouping, where there may be a conflict between the financial and the industrial considerations, and that I understand my right hon. Friend is prepared to meet. On Clause 16 (1), we are dealing with a different topic concerning the various stages of disposal, and I cannot see myself in what way a conflict can arise on that particular topic between the financial and industrial considerations. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give some instances of such conflict. The right hon. Gentleman started to do so, but went on to talk about re-grouping.
    Mr. Strauss: No doubt, the hon. Gentleman can envisage a case whereby, by the sale of a certain unit, the prospect of re-grouping that unit or amalgamating it with one which the Agency may already control or own would be rendered impossible. The Agency will control and own certain units, and it may be the view of the Board that it would be desirable that certain production changes should take place—amalgamations, co-operation in operation and so on—and that prospect may be vitiated by the sale of a particular unit which the Agency sells to private interests, which may have entirely different objects in mind, so that the proposals which the Board have in mind would therefore be rendered nugatory.
    It seems to us that, in selling the units, quite apart from any re-grouping activities of the Agency, which we shall be talking about on Clause 17, the Board should consider the matter on functional grounds, as well as the Treasury on financial grounds. We have not been met in that matter in the slightest degree by the reply of the Financial Secretary, who has met us on one of the other Amendments. and I agree that on the second Amendment our case was not very

    1347
    strong, but as he has not met us on the first Amendment, we feel that we must press the matter to a division.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 250.

    Division No. 98.]

    AYES

    [9.0 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Hardy, E. A.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Adams, Richard

    Hargreaves, A.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Albu, A. H.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Pryde, D J.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hastings, S.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Rankin, John

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Reeves, J.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Holman, P.

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Bartley, P

    Houghton, Douglas

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Bence, C. R.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Ross, William

    Benson, G.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Beswick, F.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Blackburn, F.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Blyton, W. R

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Short, E. W.

    Boardman, H.

    Janner, B.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Bowden, H. W.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Slater, J.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Snow, J. W.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Beloer)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Keenan, W.

    Steele, T.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Kenyon, C

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Carmichael, J.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. (Vauxhall)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Kinley, J.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Champion, A. J.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Coldrick, W.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Collick, P. H.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Corbet, Mrs Freda

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Cove, W. G.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    McGovern, J.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    McInnes, J.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    McLeavy, F.

    Thornton, E.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Tomney, F.

    Deer, G.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Dodds, N. N.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Viant, S. P.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

    Mikardo, lan

    Weitzman, D.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Edelman, M.

    Monslow, W.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Moody, A. S.

    West, D. G.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Morley, R.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Mort, D. L.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Fernyhough, E

    Moyle, A.

    Wigg, George

    Fienburgh, W.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Finch, H. J.

    Murray, J. D.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Willey, F. T.

    Follick, M.

    O'Brien, T.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Foot, M. M.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Orbach, M.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Oswald, T.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Padley, W. E.

    Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Pannell, Charles

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Paton, J.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Peart, T. F.

    Yates, V. F

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Popplewell, E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Porter, G.

    Mr. Pearson and

    Hannan, W.

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Mr. Arthur Allen.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Gower, H. R.

    O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir lan (Weston-super-Mare)

    Ashton, H (Chelmsford)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Osborne, C.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Peyton, J. W. W

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Harvey, lan (Harrow, E.)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Barber, Anthony

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Barlow, Sit John

    Hay, John

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Profumo, J. D.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton. E.)

    Heath, Edward

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Remnant, Hon. P

    Bevins, J. R. (Texteth)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Renton, D. L M.

    Birch, Nigel

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Robertson, Sir David

    Bossom, A. C.

    Holland-Martin, C. J

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Bowen, E. R.

    Hope, Lord John

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Braine, B. R.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Russell, R. S.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt -Col. W. H.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Jennings, R.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

    Bullard, D. G.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Scott, R. Donald

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Shepherd, William

    Campbell, Sir David

    Kerr, H. W.

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Carr, Robert

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Lambton, Viscount

    Smyth, Brig, J. G. (Norwood)

    Channon, H.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Speir, R. M.

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Colegate, W. A.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Storey, S.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Summers, G. S.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Teeling, W.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Donaldson, Cn.dr. C. E. McA.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Donner, P. W

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Tilney, John

    Drayson, G. B

    Maitland, Comdr.J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Drewe, C.

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Turton, R. H.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Duthie, W. S.

    Markham, Major S. F.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M

    Marples, A. E.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Maude, Angus

    Wade, D. W.

    Fell, A.

    Maudling, R.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S L. C

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Fort, R.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Foster, John

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Wellwood, W.

    Galbraith. Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Gammons, L. D.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Godber, J. B.

    Nutting, Anthony

    York, C.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Oakshott, H. D.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Odey, G. W.

    Sir H. Butcher and Mr. Kaberry.

    Mr. J. Freeman: I beg to move, in page 13, line 16, at the end, to insert:
    and—
    Provided also that no sale or other disposal of any securities or other assets by the Agency the total consideration for which exceeds one hundred thousand pounds shall be valid unless the Minister shall have previously signified his approval thereof; and his approval shall not be effective, until he shall have so signified it by a direction in that behalf to be given by a statutory instrument which shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament and shall not come into operation unless and until affirmed by a resolution of that House."
    This Amendment necessarily comes very close in argument to some of the points which we have been discussing on the last Amendment and I do not think that it is possible to make anything like a connected case without going a little repititiously over the remarks which have been made earlier. The object is to provide some measure of Parliamentary control in the case of major sales and disposals by the Agency.
    I ask the Committee to consider the case for it in these terms. We are now entering upon the second half of this Bill, as it were. Up to now, all our discussions have been concerned with the Board, their functions and activities. I think that most of us will agree that the conception of the Board which appears in the Bill, whether we like it or dislike it, is at any rate an intelligible conception. It means that we are handing this industry over substantially to the control of Steel House, but I dare say that the pressure of public opinion and the fear of renationalisation may prevent the most disastrous consequences of that.
    Now we come to the Agency and their functions. I personally feel that the Agency are the wrecking part of this Bill, because whatever public opinion has to say about it, the Agency is the body which, as soon as this Bill becomes law, can get to work and create great changes in this industry whether or not they are in the public interest. The Agency are, in fact, in practical terms and certainly in the early stages when this Measure may be operative, a far more powerful and important body than the Board.
    Their primary task is to sell the nation's assets back to private ownership. It follows from that that their task is also to leave the taxpayer with the job lots and to hold them on behalf of the taxpayer. Therefore, the way in which they
    1352
    accomplish their sales will have a considerable effect on the assets which the nation holds in the steel industry after the first few months following denationalisation.
    It is further the duty of the Agency to determine fair prices for those sales, and I believe that the Minister, when he referred to this at an earlier stage, was genuinely anxious to see, so far as was in his power, that fair prices were obtained—fair prices, he said, not only to the purchaser but also to the seller. The Agency, in fact, can and will decide how much of the industry remains in public ownership in the near future and how much of it passes into private ownership. In other words, they are to decide how much of the industry is to be controlled ultimately by the Treasury.
    They are to have the responsibility, in the terms of the subsection which we have just discussed, for the efficient direction of the industry and for deciding how much is to be controlled by Steel House. As to that part of the industry which remains in public ownership, the Agency can regroup it, and we have been discussing on a previous Amendment some of the circumstances in which they might do that and some of the terms on which they may do so.
    There is altogether another kind of regrouping, however, and I was not certain until towards the end of our previous discussion whether the Financial Secretary, who met us most reasonably on one of the points which we put, had in mind the sort of regrouping to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) and I were referring. If we take that part of the industry which remains in public ownership we may decide to regroup it simply as an act of technical efficiency, and if we do that, the safeguard which is already in the Bill, namely, that the Agency have to consult with the Board, and the concession which the hon. Gentleman made to us at the end of our last discussion, go some way towards providing that that will be done responsibility and competently.
    But suppose that we have the problem, which may well arise, of what might be called the conditional sale. The steel industry would be prepared to buy some part of the assets on condition that it did not have to buy all of them, or that it could buy a piece of something else. I do

    1353
    not pretend to be a lawyer but, reading the Bill to the best of my ability as a layman, it appears to me that an operation of that kind is not covered by the use of the term "regrouping" as we have been discussing it.
    9.15 p.m.
    I want to draw the attention of the Committee to some words which my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham used in his Second Reading speech. After all, no one in this Committee speaks with greater authority and greater knowledge about the practical problems which are likely to arise in this field than does my hon. Friend. He dealt with the matter fully, and, as far as I know, no one has answered the warning that he gave. I am sure my hon. Friend will forgive me if I leave out one or two autobiographical references which appear in his speech. Otherwise I will quote it verbatim.
    He said:
    "Let me tell the House the sort of thing which I am afraid will happen. I have no need to go any further than my own constituency of Rotherham, where we have two very fine steel works … one … the Parkgate Iron and Steel Company—an old-established and worthy concern. That is Plant A. Then we have Plant B—a part of that great steel organisation, United Steels. They are both in the market to be sold.
    I want the Minister to take great care about this … I do not say that this will happen, but it might. Prospective buyers may come along and they may look at United Steels, part of a great, lucrative money-making concern. The Agency are anxious to sell. They want to get rid of it, and, because of their anxiety, they can be taken advantage of, and they would be. The buyers might say: 'We will think seriously about United Steels, but only on one condition, that we have the blast furnaces which the Parkgate Company have and which United Steels have not. At the moment pig iron is being brought 40, 50, 60 and 70 miles into the United Steels works.'
    That sort of thing could happen and that old-established firm could find itself being dismembered."
    My hon. Friend then referred to the Manchester Steel Corporation. He said:
    "This firm has docking facilities, unloading facilities. blast furnaces, coke ovens, a byproduct plant, a very fine wire mill, a rod mill and a department making road materials.
    There is nothing to prevent those who would wish to do so from making big bids for the whole or part of that organisation. Within two miles of the Manchester Steel Corporation at the moment "—
    Mr. Jack Jones: It is the Lancashire Steel Corporation.
    Mr. Freeman: I should have said "Lancashire Steel Corporation" but I stated that I would quote verbatim.
    "Within two miles of the"—
    Lancashire—
    "Steel Corporation at the moment are Petrochemicals and a great concern making gas for the Manchester Corporation. How easy it would be under this Bill for such people to satisfy the desires of the Agency to realise the greatest amount of money by inducing them to sell off that great concern piecemeal. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent that. If that happened we should find a great organisation cut about—its arms and legs cut off, and its heart taken out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 737–8.]
    I have taken the time of the Committee in reading that quotation because, quite rightly, we have been asked by hon. Members opposite to give concrete examples of the sort of fears that we have. There is an example which my hon. Friend feels to be a real one, and I am certainly prepared to accept his judgment about it.
    At the moment we do not even know how the Agency are to be composed. We have asked all manner of questions about them but we have never had any very clear answers. Are they to be an Agency of Treasury receivers? Is the Minister of Materials to preside over them? There are all sorts of interesting possibilities about which one can speculate. We simply do not know. However the body is eventually to be composed, we have not the slightest guarantee that it will be a body competent both to do its job of supervising the industry and to satisfy the Treasury that it is doing what the Treasury will want it to do, which will be to sell off the assets as quickly as possible at the greatest possible book profit.
    Apart from the composition of the Agency, who is to control them? Obviously, the central point of control of the Agency is the Treasury. There is no doubt about that. But if hon. Members will look at the provisions of Clause 17 they will see that there is no doubt that Treasury control is considerably modified in a good many respects. Subsection (5) says,
    "The appropriate department "—
    that is subsequently defined as the Treasury—
    "may give directions to the Agency as to the exercise of their powers under this section, and the Agency shall comply with any such directions, and the Agency shall not exercise "—

    1355
    certain of the powers—
    "except in pursuance of directions of, or with the consent of, or in accordance with the terms of a general authority given by, the appropriate department."
    There we have it established that the Treasury is the competent authority, that it may give specific directions to the Agency on specific projects or it may give a general authority to the Agency which will presumably give the Agency power to pursue a certain policy, but that the Treasury will not keep any very firm control over how they do it. In the following subsection we have the point which we were discussing earlier, that in the case of regrouping the Agency are to consult with the Board.
    Finally, subsection (7) merits being read to the House:
    In this section the expression 'the appropriate department' means the Treasury, except that, in relation to such matters as may from time to time be determined by the Treasury. it means the Minister; and the Treasury shall give notice to the Agency of any determination made by them under this section."
    It is true to say that the control which is to be exercised over the Agency is, to put it mildly, divided and rather uncertain.
    In certain cases it may be nobody at ail, if the project with which the Agency are dealing is a matter already covered by a general authority which has been given by the Treasury. It may be the Minister of Supply, if the Treasury so determine in accordance with Clause 17 (7). It could be the Agency, after consultation with the Board, and after all the possible paraphernalia with the Treasury which was described to us a few moments ago, if it were a case of a formal regrouping.
    In the sort of possibility to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham referred on Second Reading, and from which I quoted extensively, I am unable to determine that there is any really effective control which would give this Committee confidence that that sort of problem will be approached not only with a desire to serve the narrow interests of the Treasury but also with a desire to look widely over the problems of the steel industry and over the responsibility which the Agency have no less than the responsibility of selling the assets—that of running the publicly-owned sector of the industry, which for a long time will remain quite a substantial one.
    1356
    I believe there are few hon. Members present who will not agree with this proposition at least—that, however the facts turn out in the end, there is scope here for a great deal of muddle, evasion, concealment, dispute between Departments or between organisations, or even plain misjudgment by the Treasury. I hope that will not happen. Indeed, we all hope so. We are not now discussing the objectionable principle which lies behind the Bill but the practical problems of how to make it work with as little harm as possible, and obviously we all hope that the worst case will not happen.
    Nevertheless, this is not a very tidy arrangement. We have a situation in which we are disposing of some of the nation's most valuable assets; we have a situation in which we cannot feel confidence that this disposal of the assets will be effected with due regard to all the relevant circumstances; and we have a situation in which we cannot feel confident that the disposal will be in financial terms and circumstances which Parliament would necessarily judge to be the most satisfactory.
    I do not want to give the impression of seeking to score cheap debating points against either the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, for both of whom I have respect, when I say that it does not always follow that even the Treasury and the Ministry of Supply will see eye to eye on problems of this kind. I have served in these Departments, and one knows the sort of thing that can happen. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a different Government."] If both those Departments are doing their job as they should be, their interests are not identical, and it follows from time to time they will disagree. I believe that the Financial Secretary is far too astute not to understand that these things are really so.
    One of the things that have bothered me since I first looked at the Bill and spoke on the Second Reading is that there may be circumstances in which there is a perfectly legitimate Departmental disagreement about what is the best interest of the nation, or of the industry, in any particular case. I cannot see why it should be necessary to have divided control, even when the basic principle of the Bill is accepted. The

    1357
    Minister of Supply in a different Government was quite capable of disposing pretty efficiently of a very large number of assets belonging to the nation at the end of the war, so I do not see why this Minister of Supply should not be entrusted with this job, even if the Government thought it was the right thing to do. We have a degree of divided control which can lead to inter-Departmental disputes.
    Parliament is entitled to know when these big decisions are taken, and the circumstances under which all the considerations really have been taken into account. I repeat that this is not a matter of trying to make stupid party points about personalities, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not only in the Cabinet but is one of the big men in the Cabinet. The Minister of Supply is not in the Cabinet or in the hierarchy. He is a much smaller man. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that when legitimate Departmental disputes arise between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Supply that the Minister has to be a great deal more eloquent than usual if he is to carry the day when he appears as a visitor at the Cabinet table.
    This is a lengthy, but I hope comprehensible preamble. We believe that the solution of this problem lies in Parliamentary control. There are two problems. One, we debated on the previous Amendment. I say no more about it, because the Financial Secretary dealt with it, and we have divided on it. We are left with the problem of the sale of assets, in which we believe that Parliamentary control is the best answer. We think the less cumbersome and objectionable way is to put some sort of money figure for the assets of the transaction, which would be subject to Parliamentary control.
    So we come to the terms of our Amendment, which says that the Agency shall not be put in the position to sell off an asset where the selling price is more than £100,000, unless the Minister of Supply has signified his consent. That surely is not unreasonable. I cannot conceive of a single occasion where the Treasury would seriously advocate that an asset of that kind should be disposed of in the face of serious opposition from the Minister of Supply. It says that the Minister shall not only give his approval
    1358
    but shall signify it by a direction to be by a Statutory Instrument, which shall be laid before the Commons. The object of that is to centralise control of this matter in Parliament.
    Thirdly, we come to the method of Parliamentary control. I am fortunate this evening in that I am addressing my arguments to one who is necessarily sympathetic to that proposition, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I am glad the Leader of the House was here. I remember the weary nights in the previous Parliament when we sat while the present Leader of the House and the present Financial Secretary urged on us the importance of Parliamentary control and of the affirmative resolution procedure as a means of Parliamentary control.
    The Financial Secretary is no less agreeable, but a good deal more sober in these days than he used to be in those. I put in all seriousness the argument which he used to put forward for the technique of the affirmative resolution. They were always very good arguments, but Parliament in its wisdom sometimes voted them down. I now propose to put to him an argument which is rather a better one, if we are to have any Parliamentary control in this situation, which must be by means of the affirmative resolution.
    9.30 p.m.
    Where there is a Departmental policy which has to be varied by statutory rule and order, it is possible to use the technique of an order being brought in and prayed against within a certain number of days, and in the event of the Prayer being successful the order can be rescinded. But in the matter of the sale of a steel works or some such big assets it is not conceivable to use the negative resolution system. The sale would take place and the property change hands, but then there would have to be a period of 42 Parliamentary days while waiting to see whether the Opposition would pray against the order.
    If the Financial Secretary accepts at all that there is any case for Parliamentary control, he will agree that the affirmative resolution is absolutely essential both because the negative resolution in fact makes nonsense of the facts, and because the affirmative resolution procedure has at least the advantage of allowing the

    1359
    Government to control the time-table. One of the arguments which could legitimately be made against the sort of proposition that I am suggesting is that the Government could not tolerate long periods when they do not know whether Parliament is going to affirm a proposal or not. It would not add greatly to the burdens of Parliament. Labour and Tory Governments alike hate affirmative resolutions, and of Ministers Chief Whips hate them most. But, in fact, there are very large numbers of affirmative resolutions which come before this House month after month which go through on the nod.
    It is not a reasonable argument to reject the technique of the affirmative resolution on the grounds that it would congest the Parliamentary time-table. If the Leader of the House were present I would put it to him quite fairly that a Government which can afford the time to take the Committee stage of a Bill like this on the Floor of the House instead of upstairs where it ought to be is not very pressed for Parliamentary time. If one looks at the sort of legislative programme that the Government have in front of them, it may well be that they will find it a little difficult to fill in the period after the Third Reading of this Bill until a decent interval has elapsed after the Coronation to go once again to the country.
    Those are the considerations which I want to put to the Financial Secretary, and I hope he will accept them from me. If in the course of my speech there has been some light-hearted banter, let me stress that the essential point is one about which we feel strongly. There is an element of divided control which could lead to disaster and cannot lead to a general feeling of satisfaction on the part of Parliament that the matter is properly tied up. We believe that the proper way to deal with it is by Parliamentary control, partly because it is not possible always to be questioning Ministers and partly because if the technique of the affirmative resolution is adopted, then at least the Government will have to make their case for many of these major sales, provided that the Opposition want to debate the matter.
    All we ask is that somebody shall have to come to this House when there is a big sale of a major national asset which
    1360
    might have a serious effect on the industry of this country and be prepared to tell Parliament what is happening. why it is happening and to give us an assurance that all the relevant considerations have been taken into account.
    Mr. Shepherd: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman), and I feel certain that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will not fall for the bait that there is a prospect of any order which might be brought forward if this Amendment were accepted going through on the nod. I can well imagine what chance there would be of that with hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite. I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman reconciles the speech he has just made with what was said on the previous Amendment to line 13, after "Treasury," to insert "and Board." It does precisely what he objects to, namely, it divides the authority on what is to be done with the assets of a company.
    I hope my hon. Friend will not accept this Amendment because it will not achieve even what the hon. Gentleman wants. The House would be in no position, on an isolated case of selling one works worth, say, £150,000, to judge whether that was in conformity with the general interests of the industry. No isolated sale could be judged in this House in its proper perspective because the House would have not the knowledge necessary to decide whether it was or was not in the public interest and would have no realisation of the broader picture.
    I realise the difficulty in the mind of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. It is in all our minds. When this change is brought about we want to see whether we can increase the efficiency of the industry by any measure of regrouping. It ought not to be left merely to chance, and there ought to be some general obligation for the Agency and the Board to consult at the outset and to decide broadly what sort of regrouping they think would be desirable. It might well be that through certain vicissitudes one could not achieve an over-all pattern.
    There will always be differences of opinion as to what pattern should be achieved, but I would like to have written into the Bill, or by way of a statement

    1361
    from the Minister, an obligation that before any of the assets are sold the Agency shall consult with the Board to determine the broad over-all pattern. That is a much better way of dealing with this situation than by any attempt to try to define it as precisely as this Amendment attempts.
    Mr. Simon: I find myself in agreement with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has said, but with much of what the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman) put forward I am in fundamental disagreement. It seems to me that the whole of his argument left entirely out of account the concession which the Financial Secretary announced.
    We all recognise that there might be a conflict between the technical and the financial interests. It might be that a particular regrouping or amalgamation was technically in the interests of the nation and for the technical efficiency of the industry, but it might automatically involve a decrease in the price obtained for the assets. As I understood the Financial Secretary, he said that if the Board, who are the body best able to envisage the technical considerations, felt that those technical considerations were being impaired by financial considerations, the Board could make representations which would result finally in the matter coming before the House. If that is understood, it seems to me that the conflict of interest is automatically resolved. That seems to me to be a sensible way to deal with it. There has got to be some body, on the other hand, which is charged with selling the industry.
    The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), with his usual robust and democratic good sense, recognised that on this matter the electorate had pronounced its decision and that according to the mandate, the industry should be returned to private enterprise. [HON. MEMBERS: "When did he say that?"] All I can say is that that was the point of view of the hon. Member for Rotherham—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and I agree with him.
    Mr. Jack Jones: What I said, if my memory serves me aright, was that as good democrats we accepted the decision of the House and expected that the Bill would go through, and that it was our
    1362
    task to see that we made the best possible job of it.
    Mr. Simon: That seems to me to be putting merely in other words just what I said. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate, there it is. The country has spoken—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."]—the House has adopted the principle on Second Reading, and we are now seeking to implement that decision that the industry shall be sold back to the hands of private enterprise and competitive endeavour. That being so, the only question is, Which is the means best suited to ensure that that should come about?
    Is it really conceived that the best way to bring that about is that every contract of sale of any major asset should come before the House and, if necessary, be debated? It is not merely that one debates the price; but even if it were the price, how can we in the House possibly judge whether the price is a right one?
    Many considerations enter into it. Are the other bids that have been made to be disclosed to the House? Is the physical valuation which has been made by valuers. to be disclosed to the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Suppose we turn it down, the Board's buyer has all the information which he desires in order to fix his price. It will mean that the Agency would then be selling with their hands tied behind their backs, with the purchaser in a favourable position.
    How can we possibly say what is the right price to be paid for assets of this sort? It is much more than a matter merely of price. A contract of sale has countless conditions. Are we to debate those conditions and say whether they are suitable? There may be various terms as to payment. Are all these matters to be considered? How can the House, with the best will in the world go into session and decide whether a complicated bargain of one asset out of the whole of the national assets in the industry is valued properly and whether the sale is a proper one?
    Surely, the only sensible way is that which the Government have adopted, which is to charge a body of persons, who will be picked for the purpose, with the duty of selling the industry back into private hands and to put on top of that the safeguard, which my hon. Friend

    1363
    announced, that the Board shall be able to bring before the House ultimately any technical considerations which should be considered over and against the financial considerations. If that is done, the sale of the industry back to private hands will be adequately safeguarded and supervised.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) tried to meet some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman) by saying that if there was a conflict between re-grouping which might be financially desirable but which at the same time might be very undesirable from the point of view of the technical efficiency of the industry, that would be dealt with under the concession the Financial Secretary has just made.
    The hon. and learned Member completely ignored the fact that there may be another conflict, a very real conflict, which will arise in selling off these assets. The people who will be responsible for the Agency, Treasury Ministers and, to some extent, any Minister responsible for the Agency, are members of the Government. To that extent they are responsible for the policy of the Government and, having brought this Bill before the House, presumably they want to sell a very large part of the steel industry to private owners.
    Mr. Chetwynd: As much as they can.
    Mr. Jenkins: Most of us on this side of the Committee have very grave doubts whether they will manage to sell the less profitable parts, but we agree that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will look very silly if a number of years go by and very little is sold into private hands.
    The conflict arises because they also have a certain responsibility, which the Financial Secretary mentioned, to see that the taxpayer is treated in a reasonable way. I have no doubt that the Financial Secretary and his colleagues will, to some extent, bear that responsibility in mind. There may be a conflict between their desire to get rid of large parts of the industry so that they can say that the Bill was not nonsense and their desire to some extent to look after the interests of the taxpayer. It may be very difficult
    1364
    to sell large parts of this industry on terms which will not be extremely unfavourable, despite the fact that when the industry was taken over in 1949 very strong language was used on the Conservative benches about the amount of compensation we were paying. We shall come to that question on subsequent Amendments. Some of those arguments look extremely silly today.
    This conflict may be a real conflict and may arise and face any Minister responsible for the Agency. I am sure that the Financial Secretary and most other Ministers dealing with this matter would wish, on a long-term view, to settle this conflict in accordance with the interests of the taxpayer rather than in accordance with their political beliefs. I think it would help them if they could bring a particular scheme before the House for the House to make judgment upon it.
    I cannot accept the view of the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West that it is quite impossible for the House to judge whether or not an important part of the industry should be sold or not. When the 1949 Act was going through the House hon. Members of his party discussed in great detail the position of the particular companies in the industry because they thought they were being unfairly treated. There was a great deal of, perhaps not prejudiced, but to a certain extent informed discussion about the right price. I should certainly say that in the case of substantial deals by the Agency this House could pronounce judgment which might even help the Financial Secretary and other Ministers in a difficult position.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman) said in the beginning of what I hope he will allow me to describe as a very agreeable speech, he and others to whom it fell to discuss the Amendment perforce had to cover ground which had already been covered on the previous batch of Amendments which the Committee have just disposed of. This Amendment, as I understand it, is designed to do two things, to bring the Minister into the disposal side of the work and to bring in the affirmative resolution procedure in the case of transactions involving sales above a certain amount. I will address myself to those two points.

    1365
    Hon. Members will appreciate that bringing my right hon. Friend into this part of the Bill alters the whole scheme so far presented to this Committee regarding responsibility. The general effect has been that my right hon. Friend is concerned with the Board and the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Agency. This proposal cuts right across the main scheme of the Bill. I do not wish to labour that unduly, because in practice, however the form of words may stand in the Bill, there would be the closest consultation between the Minister and the Chancellor. Indeed, the hon. Member for Watford, from his own experience of Governments, will confirm that that is the common practice in these matters.
    But it is a different thing to go further, and to put formal and statutory responsibility upon the Minister of Supply in a matter where under the present scheme the responsibility of approving disposals rests on the Chancellor. It is bad in principle to do that and, if I may use a phrase I used when we discussed the previous Amendments, it blurs responsibility. Nor from the practical point of view is there any difficulty because the closest consultation, involving, should the Minister require it, the views of the Board, will take place in any event. I am not certain whether the Member wished to put the Minister of Supply in as solely concerned or to put my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor in the same position. In either event it is more satisfactory to have the responsibility plainly on the Chancellor.
    The Treasury is generally concerned with the economy of the nation and can take into account not merely the narrow view of the exact price to be obtained, but the general functioning of the economy. I think the Treasury is, in the very appropriate words of the Clause, the appropriate Department for dealing with the disposal side; leaving the operation of the Board and the technical matters in the hands of the Minister of Supply, who has a wealth of technical advice to assist him.
    On the point the hon. Member made about the affirmative resolution procedure, as he said, I start with no dogmatic antipathy to it. I hope he will appreciate, therefore, that what I say comes with all the more force from a
    1366
    mind biased in the direction which he would like us to go. But when we consider what this would do, I am certain that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) was right when he said it would be far from helpful to our procedure.
    On the earlier Amendment I commended two propositions which received general assent. One was that we should be able to get for the taxpayer a fair price for his property, and judged by that test this proposal breaks down. Hon. Members will appreciate that when dealing with proposed commercial transactions the need to go through the whole affirmative resolution procedure—with the difficulty to which the hon. Member did not refer of prolonged delay if the House happened to be in Recess—would not help the taxpayer, or my right hon. Friend representing him, to get as good a bargain for his property as he is entitled to expect.
    I doubt whether this House would be in a very good position to form a view about any particular transaction. Could other offers be disclosed? Could weaknesses in the bargaining position of the vendor be disclosed? What happens if during this procedure the buyer originally expected goes off, with all the publicity involved in withdrawing the affirmative resolution and announcing to the world that a buyer has gone off and perhaps another buyer may have the chance to obtain the property at a lower price? Those are practical commercial considerations which tend against the view that we shall serve any useful purpose by making the transactions subject to this procedure.
    In many cases the affirmative resolution procedure is a most valuable method to enable Parliament to exercise control. I take back nothing I have said on that subject. But I doubt very much whether it is an appropriate method for dealing with commercial negotiations of this sort. I suggest that it would not help but would manifestly hinder the aim that we all have in this context, which is that the taxpayer should get a fair return for his property.
    I stressed earlier the need for Ministerial responsibility to be properly established. That remains whether the amount of the transaction be in excess of or below £100,000, as the approval of the Treasury is specifically provided

    1367
    for in the Bill as being a necessary condition. That means that there is a fair and square responsibility which may be imposed in the ordinary Parliamentary way. That is a much more satisfactory method than that of subjecting every possible bargain to a prolonged and perhaps precarious procedure.
    Though I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Watford and other hon. Gentlemen about these two issues—the correct person to handle a transaction and the correct method of imposing Parliamentary responsibility—it seems to me that, despite the persuasive way in which the hon. Gentleman put his argument, all the facts and all the evidence are against him and that we should be doing what neither he nor anybody else wants to do if we were to put this proposal into the Bill. We should be making this disposal less efficient, less clearly subject to Parliamentary responsibility and, I have no doubt, less advantageous to the taxpayer.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that we are seeking to achieve two objectives by this Amendment, first to bring the Minister in and, secondly, to ensure that none of these public assets pass into private hands when such a transaction is proposed on a large scale without some Parliamentary supervision. We still maintain that it is wrong that important assets should be disposed of by the Agency and that the sole authority which the Agency has to consult should be the Treasury.
    We are not talking about regrouping now. That is another issue. It may well be that the Agency finds that it can dispose of certain assets at a very good price. It has behind it a Chancellor and a Government telling it that it must get on and sell the industry back to private ownership as quickly as possible. A good price is offered for certain assets and the question arises whether the Treasury alone, or the Chancellor, should have any influence with the Agency in deciding whether the assets should be sold or whether the views of anybody else interested in the technical or functional side of the industry should be considered.
    In an earlier Amendment we suggested that the consent of the Board should be obtained. That suggestion was not
    1368
    accepted by the Committee, and we must accept the decision. We now suggest that the Minister of Supply should be brought in. That is probably better because we might be able to question him in the House of Commons. We say that the technical and functional side of any sale of assets when they are over a value of £100,000 should be taken into consideration. The consent of somebody who has that interest in mind should be obtained. It is not necessary to obtain that consent at the moment, according to the Bill, and it is not even necessary to consult anybody interested in the technical or functional side of the industry. We say that that is wholly wrong, and we have moved an Amendment in order to get over that difficulty and put the matter right.
    10.0 p.m.
    Another point is that the House should review any big sale of public assets to private interests before that sale takes place. The argument has been put forward on the basis of how ridiculous it will be for an affirmative Resolution to be put before the House in respect of one of these sales over £100,000. How can the House have any knowledge whether any such sale could be a good one or a bad one? That applies to almost every order that is put before the House, whether by the negative or the affirmative procedure.
    Most orders go through automatically, but, sometimes, there is an hon. Member or a group of hon. Members who, on information supplied from outside, feel that there is a strong case which should be put before Parliament for rejecting the proposals of the Government or moving a Prayer against them, and who may have gathered the facts on his own responsibility or with his colleagues in order to put the matter before the House. Indeed, he may not have had any previous knowledge of the matter at all.
    To say that we really should not consider this procedure, because of the question whether any hon. Member could have any idea whether these assets should be sold at certain prices, or whether, perhaps, the prices are not sufficient, or where there are no technical or functional facts to be taken into account, is quite ridiculous. There are any number of hon. Members who have considerable knowledge about these matters, or who

    1369
    could gain that knowledge from outside, and I therefore suggest that that argument does not hold good.
    We seek to prevent the possibility that, without any public knowledge whatever, a major steel mills, maybe worth tens of millions of pounds, or maybe with assets of smaller value, shall pass to private interests at prices or on conditions which may appear to the House to be wrong, wholly contrary to the best interests of the steel industry from the functional point of view, and at a stage when it is too late to do anything about it at all. We therefore say, that, before any sale takes place of assets of any substantial value, the matter should be reported to the House, when hon. Members can raise questions about it if they want to.
    There may be a very strong case for urging that the sale of certain assets should be postponed, and the Agency has quite definite powers and can be told that they should postpone the sale of certain securities which they hold if that is considered right. There may be a very strong case for postponing the sale of certain securities. Is it only to be the Treasury who shall say whether such sales should be postponed? According to the Bill, it is the Treasury alone that decides the matter.
    We say that is wrong, that it should be the Minister who is particularly interested in the efficiency and prosperity of the industry, and that the matter should be reported to the House before the sale takes place. In view of the strong feelings which we have on this matter, and because we believe that Parliament should protect public property before it passes to private interest and ensure that it is only done on satisfactory conditions, we propose to divide the Committee on this Amendment.
    Mr. Charles Williams: I wish to raise a point which may have escaped the notice of the Committee. This is, I believe, almost the first time when it is being advocated that disposals made by the Agency should be subject to
    I feel sure that most of us on both sides of the Committee would agree that when we are disposing of Government assets, whether it be a battleship or whatever it may be, the main thing that we want is a firm Chancellor at the Treasury who is himself responsible to the House and who can always be called upon to account to the House. I hope the Committee will not allow itself to be frightened by the eagerly-used bogy of saying that the matter must come before Parliament in the form of an affirmative Resolution.
    Mr. Summers: In pointing out the precedent which has been suggested for the disposal of State assets—which my hon. Friend very properly says is an undesirable precedent—does not that equally apply, not merely to the disposal of Government property, but also to the purchase of assets by the Government?
    Mr. Williams: I agree with that, but I am not at all sure that I should be in order if I pursued the matter at this point. The Financial Secretary was perfectly right in resisting this Amendment, and I am only surprised that he did not deal with the point I have made.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 247.

    Division No. 99.]

    AYES

    [10.10 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Bartley, P.

    Adams, Richard

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

    Albu, A. H.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Bence, C. R.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Benson, G.

    Beswick, F.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Blackburn, F

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Boardman, H.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Bowden, H. W.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Ross, William

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Janner, B.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Short, E. W.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Simmons, C J. (Brierley Hill)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Slater, J.

    Carmiohael, J.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A

    Keenan, W.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Champion, A. J.

    Kenyon, C.

    Snow, J. W.

    Chapman, W. D

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Coldrick, W.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Collick, P. H.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Canno k)

    Steele, T.

    Corbet, Mrs Freda

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Grossman, R. H. S.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    McGhee, H. G

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    McGovern, J

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    McInnes, J

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Deer, G.

    McLeavy, F

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Delargy, H. J.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brlgg)

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Mallalieu, J P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Thornton, E.

    Edelman, M

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Tomney, F.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Turner-Samuels, M

    Edwards, W J. (Stepney)

    Monslow, W.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Moody, A S

    Viant, S. P.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Morgan, Dr H. B. W.

    Wallace, H. W

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Morley, R.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

    Fienburgh, W.

    Mort, D. L.

    Weitzman, D.

    Finch, H. J

    Moyle, A.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Follick, M

    Mulley, F. W.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Foot, M. M.

    Murray, J. D.

    West, D. G.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Nally, W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    O'Brien, T.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Oliver, G. H.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Orbach, M

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Oswald, T.

    Wigg, George

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Padley, W. E

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Wilkins, W. A

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Willey, F. T.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Pannell, Charles

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Paton, J.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Hannan, W.

    Peart, T. F.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Hardy, E. A.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Hargreaves, A.

    Porter, G.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Hastings, S.

    Price, Philps (Gloucestershre, W.)

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Pryde, D J.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Yates, V. F.

    Holman, P.

    Rankin, John

    Houghton, Douglas

    Reeves, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Braine, B. R.

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Barber, Anthony

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Bromley-Devenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Bevins, J. R. (Txteth)

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G.

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Bullard, D. G

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

    1372

    1373

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hope, Lord John

    Peyton, J. W. W

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Pitman, I. J.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Horobin, I. M.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Carr, Robert

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Channon, H.

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Renton, D. L. M

    Colegate, W. A.

    Jennings, R.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Craddock, Berestord (Spelthorne)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Kaberry, D.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Crouch, R. F.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Russell, R. S.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Schofield, Lt.-Cot. W. (Rochdale)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Donner, P. W.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Shepherd, William

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Longden, Gilbert

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Erroll, F. J.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Speir, R. M.

    Fell, A.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Fisher, Nigel

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Fort, R.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Storey, S.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Fraser, Sir lan (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Summers, G. S.

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Gammans, L. D.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Teeling, W.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Markham, Major S. F.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Marples, A. E.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

    Maude, Angus

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Godber, J. B.

    Maudling, R.

    Thompson, Lt- Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Tilney, John

    Gower, H. R.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Turner, H. F. L

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

    Turton, R. H.

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Grimond, J.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Vane, W. M. F

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Nabarro, C. D. N.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Harrison, Cot J. H. (Eye)

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Nutting, Anthony

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Wellwood, W.

    Hay, John

    Odey, G. W.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Heath, Edward

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir lan (Weston-super-Mare)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Osborne, C.

    York, C.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.

    a Resolution of this House. Is that to be applied and carried out in regard to other Government Departments? Let us take the figure of £100,000. If there is the case of the disposal, let us say, of a battleship by the Admiralty, amounting to over £100,000, would that matter be subject to an affirmative Resolution of the House? When we are disposing in a new and different way of an industry which has been acquired by the State, and if that principle is to be applied to every Government Department, we shall block up the House with affirmative Resolutions. That will make the whole position of affirmative Resolutions even less valuable than it is today, and for that reason I hope that this Amendment will not be agreed to.

    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Julian Snow: I beg to move, in page 13, line 27, at the end, to insert:
    "or if he on the twenty-fourth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, owned directly or indirectly any securities in any company, the securities in which vested in the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great
    1374
    Britain under the provisions of Part II of the Iron and Steel Act, 1949."
    This Amendment, unlike other Amendments, means what it appears to mean. In short, it seeks to prevent the Agency membership from being composed of people who find it difficult to distinguish between personal industrial interest and

    1375
    the national interest. This is not a new point. Precisely the same point arose on that misbegotten piece of legislation, the Transport Bill, that had its Third Reading two nights ago, with this difference, that under the Transport Bill there was the elementary sanction of the levy. The steel industry, however, is a much more tightly and personally controlled industry, and it is towards controlling that personal interest that this Amendment is directed.
    I imagine that the Financial Secretary may say that this point is adequately covered by paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule to this Bill, but I suggest to him that we have to be careful here not so much of individual interest as the collective interest which appears to us to be one likely to arise in the case of this industry. We say that this Amendment will prevent the idea getting around that the Agency are looking after the interests of a few industrialists to the detriment of the national interest.
    I think it was wrong to assume, as I think the Government must have assumed in framing this Clause, that there are no people whose interests were not taken over by the Corporation under the 1949 Act available to fill these seats on the Agency. There are, of course, many such people, and though political prejudice may prevent some of them from being considered, nevertheless there are people who might well take up such membership.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee appreciate that in connection with appointments of this sort the issue which has been raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) is a very real one. It is not only important that persons in these positions should be wholly free from personal bias but—if one may adopt the phraseology of the late Lord Chief Justice—that they should be manifestly seen to be free from bias. Against that one has to be careful not to draft the restrictions so tightly as to deprive oneself of the chance of being able to get the services of the most appropriate men. There is a balance of considerations here, as I think the hon. Member appreciates.
    We are concerned that these appointments should be made in a way which
    1376
    does show that they are clear from personal bias or any undue personal interest. I would not seek solely to rely on the paragraph in the Second Schedule to which the hon. Member has referred. That is, however, a powerful safeguard. The Agency will be mainly concerned in making contracts of sale and the limitation to which the hon. Member very properly drew the attention of the Committee expressly relates to contracts. But I do not think his proposal is very apt for achieving what he wants.
    In a way it is curiously limited. According to the Amendment the bar to appointment on the Agency is the possession of securities in any company which vested in the Iron and Steel Corporation on 24th November, 1949. It relates to a past date. It imposes no disqualification on someone who may have large interests, recently acquired, in a company that may be concerned in one way or another in these transactions. At the same time, it bars someone who, though he held interests of this sort on 24th November, 1949, has since divested himself of them.
    The hon. Member will therefore appreciate that, quite apart from the general considerations which I have mentioned, this proposal is not at all apt for doing what he wants to do. But it is not a matter on which, in general, our minds are closed. For the reasons I have given I cannot advise my hon. Friends to accept this proposal, but it may be that in the course of the later stages of the Bill some other proposal may arise which has this object in mind. If it does I can assure the Committee that we shall consider it very carefully to see whether it can be included in the Bill without involving us either in injustice to individuals or in too much restriction in our field of choice.
    I hope the hon. Member will appreciate that we have very much in mind what he requires. Although we cannot accept this provision our minds are not closed to subsequent proposals of a different character which might help not, I will say, to prevent bias from arising in these appointments—because I do not think it will arise—but, what is almost equally important, to prevent the appearance of bias from arising.
    Mr. Snow: I fully appreciate what the Financial Secretary has been saying and

    1377
    I hope that at a later stage he will consider sonic Amendment which he thinks will cover the point he mentioned. He will understand that the main point of the argument is that we want to avoid collective "old soldiering" in the industry.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that I have not undertaken to bring forward any proposal on behalf of the Government. I do not want to mislead the Committee. I have undertaken to give sympathetic and careful consideration to any proposal on the general lines I have indicated which, at a later stage, comes from either side of the Committee.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Financial Secretary has made an offer in which he has tried to meet us; but it is exceedingly vague at the moment. Apparently he is not going to try to think about this problem at all; but if anybody on either side of the Committee comes forward with a proposal which will meet the objective which I think we have all in common, he may adopt it. I do not see why he, with his advisers, who are best qualified to find a solution to this problem, should not do a bit of thinking themselves.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps I can make the position clear. I do not like committing myself to bringing forward a proposal unless I am convinced here and now that it is a practical one which can be properly drafted. That would be unfair to the Committee and would mislead them. That is why I took the line I did. In view of what I have said we shall naturally consider the matter; but I do not want to give any undertaking which it might be impossible to carry out.
    Mr. Strauss: I gather that the Financial Secretary will think about the matter.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter indicated assent.
    Mr. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman is not prepared to bring forward any Amendment now, but at a later stage we can bring up the matter again? Meanwhile, he will consider the matter and see whether the point raised by my hon. Friend can be met?
    Mr. Snow: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 13, line 30, at the end, to insert:
    "and
    (b) in such cases and to such extent as the Treasury may determine, shall make provision for securing that persons who immediately before their appointment as members of the Agency had pension rights by virtue of a pension scheme applicable to their office or employment, continue to enjoy pension rights not exceeding in value those which they would have enjoyed if they had remained in the said office or employment during the period of their service as members of the Agency."
    This is a small Amendment to deal with the possibility of there being appointed to the Agency an individual who has pension rights in his existing employment. As the Committee will appreciate, for obvious reasons there is no provision in the Bill for a general pension scheme for Agency members. It is not considered that such a scheme would be necessary because the Agency is not expected to last long enough to justify it.
    It was drawn to our attention, however, that some of the people appointed might have existing pension rights. We thought it proper to enable us, in appropriate cases, to make arrangements for those rights to be safeguarded.
    Mr. Mitchison: What interests me in this proposal is that it appears to give some sort of indication of the kind of person who will be appointed by the Treasury to the Agency. I should like the Financial Secretary to let us know a little more about this. I gather that what they have in mind is that civil servants from the Treasury, for whom at the moment there is perhaps no urgent Departmental need, might be transferred to the Agency for the time being, and it is important that their pension rights as civil servants should be safeguarded.
    I see that sort of possibility in the constitution of the Agency, but I should also like to know what other types of people the Financial Secretary has in mind under the Clause. I quite appreciate the particular case, but I find it difficult to understand what others are likely to be appointed or what kind of people are contemplated. I will gladly give way to the Financial Secretary if he will give some indication of what he has in mind.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to invite me to intervene, so may I say,

    1379
    on the first point about the intention to appoint Treasury officials, that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply said on Second Reading that that was not the intention. The only purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that when the right man is found some such difficulty as that which I indicated will not arise.
    Hon. Members are aware that a good many of what one might call executives nowadays are participants in pension schemes, and it is a very serious thing for such men to relinquish the benefit of their pension schemes. I am afraid I cannot assist the hon. and learned Member further. The matter is still at a very early stage and, as has been said again and again, the idea is to appoint people appropriate for these functions which we have been discussing.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am very glad to hear that. I am still slightly puzzled, because in Clause 16 (5) the Agency has power
    "to pay to their members such remuneration (whether by way of salary or fees) and such allowances as the Treasury may determine."
    If that does not cover pensions, then I should have thought that the simpler way of providing for pensions—because we may get very complicated cases as a result of the Amendment—would have been to give the Treasury a discretionary power to deal with pension rights in the same way as it is proposed to deal with remuneration and allowances. Although we may have people who have pension rights, there seems no particular likelihood that we shall, and I feel that the Amendment provides rather clumsy machinery, although I am sure we all agree with the intention which the Financial Secretary has in mind, which is a thoroughly laudable one.
    Another consideration is that pension rights differ, one case from another. This Amendment ties the Treasury to their continuation. I should have thought that was a rather wide—
    It being Half-past Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order, left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

JEWELLERY AND SILVERWARE COUNCIL (DISSOLUTION)
10.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I beg to move,
That the Draft Jewellery and Silverware Council (Dissolution) Order, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.
On 11th December, 1952, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers), I informed the House that it had not been possible to secure agreement within the industry for the continuance of the Jewellery and Silverware Council after the end of 1952, nor for the setting up of a body to succeed it, and that my right hon. Friend had accordingly decided, subject to the approval of Parliament, to make an Order under the Act of 1947 for dissolving the Council. That is why I move this Motion.
As recently as 16th December, on another dissolution Order, I explained the view taken by Her Majesty's Government as to the circumstances in which these bodies are useful and the degree to which, in order that they should be useful, they should enjoy the support of the industry. In this industry, the Master Silversmiths Association, one of the two principal trade associations, has from the beginning been opposed to the Development Council, and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), in seeking the approval of the House for the Order on 8th December, 1948, frankly stated this opposition, but he expressed the hope that, once the House had approved the Order, all sections would forget their differences. That hope was widely shared, but it was never fulfilled.
The Board of Trade were required, by Section 8 (3) of the Act, to consult organisations in the industry by 1st January, 1952, on the question whether the Council should continue and, if so, whether the Order setting it up should be amended, and, accordingly, on 20th July, 1951, our predecessors in office asked for the views of the organisations in the industry. The replies showed a great cleavage of opinion. While the Development Council, with some trade union support, thought that it should continue, both the trade associations concerned wanted to end it.

1381
When the present Administration came into office, my right hon. Friend asked the members to continue for another year in order that he might further examine the position. My right hon. Friend always made it clear that he would not impose a body on the industry without a full measure of agreement but that at the same time he thought that a central organisation for the industry was desirable. There were, therefore, long negotiations, which I shall not describe to the House, to see whether agreement could be secured. Those negotiations failed; it was impossible to secure the agreement of the industry.
In those circumstances, my right hon. Friend recommends the House to dissolve this Council. In doing so, I wish on his behalf and on behalf of the Board of Trade to express the thanks which are due to the members of the Council, not least to the independent members, who have generously given their time and ability. The Order follows the usual form and provides for those things which the provisions of the Act say must be provided. It only remains for me to say that there may be some surplus assets and under this dissolution Order they can be used for encouraging design and promoting exports.
10.36 p.m.
Mr. Woodrow Wyatt (Birmingham, Aston): I think that the Minister has been a little disingenuous in the way in which he put the Order before the House. He has left out all the negotiations which preceded the Order, and the House would not have been informed about them at all unless there had been a short debate on this matter. This is what happened. First there was this Development Council, which cost £25,000 a year, of which £15,000 went on staff and only £10,000 was actually used for development, research and so forth in the industry. Then there were two proposals for a continuing body.
First there was the proposal of the Sheffield association, which only represents 25 per cent. of the whole jewellery trade. Broadly speaking, their proposal was that the Development Council should be altered to a body for which there should be a revenue of only £2,000 a year—and which would only last three years—out of which three offices should be staffed at Sheffield, Birmingham and
1382
London. Not only that, but the flatware industry, on which the Sheffield industry depends for 75 per cent. of its trade, was to be excluded from the levy under the new arrangement altogether. Therefore, Sheffield would be only paying the levy on about 30 per cent. of the industry in Sheffield.
This was obviously absurd; we could not have an arrangement with three offices paid for out of £2,000 a year. So the British Jewellers' Association put up to the Minister on 7th July last alternative proposals, which he has not mentioned. They are quite willing for a development council to go on and have told him so, and put forward alternative suggestions for a development council to deal with exports, design and researches into the industry. Their proposal was that there should be a 1s. 6d. per cent. levy on the industry as a whole, which would produce £11,000 a year.
The British Jewellers' Association have themselves offered to provide offices free of charge for this continuing body and to provide a staff free of charge, and the whole £11,000 would be available for research. In fact there would be £1,000 more available for the purposes of a development council than under the old scheme.
Mr. William Shepherd: If the hon. Member is wanting to put the facts clearly, he will perhaps correct what I think is a mistake. The British Jewellers' Association offer did not include the provision of a design and research centre.
Mr. Wyatt: I did not say it did. I said they offered offices and to provide staff free of charge. I did not say anything about a design and research centre. I said they offered to provide offices and staff, and the £11,000 would then be available for research and the other purposes of the Development Council.
The President of the Board of Trade turned this offer down on the most extraordinary ground—that the industry as a whole had not agreed on the British Jewellers' Association proposal. In other words, while the majority—75 per cent.—are willing to continue the Development Council, because 25 per cent, of the trade in Sheffield do not want it and never associated with the Development Council in the past, he is going to deny the majority the right to go on with the

1383
Development Council. This is a most extraordinary proposal; and it is not only a minority which is only 25 per cent. of the trade, but also a minority of 25 per cent. which does not want to pay the levy on 70 per cent. of the industry of that minority.
On such flimsy grounds, the President of the Board of Trade proposes now to revoke the Order and I say that it is astounding that this piece of planning should be done away with at such a time as the present. There is growing unemployment in the jewellery trade; there are restrictions on nickel-silver, and only 80 tons more nickel a year is needed to enable the electro-plating trade to work at full speed. Those are some of the problems, but the Council is not to be there to advise the President of the Board of Trade because a minority asks for it to be abolished—while a great majority wants it to be continued.
The goldsmiths' and silversmiths' trade is rapidly going into bankruptcy. Purchase Tax at 100 per cent. is having the effect that craftsmen are leaving the trade, and yet in none of these matters is the President of the Board of Trade to have the advice of this Council. This is a move which we should resist most strongly because we are being asked to do away with an essential piece of planning at a time when it is most needed. The Council is being abolished on the most flimsy of grounds put forward by a minority in the trade which has had nothing to do with the Council in the past, but which wants now to get rid of it altogether.
10.42 p.m.
Mr. Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Heeley): I rise briefly to support the Motion, and would stress that when the Council was set up by the Socialist Government that Government was told by those in the trade that one could not join silverware with jewellery. Those two trades are distinct, and if a mistake has been made, it was made at the very beginning. We in Sheffield are aware that we lead the world in silverware, as well as in cutlery, but we have associations which can quite properly deal quickly with matters which may arise. The Cutlers' Company in Sheffield can deal with any development and plans, and I suggest that we should stop a most stupid
1384
arrangement by which the jewellery and silverware trades are joined—an arrangement which never worked from the start. I have opposed this arrangement ever since the Council was established, and I give my support to the Motion.
10.43 p.m.
Mr. Albert Evans: I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary should have come here tonight and dealt with this subject in so perfunctory a manner. He must surely be fully aware of the situation in which this small, but valuable industry finds itself at present. The Working Party which investigated conditions in that industry reported that if the industry continued to exercise as little control over its own destiny as in the past—that is, before the Council was established—it was likely to have an extremely precarious future. In the Party's judgment, it was not too much to say that, as an industry of size and importance, it was doomed.
That was the considered opinion of the Working Party, and the President of the Board of Trade should also know that there has been correspondence in our leading daily newspaper which has emphasised the precarious position of this trade. The Assay Master at Birmingham, in a letter to "The Times," wrote that
"One of our oldest and most famous craft industries, that of the silversmith, is fast sinking to extinction."
He added:
"It is evident that, unless effective and swift action is taken, silversmithing here will soon be virtually at an end and an art in which this nation has excelled will be lost to us."
They are grave words written by a person who knows the industry.
Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham): Does the hon. Member really say that the trade of this particular industry has been lost and that a Development Council will restore it?
Mr. Evans: It is within the knowledge of anybody who knows anything about this industry that this small but precious craft trade is slipping to extinction, and the Minister comes here and confesses that he is not prepared to take any positive action. "The Times" this morning carried an article saying, in

1385
effect, that this craft was in danger unless something was done. I will not repeat the things said about the dangerous state of the trade, nor mention the many people who have been urging the Government to take some action to assist the trade at the present time.
The Minister has told us that the majority of the trade are opposed to the continuance of the Development Council. My information is different from that. It is true that the leading employers' trade associations have expressed an opinion that they can manage without a Development Council, but if the Minister knows the nature of this industry and the opinion of the thousands of the small craftsmen in small shops he will know that the leading employers' organisations do not speak for the majority of the craftsmen in the industry. The craftsmen who are not in the association, the independent members of the Council and the trade unions are all in favour of the scheme.
Mr. P. Roberts: They are not.
Mr. Evans: All the bodies I have mentioned except the two employers' organisations are in favour of this Council continuing.
Mr. Roberts: Surely the hon. Member knows that the majority of the craftsmen are not in the associations and they never liked this Development Council and they still do not like it.
Mr. Evans: It is impossible for the hon. Member to make that statement because the opinion of the craftsmen in the small shops has never been canvassed. The Minister has never taken the trouble to find out the opinion of these small craftsmen.
Mr. Shepherd: How then does the hon. Member know?
Mr. Ellis Smith: We do not want an all-night Sitting on this.
Mr. Evans: The President of the Board of Trade, if he felt he could not get a majority on his own side in favour of this Council, should have appointed some continuing body under Section 9 of the Act. There is a design and research centre in this industry which will disappear within a year unless the Government take some action to save it. It is
1386
within the competence of the Minister, under the Act, to save that precious remnant of the Development Council and make certain that it continues the valuable work it is doing for the industry. If this industry slips back and our precious craftsmen and exports, which they manage to produce and send abroad, disappear, then the responsibility will lie fairly and squarely upon the Government.
10.50 p.m.
Mr. John Edwards: On 8th December, 1948, we agreed in this House, without a Division, to set up the Development Council which we are now asked to dissolve. If there was no great enthusiasm at the time, at any rate there was very little dissent; in fact, the only dissent came from the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings). The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), in a very short speech of four sentences, somewhat frivolously said that he would rather give in quietly than make a fuss. The hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) said that the matter had the wholehearted support of the jewellery trade of the district in which he lived, and that he had very much pleasure in supporting the efforts of the President of the Board of Trade.
Now, we are asked to dissolve the Council, and I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite scarcely appreciate the present position of the jewellery and silverware trades. If they did, I think they would not be so frivolous. There are people on the other side of the House who do appreciate it, and whose serious faces indicate that they know that we are talking about something that really matters.
In 1947, the procedure was conscientiously followed, and apart from the group in Sheffield it is true to say that there was a group which favoured the Development Council. I have not been convinced by anything the Parliamentary Secretary said tonight that there are valid grounds for dissolving this Council. We got rid of the Clothing Council, but, in that case, I am glad to see that a good deal has been saved from the wreck, and more than I thought likely at the time we debated the matter.
The Parliamentary Secretary tonight can hold out no hope; there is nothing to come out of this. The situation will

1387
be even worse than it was before the Development Council was set up, and that is a tragic thing. The industry, I believe, needs help. If anyone doubts that it needs help, let him look at the ageing composition of the industry, and at the need for design help, for although our designs at their best are very good, in general they cannot stand up to the Scandinavian designs of today. We ought to do everything we can to help the industry, but this proposal to dissolve the Council is a retrograde step which will do harm, rather than help the industry, and I have no hesitation in urging my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide against the Motion.
10.53 p.m.
Mr. H. Strauss: If I may occupy three minutes, I think it is necessary to answer some of the inaccurate statements made—
Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley): On a point of order. Is the Parliamentary Secretary in order in speaking again without the leave of the House?
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman moved the substantive Motion, he has the right of reply.
Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) gave the impression to the House that one of the most important trade associations was anxious that this body should continue. The fact is that both the main associations were against the Council in its present form. In response to the efforts of my right hon. Friend, various proposals were made I did not think it necessary to go through them—without securing the general assent of the industry. We believe in these development councils if they can be set up with the goodwill of all concerned, and that never proved possible in this case. If the hon. Member will study the report which is available in typewritten form in the Library, and which will be printed, he will find that the Council, in its last report, referred to the painstaking efforts of my right hon. Friend to secure agreement.
The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) quite rightly mentioned the very serious state of the industry to which "The Times" yesterday and today drew attention. I
1388
was not ignorant of that, and the only reason why I did not mention it was that it was not relevant to the Order we are discussing tonight. The sole reason for removing this Development Council is that it has not enjoyed the general support of the industry.
One inaccurate statement was made by the hon. Member for Islington. South-West with regard to the attitude of the independent members of the Council. If he will look at the report, when it is published, he will see that their support for the continuance of the Council was expressly made subject to the proviso that any such body must have the industry's support.
Mr. A. Evans: I stated that the independent members of the Council wished it to continue. I agree that they added the proviso that there should be general agreement. My statement was that the independent members were enthusiastic and wished that the Council could continue.
Mr. Strauss: I thought it was implied in the hon. Member's statement that what the Government were doing was contrary to the advice of the independent members.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. R. W. Sorensen (Leyton): I shall not detain the House for more than two or three minutes. I rather gathered from the Minister's statement that he regrets that the Development Council is not continuing, which is somewhat in contradiction to his other remarks, which seemed to indicate that the Council served no useful purpose. I would urge strongly that another endeavour should be made to see that this Council continues, or that its equivalent is established. I do so for two reasons. First, because this is one of the few remaining crafts in this country. It has had a long history, and world-wide renown. Any hon. Members who have been abroad know that British silverware and goldware are known throughout the world as having achieved a very high standard in the past. In spite of Scandinavian development, I still feel that British gold and silver hold a high position.
The second reason is more personal. It happens that my father was a silversmith and goldsmith, and at one time was

1389
president of his trade union. If the House will permit one brief personal allusion, I was impressed some years ago, when I visited Buckingham Palace, to see some of his ware on exhibition there. For that personal reason, and in particular because one of my hon. Friends who has spoken in this debate represents the district in which my father lived, I would urge that this craft, which still has large numbers of expert craftsmen, deserves every encouragement so that it shall still be able to maintain its standard. I earnestly trust that this matter will be reconsidered, and that if there cannot be this Development Council, some equivalent shall be established.
10.59 p.m.
Mr. William Shepherd (Cheadle): It was my intention to make a speech on this matter, in which I have taken great
interest. However, I do not now intend to make that speech. I rise merely to protest against the incompetence and thoughtlessness of the Opposition. Here is an industry important to a number of towns and cities. In this debate the matter has not had the attention it deserves. It has not had that attention because the Opposition cannot use an elementary amount of common sense. The Opposition has put down for consideration, after a long day's business, four Prayers. If that is an example of how the Opposition behaves—
Mr. Speaker: There is nothing about that in the matter before the House.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 160.

Division No. 100.]

AYES

[11.0 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Gammans, L. D.

Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Godber, J. B.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Alport, C. J. M.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Gough, C. F. H.

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Gower, H. R.

Markham, Major S. F.

Arbuthnot, John

Graham, Sir Fergus

Maude, Angus

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Grimond, J.

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Medlicctt, Brig. F.

Baldwin, A. E.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Mellor, Sir John

Banks, Col. C.

Harden, J. R. E

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Barber, Anthony

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Barlow, Sir John

Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)

Nicholls, Harmar

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Harvey, lan (Harrow, E.)

Nicholson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Heald, Sir Lionel

Nugent, G. R. H

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Heath, Edward

Oakshott, H. D.

Bishop, F. P.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Odey, G. W.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenahawe)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Brown, Jack (Govan)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

Bullard, D. G.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Osborne, C.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Hollis, M. C.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Burden, F. F. A.

Hope, Lord John

Peyton, J W. W.

Campbell, Sir David

Horobin, I. M.

Pitman, I. J.

Carr, Robert

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Powell, J. Enoch

Cary, Sir Robert

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Channon, H.

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Hurd, A. R.

Profumo, J. D.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Rayner, Brig. R.

Colegate, W. A.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Renton, D. L. M

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Jennings, R.

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Roper, Sir Harold

Cranborne, Viscount

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Repner, Col. Sir Leonard

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Kaberry, D.

Russell, R. S.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Kerr, H. W.

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Crouch, R. F.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Lambton, Viscount

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Davidson, Viscountess

Lancaster, Col. C. G

Scott, R. Donald

Deedes, W. F.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Leather, E. H. C.

Shepherd, William

Donner, P. W.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Doughty, C. J. A.

Linstead, H. N.

Speir, R. M.

Drayson, G. B.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Fell, A.

Longden, Gilbert

Storey, S.

Fisher, Nigel

Low, A. R. W.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Fort, R.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Studholme, H. G.

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Summers, G. S.

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

McKibbin, A J.

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C.

Wood, Hon. R.

Tarton, R. H.

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

York, C.

Vesper, D. F.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Sir Herbert Butcher and Mr. Drewe.

NOES

Aeland, Sir Richard

Hobson, C. R.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Adams, Richard

Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

Rankin, John

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Houghton, Douglas

Reid Thomas (Swindon)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Awbery, S. S.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Ross, William

Bartley, P.

Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

Janner, B.

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

Benson, G.

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Beswick, F.

Jager, George (Goole)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Blackburn, F.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Blyton, W. R.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Snow, J. W.

Boardman, H.

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Sorensen, R. W.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Sparks, J. A.

Brockway, A. F.

Keenan, W.

Steele, T.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Kenyon, C.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

King, Dr. H. M.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Swingler, S. T.

Callaghan, L. J.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Sylvester, G. O

Carmichael, J.

Lewis, Arthur

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Lindgren, G. S.

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

Champion, A J.

MacColl. J. E.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Chetwynd, G R

McGhee, H. G.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Coldrick, W.

McInnes, J.

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Collick, P. H.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Corbel, Mrs. Freda

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Thornton, E

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Wallace, H W.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Deer, G.

Manuel, A. C.

Wells, William (Walsall)

Delargy, H. J.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

West, D. G.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Mikardo, Ian

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Mitchison, G. R.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Monslow, W.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Moody, A. S.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Fernyhough, E.

MuIley, F. W.

Wigg, George

Fienburgh, W

Murray, J. D.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

Follick, M.

Nally, W.

Wilkins, W. A

Foot, M. M

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Willey, F. T

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Oliver, G. I.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Freeman, John (Watford)

Orbach, M

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Oswald, T.

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Gibson, C. W.

Padley, W. E.

Wilson, RI. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Wyatt, W. L

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Pearson, A.

Yates, V F

Hale, Leslie

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Porter, G.

Hannan, W.

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hargreaves, A.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Mr. Bowden and

Hayman, F. H.

Proctor, W. T.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

Pryde, D. J.

Resolved:
That the Draft Jewellery and Silverware Council (Dissolution) Order, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.

FOODSTUFFS (DE-CONTROL)
11.5 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Bacon (Rationing) (Amendment) Order, 1953 (S.I., 1953, No. 74), dated 19th January, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be annulled.
1392
I think it would meet the convenience of the House if we discussed all the Prayers together.
Mr. Speaker: If the House agrees, I think that would be a convenient course.
Mr. Willey: Although these Prayers relate to different foodstuffs, they have a common quality. In his New Year message to the members of the Department, the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Food said:
"Our job at the Ministry affects perhaps more directly and more intimately than that of any other Department the day to day welfare of everyone in this country."

1393
The common characteristic of these Orders is that they all mark stages in the dissoluton of that Ministry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is all very well hon. Members saying "Hear, hear," but, in short, the day to day welfare of everyone in the country, to quote the words of the official spokesman at the Ministry, is to be sacrificed to Tory prejudice and selfishness.
The first Order relates to bacon and the bacon ration. I do not wish to make any point at all about the reduction in the ration. The ration should be related to supplies, and it must be expected that the bacon ration must go up and down according to the available supplies. I agree that the amount of bacon consumed in 1952 was greater than in the preceding year, but that bacon was obtained under price incentives given by the Labour Government in the February Price Review and by contracts signed by the Labour Government. Bacon is a commodity which cannot be stored. This Government had no alternative but to provide a better bacon ration. But we should realise that, notwithstanding the improvement, the bacon imports remain at substantially less than pre-war. We have lost sources of supply.
The disturbing thing is what is happening now under the present Government. The present Government are engaged in deterring countries which export bacon to us from increasing production. The Dutch, for instance, are very worried about this. The Dutch Minister of Agriculture was unable to get an undertaking from our Ministry of Food that they would take all the bacon that the Dutch can produce.
It may well be, as I have said before, that this year, through the deliberate disincentive of the present Government, we shall enjoy rather less bacon than we did last year. But in any case, whilst we can take some satisfaction that the consumption of bacon has increased, it remains at about 90 per cent. of what it was pre-war. Therefore, we cannot be entirely satisfied. I should have thought that we must be disturbed if it be the fact that we cannot give any encouragement to the Dutch to produce all the bacon possible.
The other discouraging fact about bacon consumption is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North
1394
(Mr. Lewis) has repeatedly said, the uptake of bacon is substantially less than the ration entitlement. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but as I gather from the information given to the House this afternoon, the present position is that 90 per cent. of the ration entitlement is being taken up by the wholesalers at the present, but of that 90 per cent. one quarter is being disposed of by the retailers off the ration because 1 oz. of the present 4 oz. ration in amount is being disposed of as off-the-ration gammon. This is really very startling. That means, apparently, that the legitimate on-the-ration purchases today amount only to about 70 per cent. or less of the ration entitlement, which is certainly very worrying.
What is the reason for this? The reason is as clear as can be, and it is related to this present Order. This is where this Order is particularly offensive. It carries a stage further the step taken in October. In October cooked gammon could be sold off the ration. By virtue of this Order, ration quality bacon uncooked can be sold off the ration. This cooked or uncooked gammon that is being sold off the ration is being sold at a price which is prohibitive to a large number of people.
When this present Government took office cooked and boneless gammon was price-controlled at 4s. 2d. per 1b. That is now selling at 8s. per 1b., and as for the uncooked and boneless gammon which now comes off the ration, when this Government took office that was being sold at 3s. and 3s. 1d. per lb. and it is now being sold at 5s. 8d. and 5s. 9d. per 1b.
The other thing which adds to the offensive character of the present Order is that this change was made at a time of a reduction in the ration. The Parliamentary Secretary has said in reply to a Question that I asked him some time ago that these changes have nothing to do with the reduction of the ration. Of course they have. They are in the same Order.
I particularly object to the timing of this Order. In effect, the Parliamentary Secretary was saying, "You are going to suffer a ration reduction, but if you belong to the higher income groups you need not suffer at all." This made some-

1395
thing essentially offensive more offensive. It is true that the Parliamentary Secresaid that this has been endured only for a month, but it was particularly offensive to say, "The people will think they are suffering a ration reduction, but of course if you have plenty of money you can buy plenty of bacon and it will only be the poorer people who will suffer."
The second Prayer deals with the meat products Order, and I concede at once that some of these products were selling at less than the maximum prices. To give an illustration, stewed steak I am told has been selling at 2s. 6d. whereas the controlled price was 3s. 11½d. I will argue from that point in a moment, meanwhile I am consistent in objecting to the Order being revoked, as it is largely by this Order, because there are still grounds for a proper system of price control. However, I have no brief whatever for that Order. I criticised it at the time, and what I said has been amply proved. I indicated that of course these meat products would not be sold at the prices then determined.
I agree too that in this case the trade were in some difficulty with the substandard meat products which they could not sell. It may surprise hon. Gentlemen opposite to know that, in spite of the shortage of meat products, the fact remains that the traders have been saying, quite rightly, that they could not sell some of them; that the time limit would pass and they would have them on their hands. In the debate in July, I said:
"The Government are tackling the problem by saying that the best thing to do in order to avoid any question of points rationing is to have a steep increase in price so that the reduced supply meets a reduced demand …I think that the control which is remaining is becoming a farcical control because it will not ensure fair and equitable distribution. While I would resist de-control of these foodstuffs, I would at the same time say that the present control cannot be a successful one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 1672.]
and that is what has happened. It is Government action which has depressed the purchasing power of the people generally in the country. That is why the sub-standard meat products have not been able to be sold by the shops. That is something the Government have caused by their deliberate action.
Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of order. I understand that the Order we are now debating has been wiped out by an Order made by the Minister on the 16th of this month. In those circumstances, can we continue a debate on an Order which is dead?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Order has not been laid.
Mr. Willey: I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would have shown his usual courtesy in informing us if that had been the case.
The Government, by their deliberate action by the recent cuts reduced the supplies of meat products at present available in the country. They have created a situation in which they cannot talk about fair competition, because the circumstances of fair competition do not operate. As was repeatedly insisted upon by the National Government during the war, it is therefore the Government's responsibility to ensure fair and equitable distribution by price control.
Thirdly, we object because this is a stage in the dissolution of the Ministry and the previous Order was farcical because the Minister did not care very much about price control of meat products and was feeling that the sooner he was in process of abandoning price control the better. The other day the Parliamentary Secretary said that "we could not leap into de-control in the absence of sufficient supplies"; but that is what he is doing in this instance. The result is that, in these conditions of shortage, the housewife will be compelled to pay higher prices than she ought to be called upon to pay.
The third Order increases the price of rice by 2d. per 1b. The Parliamentary Secretary will say that this is due—we have previously prayed against a price increase in respect of rice—to the continued increase in the world price of rice. I concede that at once. The complaint I have is that this is not the sort of thing that the Parliamentary Secretary and his political friends said they would do during the last General Election. Rice is available and could be purchased far more cheaply; that would not be a proper thing to do, but it would be a Tory thing to do. The Parliamentary Secretary should explain for the benefit of his colleagues why he is behaving in this good Socialist fashion about the

1397
purchase of rice and why he is renouncing all that was said during the General Election about sending out businessmen to scour the world for supplies.
We were in office 6½ years, and we repeatedly faced a famine position in rice, but during that 6½ years we increased the price of rice by only 3d. Last year at one step the Parliamentary Secretary increased the price by 3d., and now he is increasing it by a further 2d. The House is surely entitled to an explanation from him.
Finally, there is the Order affecting the requirements in respect of softwood boxes. The Order will not create any more softwood boxes. It also frees bananas from price control. When the Minister began to interfere with the importation of bananas we knew what he was up to and that what he wanted to do was to de-control bananas and set them free.
Have we amicably settled this with Jamaica? It was clear that Jamaica was very hostile to this development and wanted the Ministry to stand by the previous long-term bulk purchase contracts. There has been some difficulty. I know it was hoped that Elders and Fyffes Ltd. and the Jamaican Banana Producers Association would come to an agreement running until 1964, and I hope that that has been done, for it provides the growers with some security. Nevertheless, it is an open secret that the Jamaicans were strongly opposed to the development. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can say that the Jamaicans are not too dissatisfied with the alternative provisions which have been made.
The Ministry of Food say, "We can de-control bananas because supplies have improved." That is their case. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why there has been a 50 per cent. increase in price. If the supplies improved, why did the price go up by 50 per cent.? The average price increase since de-control has been 50 per cent. and bananas are selling at 1s. 6d. and more.
Sir H. Williams: One shilling and sixpence a banana?
Mr. Willey: No, Sir; per 1b.—I cannot explain everything to the hon. Member. The Ministry of Food are now presumably selling bananas on the free market as they are still the importer from
1398
the British West Indies. I should like to know what profit they are making, because they are now making a profit to offset the subsidies. What is the extent of that profit? It would provide some light on the profit other people are making—The result, as far as the housewife is concerned, is that she finds it more difficult to afford bananas and someone is making 50 per cent. more profit out of the business of selling bananas. It was to avoid that that bananas were price-controlled. I think we must all be disillusioned in the belief that the Ministry are any longer safeguarding the housewives of the country.
11.26 p.m.
Miss Elaine Burton: I beg to second the Motion.
I wish first to come to the question of bananas. I noticed the cheering on the benches opposite when there was a reference to setting the people free as far as bananas are concerned. I do not know whether Members opposite would rather have bananas freed at 1s. 6d. per 1b. or controlled at 1s. per 1b. If they would rather have them freed at 1s. 6d. per 1b., I am sure the housewife would be interested. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary will say that he has been more fortunate than I have been? I have not seen any bananas in the shops or on the barrows at less than 1s. 6d. since the price was de-controlled, except some on barrows, which were obviously bad, and they were selling at 1s. 3d.
I wonder if the hon. Gentleman could also tell me whether this is true. The other day I went into a small shop near where I live and asked for some bananas. I said that I did not want to pay 1s. 6d. and asked why they were that price. The shopkeeper said it was because the wholesalers had broken their agreement. Could the Parliamentary Secretary say something about the wholesalers and their agreement and tell us why bananas are selling at 1s. 6d. everywhere today?
It seems to us on this side of the House, and I think it is an obvious fact, that where things have been de-controlled the prices have gone up. We are forced to the inevitable conclusion that the party opposite are going to get more supplies into the shops simply because as many people as before are not able to buy them. If we go round the shops in London, and I think it is the same in

1399
other large cities, there is no shortage of food, but the question is whether people have money with which to buy it. Since bananas have been de-controlled I have seen on the barrows and in the shops everywhere far more bananas. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I should have thought hon. Members would have waited for it. I would ask whether there are a great many more bananas coming into the country or whether there are more on show because people cannot afford to buy them as they are too expensive.
I now wish to deal with something which we on this side of the House feel the Government are destroying, apparently with the approval and approbation of hon. Members behind them. That is the levelling up process in expenditure which took place under the Labour Government in the purchase of food. I should like to stress something which the Parliamentary Secretary knows well, and these are remarks in the report of the National Food Survey Committee for 1950, published in December, 1952. That report has some cogent remarks about rationed foods and expenditure. For example, we are told that in 1936–37, the average food expenditure in this country was 8s. 11½d. per person per week. In 1950, it was 14s. 6d.
Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Lady to go into a lot of details covering many years in discussing this Order?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have been listening most carefully, and the hon. Lady is perfectly in order.
Miss Burton: I am sorry that the hon. Member opposite does not like these facts, but I am merely pointing out that this report discusses rationed foods and expenditure and, therefore, I assume the hon. Gentleman did not understand that I was in order because we are concerned at the moment with rationed foodstuffs. I was saying—and I am sorry to have to repeat it—that food expenditure in this country was 8s. 11½d. in 1936–37, and in 1950 was 14s. 6½d. That is per person, and I have no doubt that that expenditure included money spent on bananas. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite cannot understand what I am saying, they should try to keep quiet. [Interruption.]
1400
Obviously my argument must be a good one.
If there are no more interruptions, I should like to say that in these ranges of price the difference between the expenditure of the different income groups in 1936–37 was 10s. 10d. and in 1950 was 4s. 1d. There had been a considerable levelling up, and we on this side of the House believe that that levelling up is being damaged by the action which the Government has taken in the Order we are discussing tonight.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he realises that the report to which I have referred states that the levelling of expenditure was most marked in the rationed foods. Does he not agree that, in view of this Bacon Order, this levelling up of expenditure is certainly not going to continue? Does he not realise that there is going to be a very great difference of expenditure between those people able to afford expensive gammon at 5s. 8d. a 1b. and those who cannot afford it?
It was the Minister of Food who said last November that the bacon ration was doing very well at the moment, but then, in January last, he performed a marvellous feat. That was when he announced that the bacon ration would be cut, while at the same time saying that off-ration gammon would be available. We on this side thought that to be a typical example of Tory policy. Hon. Members opposite apparently disagree, but we should like to know how that was made possible. I believe that since October, when bacon went up about 5d. a 1b., the general bacon ration has not been taken up; and obviously the Minister did not expect that the whole of even the reduced ration would be taken up; what was left could be sold at 5s. 8d. a 1b. off the ration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has referred to a Question which I asked this afternoon, when I inquired of the Minister of Food what stocks of gammon bacon per person, per week, he expected to be available for sale off the ration. The reply was "1 oz.", and when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply tonight perhaps he will say if that means that his Ministry expects that one-quarter of the gammon bacon in this country will be sold off the ration.
Mr. Joseph T. Price: On Monday of this week the Minister gave me a written reply in which he admitted that 18 per cent. of the total tonnage of bacon and ham available in the stocks in this country was now being sold off the ration. That has to be added to the 10 per cent. that has not been taken up, making a total of 28 per cent.
Miss Burton: I am thankful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will add that to the other figure when he comes to reply.
There is one other point which I wish to raise. It was only 10 days before Christmas that the Minister was hotly denying that bacon was too dear for some families. He also said that it was not too dear for old age pensioners. When he was challenged on that he said he would accept the challenge. The Ministry have received a letter from the executive of the old age pensioners' organisation explaining that old age pensioners are not able to take up their rations. I understand that a reply has now been sent to that letter. I gather that the original letter was mislaid for about eight weeks, and I am glad it has turned up. I hope the House will be informed of the answer.
Finally, I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary has seen the leader in "The Times" headed "Liberating the Sausage." [Interruption.] I will shortly liberate the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) and then he can go home. It would not be fair to let the House imagine that I think "The Times" leader was against the liberation of the sausage, which comes under this Order that we are discussing tonight. I should like to make one point on it. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary noticed that, in speaking of the contents of the sausage, the leader said:
"…at any rate for a fortunate few, those with full purses and good digestions…"
better sausages would be available again. I am not interested in the good digestions, but I am interested in the fact that "The Times" leader writer thinks that it is only those with full purses who will be able to take advantage of this sort of thing.
Therefore, in seconding this Motion I should like to stress that we on this side of the House, and the country, are quite
1402
convinced that there are more goods available in the shops because people with lower incomes cannot buy them, and we believe that it is the policy of the Government, backed up by the cheers of their back benchers, to continue that state of affairs.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster): Is it not a fact that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends started a policy of a cheap sausage for the masses based, not on the inclusion of meat, but the inclusion of milk powder, curds and whey?
Mr. Willey: Rubbish.
Miss Burton: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North says, "Rubbish," and I think we can leave it there.
11.39 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): I am particularly glad that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has thrown off his temporary infection and is back in good, if somewhat inaccurate, form tonight. I notice that, lest I should draw attention to the increased availability of bacon and similar products in 1952 over 1951, he made that point for me, and contented himself with a gloomy prophecy as to what the position would be in 1953.
Let me remind the hon. Member that from March, 1952, to January of this year we sustained a 5 oz. bacon ration—a considerable improvement on the year before, as he knows—and though I can give him no undertaking, we hope to sustain that ration for the bulk, if not for the whole, of this year.
The background to the bacon-gammon controversy needs to be explored, in view of the emphasis laid upon it by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion and the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) who seconded it. Let us look at the position in the last three months of 1952. There was a bacon ration of 5 ozs. The average consumption of cooked ham was 1.16 ozs. per head per week at 8s. per 1b. In the last quarter of 1951, there was a bacon ration—an average for the period—of 3? ozs., with a canned ham average distribution of.7 oz. at between 11s. and 12s. per lb. These are the people who are talking about rationing by the purse!

1403
If the argument is raised—and I suspect that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) will raise it again, and I do not begrudge his vigorous onslaughts on us, good-humoured as they are—that the take-up today is 90 per cent.—it happens to be rather higher, but let us take that figure and we add to that the availability of boiled gammon and ham at rather more than 1 oz., the position today is that there is an average consumption of 6 ozs. as compared with the 3⅓ ozs. of the year before, plus the.7 figure—a consumption of 4 ozs.
It was decided to make cooked ham off the ration available on 5th October last. For one thing, we wanted to reduce the unduly high price—which the party opposite suffered without complaint—of canned ham available in the shops. So it was decided to make cooked ham available off the ration at an unsubsidised price of 8s. per 1b. I appreciate the criticism made here. But it was necessary, at the same time, to have within the ration, as it then was, uncooked gammon at an unsubsidised price, for the obvious administrative reason that we could not, and our predecessors would not, permit some dishonest retailer to buy uncooked gammon at the subsidised price, and, if he so desired, cook it and sell it at the unsubsidised price. So it was necessary to raise the price of uncooked gammon within the ration.
But it soon became obvious, in the light of experience, that it was possible to enable the uncooked gammon to be sold off the ration and still, apart from the short changes of the kind indicated, to maintain the ration at 5 ozs., and that is what we did. If the other side complain that we reduced the ration from 5 to 4 ozs. in order to make available to the rich this uncooked gammon at 5s. 9d. per 1b., will the hon. Gentleman explain how he reconciles that with the fact that, from Sunday, we return to the 5 ozs. ration? The whole business is nonsense. He has been referring to the 1 oz. of gammon referred to in an answer that was given today, and he spoke as if that had been taken away from the ration of the poor and given to the rich. What nonsense. That includes the 1,500 tons odd of cooked ham which has been available weekly off the ration since 5th October last.
Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman spoke a short while ago of a 6 oz. ration. Is it not the fact that gammon came out of the ration, and that he is talking absolute nonsense because, with the ration as it is, that is the effective ration?
Dr. Hill: I am afraid I have not made myself clear to the hon. Member. If we take the position as it was for the last three months of last year, the ration was 5 ozs.
Mr. Willey: Not taken up.
Dr. Hill: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to finish this argument. He can then raise again the matter of take-up. Over and above the 5 oz. ration there is available cooked and uncooked gammon to an amount of rather more than 1 oz. per head a week. The bacon position is much more satisfactory than it was under the previous administration. The ham position is much more satisfactory, and the ham is much cheaper.
Mr. Joseph T. Price: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I would suggest that he has missed the point of the criticism we are making. Our criticism and indictment of the Government is that, due to the artificial inflation of prices arising from the Government's policy, old-age pensioners and the poorest sections of the community are not able to get a fair share.
Dr. Hill: I have had this point before. The National Food Survey figures are not available until some months after the event. They are available for the third quarter of last year, before the events I have described, which began on 5th October, took place. I can only give the figures of the previous quarter from the National Food Survey. It would immediately be said that they are irrelevant and they are not current figures. I have no doubt that if the figures suited hon. Members opposite they would become statistically virtuous: if they do not they will repudiate the very indices which they themselves invented and used.
With regard to meat products, the Order had a rather rough reception. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) said about the Order, last time:
"How are we to expect ordinary traders, in small shops in the back streets, to understand a complicated Order of this nature?

1405
Imagine them wading through the Order…. The whole thing is ludicrous in the extreme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 1418.]
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North said in. July last:
"While I would resist de-control of these foodstuffs, I would at the same time say that the present control cannot be a successful one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 1672.]
The hon. Member knows that it has not worked. He wants control for its own sake, and yet he wants to say that this Order is no use. He knows that the price of meat products generally has fallen substantially. I will not weary the House with figures. The hon. Member admitted the point. He said that people are not buying them now. He said, to quote his words: "The people cannot buy them. The Government have reduced the supplies of meat products." Nothing of the sort. The Government have increased the availability of manufacturing meat by rather more than 60 per cent. The exact figure for manufacturers for the week ended 7th February, 1953, is up 61 per cent. on the previous year's figure. Meat available to butchers is up 25 per cent. It has not occurred to the hon. Member that it is greater abundance of meat products which has led to this situation. Competition is doing the job, without the necessity of price control. There is a danger that control, if continued too long, may have an opposite effect and maintain prices too high rather than let competition do the work.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South referred to the sausage. I think that I should be out of order in pursuing that subject further. But it is not a bad thing to allow the tastes and desires of the people to determine the strength of the sausage and to get away from this ludicrous position of determining it by Order.
I can give a plain and simple answer on the question of the price of rice. We get all our rice from Burma at the moment and the price of rice from Burma went up by 22 per cent. As a result, the price of rice went up at the retail end by 15 per cent. The cost per citizen in this country will be 6d. a year. So this is an increase that has followed the simple and unalterable fact that the price we pay for the rice has increased by 22 per cent.
1406
How did the issue of the release of bananas from control arise? I do not know that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North ought really to be allowed to stand up in this House and condemn us for removing price control from an article which he regards as nutritionally poor. Let the House listen to what the hon. Member said on 9th April, 1951, when his hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds), still at the game of bearding the Ministry of Food, asked his Socialist colleague, the Minister of Food,
"…if he is aware of the concern at the de-rationing of bananas; and what additional supplies have been received or expected to enable their de-rationing."
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North replied:
"I am not aware of any widely expressed concern at the lifting of restrictions on the distribution of bananas. Bananas have no special nutritional value and plentiful supplies of many other fruits are now available. Gradually increasing quantities are being imported, but supplies may not always fully meet the demand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April. 1951; Vol. 486, c. 648.]
Mr. Willey: In my argument tonight I have not employed anything at all about the nutritional value of bananas. I have said on occasion that their nutritional value is equal to that of potatoes. But it has nothing to do with this argument. I am complaining of the profiteering in the distribution of bananas which are poor in quality and in short supply.
Dr. Hill: If the hon. Member is going to say that it is wrong to remove a control because it may result in an increase in price, let me cast his mind back to what his party did in the middle of 1950. They de-controlled oranges, which doubled in price. That does not make it necessarily a wise thing to do. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Thank you.
The Cameroons and Jamaica are the two main sources of supply. The Cameroons asked that the free market in bananas should be restored. They realised that that might mean a slight increase in price, but they thought it would speedily have the result of more bananas being visible for sale and, by a process of competition, of reaching a market price. Discussions began with Jamaica. Jamaica have agreed, and from 14th March the position will be that a free market will cover the whole field.
The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South drew attention to some

1407
prices. I have been gazing at bananas lately. I have seen them at 1s. 6d., 1s. 3d., and 1s. 2d.; and I saw some at 1s., but I give her the point straight away, that at that price they looked like some pretty tired bananas. I have had some inquiries made as to what in fact are the prices charged at present. The investigation has covered 173 towns and 841 shops in one week, and a lesser number in subsequent weeks—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: What about the barrows?
Dr. Hill: The investigation has covered all kinds of selling agencies, including barrows. These are the figures supplied by a Government Department, and the Opposition used them as well. How the Opposition dislike statistics when they are inconvenient! The weighted average price was 1s. 2d. From a wide investigation, although the margin of costs varied considerably and, of course, the quality of the bananas also varied considerably.
Miss Burton: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House where one can buy bananas at 1s. 2d.? Is he prepared, tomorrow, to come on a tour of the shops and barrows in London and see if he can find bananas at that price, because wherever I have seen them they have been 1s. 6d.
Dr. Hill: I do not maintain that I have been to all 173 towns and all 841 shops in order to calculate the statistics on this basis. If determined to prove their case, hon. Members can search for the most expensive or have their attention drawn by instinct to the most expensive, and possibly they will find high prices for this and every other commodity. If, on the other hand, they are engaged in a modest search for truth, and spread their inquiries throughout a sufficient sample, they will come to the conclusion that price is somewhat up, but not to the level suggested by the hon. Lady.
The question was asked by the hon. Gentleman as to whether we were making a profit on the bananas we are still importing. He will realise that we are still importing Jamaican bananas. For a short time we have been making a modest profit, but for a long time we made a considerable loss on Jamaican
1408
bananas, and all I can say, if it will reassure the hon. Gentleman in any way, is that From 14th March there will be neither profit nor loss, for Her Majesty's Government will no longer be in the banana business.
Bananas have returned to the shops and the operation of a market that expresses the contact between the producer and the consumer will in future determine the price of the commodity which the hon. Gentleman thinks so little of.
Mr. James Hudson: Before the hon. Gentleman desists from his modest search for truth, will he permit me to ask him a question about ham going the same way as bananas? He was able to give us, in reply to the charges we were making that there had been a definite retreat from taking up rations in the shops, certain figures which, he said were the latest available. I think they were from the quarterly survey and related to the third quarter of last year. But in the modest search for truth, the Minister himself announced in the House this year that in the last quarter of last year, there were 2,270,000 bacon rations per week not taken up. The Minister is anxious about the modest search for truth. Comparing that with the previous year—again the figures are from his own Department—there were only 175,000 as compared with the 2,270,000.
Is it not, therefore, a valid point for us to make that much of this problem presented by the higher priced bacon and ham arises from the fact that owing to the general increase in prices, despite all that the Government promised at the Election, people are not able to take up the rations that ought to be theirs, and this has led to the situation with which we are dealing tonight?
Dr. Hill: IfI may briefly answer the hon. Member, assuming the accuracy of his figure of 2,270,000—I say "assuming," because that figure has been used in reference to four weeks, but let us assume that it relates to one week—that is one twenty-fifth of the population. That is a 4 per cent. failure of take-up of the bacon ration in a particular week. Of course, as the ration rises there are people who do not want the whole ration. There are some people who do not want the ration at any time.
Mr. F. Beswick: What does the Parliamentary Secretary mean about the ration rising? In December it had not risen.
Dr. Hill: The hon. Member should look at the statistics before he intervenes. The bacon ration in December last was 5 oz.—very substantially more than the ration a year before.
Question put, and negatived.

MINING SUBSIDENCE, NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Conant.]
12.3 a.m.
Mr. Stephen Swingler: I wish to raise the subject of mining subsidence. Mining subsidence is a very big problem, and there are many hon. Members who are more expert on it than I am, but I am debarred tonight from talking about mining subsidence in general because, if I did, I should be bound to talk about the necessity for new legislation on the subject.
We expect the Ministry of Fuel and Power to produce some new legislation on mining subsidence to implement the rest of the 1949 Report, but what I want to talk about is the treatment of my constituents under the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1950. I am bound to say that, in my view, the treatment of some of them amounts to a shocking scandal.
Certainly I know that there have been worse hardships in the past arising from mining subsidence because of the failure to find a solution of this problem and because of the chaotic state of the law on the subject, but that does not console those who are afflicted with these hardships at the present time. The hope has been held out, at any rate since the 1949 Report of the Committee on Mining Subsidence, that action will be taken to remove these hardships and injustices that have arisen in the past.
I want to make it clear at the outset that I do not cast all the blame for what I am going to assert on the National Coal Board. I believe there is some ambiguity about the responsibilities of the N.C.B. under the 1950 Act. That is one of the
1410
prime reasons why I took this opportunity to raise this subject.
I begin with the assumption that the victims of mining subsidence deserve as much public sympathy and help as the victims of storm and tempest. Their disasters are not usually as sudden and dramatic, but they are none the less as unfortunate and tragic in their consequences. My assumption is the same as that of the Committee which reported in 1949. and from whose Report I quote the following sentence:
"We start with the premise that the object of any reform of the existing law should be to remove hardship and the sense of injustice wherever it is found."
It was as a result of this Report that the 1950 Act was passed.
There are three points in the 1950 Act. The first is the establishment of the national responsibility of the N.C.B. for the repair of houses damaged by subsidence, or making payments in respect of such damage. The second point is that the 1950 Act lays down that the onus of proof is on the N.C.B. in regard to the causes of damage in areas where subsidence has occurred. That is the crucial point. The third thing under the Act is that it empowers the Minister to make financial grants to the N.C.B. and to make regulations on the subject of mining subsidence. The Ministry since the Act was passed has made a grant of £500,000 to the N.C.B. in respect of subsidence damage.
I am far from satisfied with the way in which these principles are being applied in my constituency, and I have had a certain amount of correspondence with the Minister, and I have asked a number of Parliamentary Questions. Newcastle-under-Lyme is extensively undermined, and very serious damage to households has occurred, and is occurring at present in my constituency. The particular case which I am using to illustrate this point concerns Kinsey Street in Silverdale, which is largely populated with mine workers. Two years ago this street collapsed. It subsided to a greater extent in the centre of the terrace houses than at the two ends of the street. The result was that some 40 houses were damaged, and some were rendered uninhabitable.
When this occurred a number of families had to be evacuated immediately.

1411
Some were tenants, some houses were held on mortgage, and others were owner-occupied. A handful of families had to be evacuated immediately and in the emergency the Newcastle-under-Lyme Council had to allocate council houses to accommodate these people. When that occurred the N.C.B.—in my opinion, quite rightly and properly—in the spirit of the 1950 Act took the responsibility of removal of these families together with their goods and chattels, and immediately paid, and are still paying, compensation for the extra rents and costs these people had to bear because their houses have been virtually destroyed as a result of the mining. Other families have continued to live, as so many of my constituents do. in partially damaged houses. Some are living like cave dwellers in very badly damaged houses, but they have managed to carry on.
When the time came for the repairs to be carried out to the badly damaged houses it became clear that other families must be evacuated from the streets while the houses which had been temporarily shored up were being fully repaired. In the case of a number of houses, the repairs could go on while the people remained in their houses, but it was clear that in the case of a great number of others the families must be moved out and put into other accommodation while the repairs went on.
Naturally, those families made the same claim and assumed that they would get the same treatment as the families whose houses had originally been made uninhabitable by the subsidence. They thought the Board, under the direction of the Minister, would take the responsibility of moving them from their houses and paying the extra costs in which they would be involved when they had to go to council houses in another part of the constituency. In some cases a considerable amount might be involved, travelling expenses being 10s. per week or more.
But the National Coal Board refused to accept the responsibility of removing the people, although the Newcastle-under-Lyme Council was prepared to set aside council houses for them, and it also refused to pay them compensation for the extra costs in which they were involved. The result is that some families have moved under their own
1412
private arrangements and are now bearing the additional hardships in the way of paying council houses rents besides to their other financial obligations, such as extra travelling expenses and so on. Some of them have either not been able to get accommodation or cannot afford the alternative accommodation because of their present financial position.
Consequently, a number have stayed in their houses, and this has meant that the National Coal Board cannot carry out its statutory obligations to repair the damaged houses because they cannot do it so long as the people remain in them. To enable the Board to carry out its statutory duty, it is necessary for those families to find alternative accommodation for a period of weeks or months. While the people stay in the houses the Board cannot carry out the repairs, but many families cannot afford alternative accommodation and additional travelling expenses.
This position has unfortunately been aggravated by disputes between these citizens and the Board about the specifications for repairs to the houses, about the portion of the cost of repairs which the Board alleges the families should undertake, and other points of that kind. Consequently, the impression has unfortunately come to many of my constituents that the Board, under financial pressure from the Ministry, is adopting a mean, niggardly attitude towards them.
The Minister has, I suggest, a very direct responsibility in this matter. First, he has a financial responsibility. Under the 1950 Act, and according to the recommendations of the 1949 Report, it is his responsibility to assist the National Coal Board to undertake these expenses, and, if the Board cannot carry out their obligations because of financial pressure, it is the responsibility of the Minister to use his powers under the Act to relieve some of that pressure by making grants additional to the £500,000 already paid to the Board, to enable them to offer more generous treatment to those who arose hard hit by subsidence.
Moreover, the Minister has the power to make regulations about the interpretation of the Act—about the way in which it is to be administered. I maintain that the Minister has power to make regulations to cover these consequential

1413
costs where houses have completely collapsed or where houses have been so badly damaged that they can only be repaired if the people living in them are removed. I maintain that the Minister is in a position to direct the Board to undertake these responsibilities and to cover these additional costs on any proper interpretation of the Act.
I pay tribute to the National Coal Board for what they are doing—for what I know from experience they are doing in my constituency—to prevent this kind of thing happening in the future. Very great efforts are being made in the collieries in my constituency with the new technique of underground stowing operations to forestall damage in the future and to prevent a subsidence of the earth with all the terrible results it has in damage to property and in disrupting the life of the people, many of whom work at winning coal. But we know that for years to come this kind of problem will occur. Yesterday morning I had this letter from the town clerk of Newcastle-under-Lyme:
"During the week-end serious subsidence damage has occurred on Leech Avenue, Chesterton—"
another village in my constituency—
"Four houses are immediately affected, but doubtless the trouble will not end there. The Council are providing temporary accommodation by means of council houses. It appears indeed to be another Kinsey Street case."
He goes on to explain how these unfortunate people are having to evacuate to another part of the area, which will involve them in additional travelling expenses to their work, although they have already suffered damage to their property and furniture.
I therefore say that while some advance was made in the passage of the 1950 Act and while the responsibility for repairing houses is there clear, it was the intention in the passing of that Act, as it was recommended in the 1949 Report, that all these costs which were directly resultant from mining subsidence should be a public responsibility borne by the Coal Board, which is responsible for the mines of the country, but financially assisted by the Treasury through the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary tonight, as I have asked the Minister previously, seriously to consider increasing the financial grants made by his Department to the Coal Board to
1414
enable them to give more generous treatment to those hard hit people and, secondly, to issue regulations under the Act to make it perfectly clear that the responsibilities for such problems as removals and additional travelling expenses as I have described ought to be borne by the Board.
12.20 a.m.
Mr. W. Nally: I do not want to stand between my hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary for more than a few moments, but I should like to say what a poor reflection it is upon our Parliamentary practices and institutions that, in a matter of this sort—which in my hon. Friend's constituency is of such tragic importance—we should be discussing the subject at this hour of the morning in the presence of, including yourself. Mr. Speaker, seven hon. Members
But this is the main point which I wish to make. The National Coal Board in all these matters—and it should be put on record just as emphatically as my hon. Friend has done it—has behaved far more generously than private ownership ever did. That should be made clear in relation to the powers and resources of the Board; but it has now become a circumstance where the Board, with all the obligations laid upon it, finds itself unable to accept full responsibility for errors and profit making inhibitions of 30 years ago. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that those of us whose whole family background is linked with the pits my own father was a collier, and my grandfather before him—recall that one of the miners' first considerations was not nationalisation, but trying to persuade the coal owners to adopt exactly the stowing arrangements which the Board is trying now to put into effect to prevent the subsidences to which many parts of the country. including my own, are subject.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider how far he can meet my hon. Friend, who speaks on this subject for a good many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and how far he thinks the Board should be relieved of meeting this burden of distress. The Board inherited many evil heritages, but one which it should not have to carry is that of meeting responsibility for subsidence damage, for which it was not responsible. and which it is now trying to do its best to avoid.
12.23 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): Whatever else comes from this debate, there must be a feeling of relief for the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) who has raised this subject tonight. One cannot but admire his pertinacity and dogged determination in balloting, night after night since, I believe, last October, upon this subject. I would pay my tribute to him, because this is a subject which can benefit by being ventilated. As the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) has said, subsidence affects a large part of our community, and I can well understand the feelings of his hon. Friend. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister actually went to one of the streets in his constituency, which he has mentioned tonight, to see at first-hand the circumstances which have been so properly described tonight.
But what I want to do is to examine the position as it is and, if I may, I should like to correct one or two of the legal aspects of the statutory provisions to which reference has been made. Let us get clear, to begin with, what is the position so far as the obligations of the Board are concerned. In section 2 (1) of the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1950, it is provided that with regard to those houses affected by subsidence, the Board shall either carry out, as soon as possible, such reasonable repairs to the dwelling house as are required in consequence of damage thereto, or it shall make a payment equal to costs reasonably incurred by any other person in carrying out such repairs. That is the extent of the obligation which is laid upon the Board.
There is nothing ambiguous about it. The hon. Gentleman referred to the ambiguity about the liberty of the Board under the Act, but those words are exceedingly strict and well defined. They are exceedingly limited in regard to the obligation which Parliament laid upon the Board. I would also refer to the fact that it was laid upon the Board quite consciously by Parliament. The hon. Gentleman no doubt took part in the debates upon it at the time. I did not, but I have read them.
1416
I am sorry to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) did not stay for this debate. I can well understand the reason why he did not, because at that time he was in the position that I now occupy, that of Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. While my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends sought to enlarge the scope of the Bill by amending the Financial Resolution with the avowed object, as is stated in the debates, of enabling the House to include indirect damage in the Bill, the then Government refused to accept the Amendment and made it abundantly clear that they were not going beyond the strict obligation of direct damage.
I do not think it would be right, even as a matter of propriety, to change that obligation by the Minister's own personal direction, Parliament having made it clear what the obligation should be. I should like to say another word on that in a minute. There is another difficulty in regard to this matter, and that is that the Act provides that if there should be a difference of opinion between the householder and the Coal Board it should be settled by the county court. I derived the impression that the hon. Member is bringing the matter to the High Court of Parliament rather than to the county court because he recognises there is, in fact, no legal obligation on the Board to do the things for which he is asking. If there were a legal obligation, then it would be for the householder to take proceedings in the county court against the Coal Board.
Mr. Swingler: May I point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that the position is, how is the N.C.B. to carry out reasonable repairs to a house which cannot be reasonably repaired whilst people are living in it and the people who are living in it cannot find alternative accommodation, or cannot afford alternative accommodation? Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that in these circumstances it is purely a private responsibility on the people to move in order that the Coal Board should carry out its statutory obligations of making reasonable repairs? That is a point which obviously the county court could not decide.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: If the county court is unable to decide this, it is presumably

1417
because it is not provided for in the Act and this is a particular case.
I want now to touch for a moment on the other aspect of the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, and that is the possibility of doing something by means of a general direction. There, again, we are met with a specific provision of the law, and I would refer the hon. Gentleman to what the rights and responsibilities of my right hon. Friend are in regard to directions under the nationalisation Act of 1946. In Section 3 (1) of that Act, provision is made that the Minister may, after consultation with the Board, give to the Board directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by the Board of their functions in relation to matters appearing to the Minister to affect the national interest.
I do not propose to argue the legal case this evening, but it is certainly open to considerable doubt whether the repair of other people's houses is a part of the functions of the Board. Certainly, that could not have been contemplated in 1946, because that obligation was not laid upon the Board until 1950.
Mr. Swingler: What about Section 16?
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Time is very short indeed, and, if I am to finish, I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman.
In addition to that, undoubtedly it is not an obligation of the Board, and therefore, not one of their activities to meet any indirect costs which may be involved
1418
as a result of subsidence. Therefore, no general directions could possibly be given, in my opinion, which would involve the Board in meeting indirect costs.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of an increase in the grant by the Minister to the Board, but, there again, it is quite clearly laid down by the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act, Section 11, what those responsibilities are. They are quite definitely laid down as grants not exceeding the amount estimated by the Minister to be one-half of the sum of the additional expenditure incurred by the Board in a certain period. The Minister has not got a discretionary right to enlarge upon that, one way or the other.
The hon. Gentleman referred by way of illustration to certain special cases, and that illustration has shown that the Board is permitted, of its own volition, to go beyond its statutory obligations in certain circumstances. If it is prepared to do that, a limit must be set, and the line which has to be drawn must be drawn by the Board in their own discretion, because they are going outside their own legal obligations. For these reasons, it is not possible to intervene.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Wednesday evening, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-Eight Minutes to One o'Clock a.m.

MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Sugar and Fats (Manufacturers' Allocations)
  Sugar and Fats (Manufacturers' Allocations)
  Irish Milk
  Irish Milk
  Eggs (Interim Marketing Scheme)
  Eggs (Interim Marketing Scheme)
NIGERIA
  Groundnuts (Production and Transportation)
  Groundnuts (Production and Transportation)
  Lagos Town Council (Inquiry)
  Lagos Town Council (Inquiry)
KENYA
  Social and Economic Reform
  Social and Economic Reform
  Acts of Violence (Allegations)
  Acts of Violence (Allegations)
  Oath of Allegiance
  Oath of Allegiance
WEST AFRICA
  Gambia (Rural Authority Members)
  Gambia (Rural Authority Members)
  Sierra Leone (Elections)
  Sierra Leone (Elections)
EAST AFRICA
  Uganda (District Councils)
  Uganda (District Councils)
  Tanganyika (County Councils)
  Tanganyika (County Councils)
MALAYA AND SINGAPORE
  Education Facilities
  Education Facilities
  People's Education Association
  People's Education Association
  WEST INDIES FEDERATION
  WEST INDIES FEDERATION
ROYAL NAVY
  Coronation Naval Review (Members' Facilities)
  Coronation Naval Review (Members' Facilities)
  Motor and Aviation Spirit (Tenders)
  Motor and Aviation Spirit (Tenders)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Ilford
  Ilford
  Farmers' Lines Scheme (Wales)
  Farmers' Lines Scheme (Wales)
  TELEVISION FACILITIES, CORNWALL
  TELEVISION FACILITIES, CORNWALL
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Airfield Works (Land Drainage)
  Airfield Works (Land Drainage)
  U.S.A.F. Aircraft Accident, Deal
  U.S.A.F. Aircraft Accident, Deal
  Injuries (Notification of Next-of-Kin)
  Injuries (Notification of Next-of-Kin)
  Motor and Aviation Spirit (Tenders)
  Motor and Aviation Spirit (Tenders)
CIVIL AVIATION
  Air Trooping (Missing York Aircraft)
  Air Trooping (Missing York Aircraft)
  West Wales—Cardiff Service
  West Wales—Cardiff Service
  B.E.A. Aircraft (Safety)
  B.E.A. Aircraft (Safety)
  SUEZ CANAL ZONE (STATUS)
  SUEZ CANAL ZONE (STATUS)
  S.S. "INCHARRAN" (INTERFERENCE)
  S.S. "INCHARRAN" (INTERFERENCE)
  BRITISH SECRET SERVICE (ALLEGATIONS)
  BRITISH SECRET SERVICE (ALLEGATIONS)
  SALE OF LAND (COMPENSATION)
  SALE OF LAND (COMPENSATION)
SCOTLAND
  Teachers' Salaries (Payments)
  Teachers' Salaries (Payments)
  Students (Bursaries and Grants)
  Students (Bursaries and Grants)
  BRITISH MUSEUM (READING ROOM)
  BRITISH MUSEUM (READING ROOM)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Trading Estate, Liverpool
  Trading Estate, Liverpool
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BRITISH FIRMS IN CHINA
2.36 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many members of British firms are still detained in China against their will, and how much these firms have paid to protect them (a) in 1951, (b) in 1952.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, Her Majesty's ChargéďAffaires in Pekin has been notified of eleven specific cases of businessmen who have applied for exit visas but whose departure is being delayed. It is, however, the general policy of the Chinese Government to hold local representatives responsible for the affairs of their principals. Thus the local manager of a firm would not normally be allowed to leave China until his firm's affairs were wound up. Many firms who wish to close are precluded from doing so because official permission is withheld, and to this extent their senior staff can be considered to be detained in China against their wishes, even though many of them have probably not yet formally applied for exit permits.
Regarding the second part of the noble Lord's Question, very few firms took the decision to withdraw from China before April, 1952. In the earlier period of the
508
present Chinese régime, the firms who operated at a loss did so in the hope that conditions would improve. Although remittances to China have in some cases since been continued while arrangements for closing down are being negotiated, these have decreased considerably. I am unable to say that any specific amounts have been remitted to China to protect British staff rather than in fulfilment of conditions which Chinese law imposes on firms operating there—however unreasonable some of these conditions may appear to us to be.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, is not the treatment of these British subjects and missionaries a gross abuse of normal international practice?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the granting of exit permits is a matter for the Chinese law. We may not approve of the Chinese law, but there it is. We have to accept the situation, subject always to such representations as Her Majesty's representative in Pekin is able to make for their assistance.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Marquess for his full reply, I should like to ask, is this not really a rather harsh return for our recognition of the Chinese Government?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, we accorded recognition to the Chinese Government, and, in our view, the presence of a representative in Pekin is still of value.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether it is not extraordinary that in the second part of the Question the noble Lord should be asking Her Majesty's Government to disclose what are items in the trading accounts of these firms. That question does not require an answer, and the noble Marquess need not be troubled.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, that being what I was brought up to call a rhetorical question, I think that perhaps it is better left to the two noble Lords to discuss the matter between themselves.

DESTRUCTION OF RABBITS
2.41 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the successful use in Australia of myxomatosis virus for reducing the rabbit population whether any experiments have been made with its use in this country; and, if so, with what result.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, we are in touch with the Australian workers who are using this virus for the control of wild rabbits. The disease is transmitted from one rabbit to another by bloodsucking insects, and mosquitoes are the principal means used in Australia. Although appreciable success; has been obtained in that country, the scientific workers hesitate to estimate the future potentialities of the disease. Small-scale experiments with the virus are being carried out by the North of Scotland College of Agriculture on small islands off the west of Scotland, but so far results have been inconclusive.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, could my noble friend tell me whether these rabbits which are about to perish of myxomatosis will be edible in this country, either in their frozen or in their tinned condition?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am afraid cannot answer that question.

THE SUDAN AGREEMENT
2.43 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what opportunity those who have criticisms to raise in regard to the Sudan Agreement will have for expressing them in this House.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, it is open to any noble Lord to put down a Motion on the subject on any day available, and thus secure an opportunity of expressing his views.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for his reply, of which I take due note, may I ask whether it is not the fact that the Agreement is animated by mistrust of British good faith, as shown by the provisions fettering the authority of the Governor-General?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, that seems to me not to arise in any way out of the Question which the noble Lord put down, but merely to be, perhaps, an unfortunate comment at this stage upon the negotiations which have just been concluded.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether the Agreement is operative as from the date of signature?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Yes, it is.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I put a further supplementary question, in view of the reply of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and arising out of Article V, in which we apparently undertake not to cheat? That strikes me as an abnormal provision to make. Is that the normal practice in Treaties?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Lord's Question on the Order Paper is to ask how he can find an opportunity for expressing views on this Treaty. If he desires to call attention to specific provisions of the Treaty, he has, as I have said, the opportunity of putting down a Motion, or alternatively, presumably, of asking a direct Question. I think it would be unfortunate if at this stage we embarked upon a discussion, by means of supplementaries, of individual provisions of this Agreement.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, is not this Agreement subject to ratification? Article XV says:
"This Agreement and its attachments shall come into force upon signature."
There is no provision for ratification.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the Agreement is not subject to ratification. Ratification, of course, is part of the Prerogative of the Crown. It is not a matter which has to come before this House and, as I indicated to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, just now, the Agreement came into operation upon its signature.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, surely that is a most unusual provision in any Treaty. I do not think I can recall a previous instance where an international Agreement has not been subject to ratification.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I confess that that statement of the position, coming from the noble Lord, startles me, because, as I understand the position, Agreements are subject to ratification only if it is stated in the Agreement itself that that shall be so; and that is not the position here. Otherwise, ratification is part of the Treaty-making power under the Prerogative, and it is an executive act of the Government. I do not think that, strictly, it is ever necessary to obtain Parliamentary consent. Strictly, that is right, and the only occasion when ratification is at all necessary is, as I say, when it is specifically provided for in the document which is under discussion.
LORD KILLEARN: May I put the point that on December 10,when this same question was asked, an assurance was given by the Leader of the House to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, that there was no doubt that Parliament would have to consider the Agreement before ratification? The words used were:
"…That is obviously right."
That was said in this House, and is on record in Hansard of December 10, 1952 (Vol. 179, Col. 892).
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the noble Lord says that that is obviously right. For the reasons which I have just given I would not agree, with great respect, that that does represent the position. As I say, the position is that the Agreement comes into force as soon as it is signed. I have the reference to which the noble Lord was referring on December 10, when the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, asked whether
"there would be a possibility of information being given to Parliament…."
512
My noble friend Lord Salisbury said:
"I will consider that aspect."
I see no further reference.
LORD KILLEARN: About halfway down the column.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My noble friend Lord Salisbury said (Col. 892):
"No doubt Parliament has to consider before ratification…and if it is not satisfied then the only thing to do is to vote against the Government. But I should not like the House to think that I am giving any undertaking to-day that this matter can be discussed in the middle of negotiations and before an Agreement has been concluded."
That was in answer to a supplementary question. I imagine that it was not possible at that time to say whether this Agreement would provide for any formal ratification or not. In fact it has not, and it is in force.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, as my name has been mentioned, may I explain that what I asked the noble Marquess the Leader of the House (of course, it is in Hansard, but I did not catch it in the reply) was this: Whether he could put the Treaty, or whatever it was, before the House in such a form that instead of merely asking questions about it we could have a short discussion. That was my only object.

LEASEHOLD REFORM
2.46 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to call attention to the recent statement of the policy of Her Majesty's Government on Leasehold Reform (Cmd. 8713 and 8714); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name I apologise in advance for what may well turn out to be a somewhat technical and not very thrilling debate. When our eyes are thousands of miles away and things internationally are very exciting, it may seem somewhat of an anticlimax to come home to deal with the somewhat pedestrian problems with which we have to deal from time to time. But I would say two things. First, I put the responsibility for this debate upon the Government. They have tabled a Motion for the Second Reading of a Bill to continue two Acts, a matter about which we have no complaint at all, and they have also submitted a White Paper

513
on Leasehold Reform which constitutes the considered policy of the Government and represents in broad outline the lines which subsequent legislation will take. We on these Benches thought that before we actually approved a further extension of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1951, and the corresponding Scottish measure, it would be wise to have a general discussion on the White Paper.
Now I recognise that the White Paper does not necessarily represent the final view of the Government, but it does represent their first thoughts on this matter. When we come to discuss the Transport Bill next week, we shall see how far the first thoughts of the Government, as represented in its White Paper, can travel from the actual measure which is before the House. I imagine that we have a long way to travel from the White Paper we are now discussing before we see what the final views of the Government are on this very vexed question.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMON WEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): The noble Lord is not complaining, I take it, of the process of either self improvement or mutual improvement.
LORD SILKIN: Of course I am not complaining; I am merely stating the fact. I think it is a fact, and if it were not there would not be any use in our discussing the White Paper this afternoon. The main questions in the White Paper—the questions which I think will arouse the greatest amount of interest—are the Government's views on leasehold enfranchisement. I should like to say at the outset that this is not a purely academic question; it is something which affects vitally the well-being of many thousands of citizens in this country. There is no doubt at all that up and down the country, and particularly in the industrial area, of South Wales and of the North, there is considerable apprehension and distress in cases where people are lessees of long leases which in the next few years are coming to an end. These people are apprehensive, not merely about the fact of their leases coming to an end and about their being uncertain whether they will be able to continue in occupation of their dwelling, and on what terms, but
514
also about what will be the bill for dilapidations with which they will be faced at the end of the term. I am glad to see that Her Majesty's Government have recognised that this is a problem and that they have applied their minds to it and to allied questions and have placed before this House the results of their deliberations.
I suppose that this question of leasehold enfranchisement is one of the most controversial and difficult questions with which we are faced in the field of domestic politics; and it is not purely a Party question—views cut across all Parties. The Labour Party, in fact, declared itself quite definitely in its Election Manifesto at the last Election in favour of leasehold enfranchisement. Therefore, it cannot accept the policy set out in the White Paper on that subject. But I am bound to recognise that this question has been fully ventilated both in the Report of the Leasehold Committee, where boil sides have stated their views in full and quite comprehensively, and also in the White Paper which is before the House.
If I have any complaint at all about the case that has been presented by Her Majesty's Government in the White Paper I would say that they have tended to underestimate the intensity, strength and breadth of feeling that exist in the country on this subject. As I say, there is very strong feeling in the industrial areas of the country on the matter. Perhaps I may be permitted to read two quotations from the Report of the Select Committee on Town Holdings, which was issued in 1889, a long time age, but which I think is quite valid to-day, otherwise I should not be quoting it. This is what they say:
"But although the legal right of a ground landlord to resume possession of the land and buildings at the termination of the lease is incontestable, and is, in the opinion of the Committee, the only basis upon which the respective rights of less or and lessee can be dealt with, yet the evidence laid before us shows that there is a widely spread sense of injustice among lessees in having, at the end of the lease, to give up the building they, or their predecessors, have erected, or to pay a rent calculated on the principle that such buildings are the property of the landlord. This feeling is probably especially strong in cases where working men and others build their own homes and where, being unable to obtain land, either as freehold or long leasehold, they are practically compelled to build on leases for short terms."

515
Then there is another quotation from the same Report which again, I submit, is of equal validity to-day. This is what it says:
"A good deal of the evidence has been laid before us as to places where these conditions exist, such as the Quarry districts of Ffestiniog and Bethesda, and the Mining districts of Cornwall, where large numbers of houses are built by workmen for their own occupation on land previously of little or no value, and where, in many cases, the whole labour and expenditure of preparing the site, erecting the house, and all other outlay on the property is paid by the lessee. It is natural that such a lessee should feel that he is unjustly treated under a system that gives the value of the building and improvements to the less or at the expiration of a term…."
That feeling, I would submit, is equally strong to-day among a large number of lessees in the working classes and the lower middle classes. It does seem repugnant to natural justice that at the end of a term of lease, a long term, when a man has been paying his ground rent and maintaining the property, he should then have to hand it over to the ground landlords without any compensation for improvement, and, probably in a condition which is equal to a new house—which is what most leases provide for.
Therefore, I repeat that there is a very strong feeling in the country on this question. In the Majority Report of the Leasehold Committee (and I think in the White Paper, too) it is said that there is no evidence of considerable feeling on the subject; but I would submit to your Lordships that the Trades Union Congress gives very strong evidence in favour of leasehold enfranchisement—and after all the Trades Union Congress does represent 8,000,000 workers. I should have thought that that was a pretty strong manifestation of opinion in favour of this subject. There has always been a strong radical opinion in the ranks of the Liberal Party. There have been several Commissions on the subject and, except for the last one—the one that reported in 1950—they have all reported by a majority in favour of leasehold enfranchisement. An enormous number of Private Members' Bills have been submitted to the House of Commons. I admit that few of them have had a Second Reading, but there was a time when a Private Member's Bill was submitted to the House of Commons every
516
year in favour of leasehold enfranchisement. Finally, this country is one of the few countries that still retains this system. In most countries it has either been abolished or else it has never existed. Even in Scotland, about which I am not qualified to speak, there is, I understand, no leasehold system.
LORD SALTOUN: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but there are ground leases in Scotland, generally at a much lower ground rent than the neighbouring feus.
LORD SILKIN: I am, of course, bound to accept the correction. This report in the White Paper on the subject of leasehold enfranchisement is a little surprising, too, because it is rather a departure from the policy of the Conservative Party which, I understood, stood for a property-owning democracy. Here was a great opportunity to give to democracy a chance of securing the freehold of their residential properties, a chance which the Government have not taken. I do not propose this afternoon to go into the merits of the question of leasehold enfranchisement. It would take far too long and the question has been fully ventilated in these Reports. It is open to any noble Lord who wishes to study the matter for himself, as I did last night, to make up his own mind as between the two sides. On the whole, subject to the point that I have made, that I thought neither the Majority Report of the Committee nor the White Paper gave full weight to the strong volume of opinion which exists in the country, I think that both sides have expressed their views adequately and fully and, if I may say so, with good temper. I can well understand anybody reading those two views coming down on one side or the other. All I should wish to say, therefore, on the decision of the Government to come down against leasehold enfranchisement is that we on this side of the House stand for leasehold enfranchisement, and we reserve our position on the matter till the time comes when we have to consider a Bill.
I am glad to see, however, that Her Majesty's Government have not let the matter rest at that. They have recognised that there is an evil to be dealt with, and they applied their minds to seeing how this evil can be met in ways other than by leasehold enfranchisement. I should like to discuss the matter, therefore, from

517
that angle. I think it will meet with the agreement of the House if I say that there are, in fact, three problems connected with residential properties. The first is the loss of security which is entailed at the expiration of the lease, the fear of the tenant that he will be thrown on to the streets and particularly in these days of shortage, not be able to find any satisfactory alternative accommodation at a rent that he can afford to pay. Secondly, there is the question of the onerous effect of the repairing covenants which he has to meet at the end of the term; and thirdly there is the failure to make provision regarding improvements which the tenant has carried out at his own expense. I want to say a word about each of these matters.
On the first question, that of security, the Government are making proposals which would mean, in effect, that where a tenant of a ground lease is in occupation, at the end of the term he will have the right to become a statutory tenant thereafter. A "statutory tenant," without being technical, is not quite the same thing as a "rent-protected tenant." His rights are less; he cannot transmit that tenancy to any members of his family, but he himself, at any rate, is secure. The Government are somewhat vague about the rent which will be paid. Of course, I do not expect a White Paper to have all the precision, in every detail, of an Act of Parliament, but I think tenants will want to know what will be the principle upon which their rents will be determined when they become statutory tenants. All that the White Paper says on the subject is that either they will agree the rents with the landlord or, if rents are not agreed, that it will be left to the county court judge to determine a reasonable rent. That is all the White Paper says. There is no guide to the poor county court judge as to the principles upon which he should determine what is a reasonable rent. Of course, people's ideas as to what is reasonable or otherwise will differ. We may have a variety of county court judges, all with different conceptions of what is a reasonable rent, coining to different conclusions. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will see their way to defining with somewhat greater precision the rent that will be payable or, at any rate, laying down certain
518
principles for the guidance of the county court judges.
Later on in the White Paper, Her Majesty's Government found themselves faced with a similar dilemma in the case of the compensation to be paid in respect of adherent goodwill when a tenancy of business premises comes to an end. They might, of course, have adopted the same principle and said that it must be left to the county court judge to decide how much should be paid in respect of adherent goodwill and that he must adopt a reasonable view. Instead, they have adopted an arbitrary figure of one year's or two years' rateable value, and they have said that there are cases in which hardship might be, inflicted one way or the other, but they feel that it is desirable, to avoid a good deal of controversy, to have some kind of certainty about the matter.
I would suggest that it might be possible to fix a rent in respect of the statutory tenancy on the same kind of principle. Having adopted the policy of the rateable value in one case, why not adopt it in another? And why not say that at the expiration of the term of the lease the rent shall have a definite relationship to the rateable value? Whether the rent should be a sum equal to the rateable value or a portion of it is a matter for consideration. I would respectfully suggest to Her Majesty's Government that that would be a fruitful way of avoiding an immense amount of controversy on the basis of an impossible decision which county court judges are being asked to make. That is all I want to say on the question of security of tenure. I think that the provisions as regards security are satisfactory. Probably it is right that the tenant should have no more than a statutory tenancy at the end of the term, and that the rent should be based upon the rateable value of the premises.
This question of rent is the key to the whole question. It is the key to the question of leasehold enfranchisement. Leasehold enfranchisement on certain terms would be of no value it all to the tenant. If the price that the tenant had to pay represented the market price of the reversion, then it would be of no great value to him, except that he would have the opportunity of buying the freehold. But in the case of most tenants it would be quite impossible for them to purchase. On the other hand, it would be quite

519
wrong to fix a price which was represented only by the ground rent and which took no account of the reversion of the property. I should have thought that the fair thing was to take some figure between the two. Similarly, I would submit that a fair and reasonable rent is a rent in between the two, and in my opinion it should be the rent which would be payable, or which would have been payable if the premises had been subject to rent restriction. The White Paper suggests that at the expiration of the term the tenant should become a rent-restricted tenant under the Rent Restrictions Acts, as regards security of tenure; but my own view is that he ought also to be a rent-restricted tenant on the basis of something like the rent which he would have had to pay if he had been a tenant at a rack rent and a controlled rent.
I have already referred to the question of the repairing covenants, which are one of the most serious factors in connection with these long leases—this obligation on the tenant, at the end of a long term, to restore the premises, in effect, to the condition in which they were ninety-nine years ago. It is unfortunate that this question has been somewhat bedevilled by bad landlords; and even in this House I shall submit that there are bad landlords, just as there are bad tenants. That is my own experience. I have come across cases where a lessee was anxious to carry out improvements to his premises, improvements which were not permitted under the lease but which were nevertheless definite improvements—for instance, the putting in of a second bathroom. Before he was allowed to do so by his landlord he had to pay the landlord's surveyor's fee and his solicitors' costs, and he had to agree to an increased rent because of the greater value of the premises. He also had to agree to restore the premises at the end of the lease to the condition in which they were; in other words, to take away the second bath-room—not that the landlord would want him to do so, but it was a lever with which to extract, if he could, a bigger sum in respect of dilapidations. I have known cases where landlords have extorted considerable sums from lessees for permission to change the user of premises—perhaps to have an office or a consulting room. They have made the
520
unfortunate tenant pay a higher ground rent in respect of the same premises, and so on.
All these things have tended to create a prejudice among a great many tenants, to cloud the issue and prevent this question from being considered objectively. In my view there is a case for a somewhat new definition of restoration of premises to their original condition. It is unreasonable to expect that a house which is ninety-nine years old should be restored to the condition in which it was at the beginning of the lease—and that, in effect, is virtually what lessees are required to do. I think that it should be clearly understood that regard must be had to the age of the premises and to what is reasonable; and it is certainly unreasonable to require a lessee to remove improvements that he has made in the course of his lease, merely in order to put the house back in the condition in which it was before. Her Majesty's Government are recommending that there should be a code settled by them, which code would become the normal practice. I do not think they propose that this code should be compulsory, but I understand that it would be generally accepted as the right kind of relationship between the landlord and tenant. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider going further, and to ensure that where there are these provisions for full repairs they should be worded in a manner which would not compel the lessee to do anything at the expiration of his lease other than what was reasonable having regard to the age of the property, to its environment and to all other circumstances.
The White Paper proposes protection to occupying tenants of premises where the rateable value is within the rent restriction limits. It gives no protection to people outside those limits, on the view that people who live in houses over the limits are in a position to look after themselves and do not need protection. I am not so sure of that, however. I am not at all sure that people who are living in premises with a higher rateable value than the normal rent restricted rateable values are not almost as much, if not just as much, in need of protection, when their leases expire, as others are. It seems to me to be somewhat anomalous that protection should be given for lessees within the rent restriction limits, that there should be protection for lessees of

521
business premises of all kinds, whatever the rent or the business may be—whether it is a profession, a shop or anything else—but that just this class of person, who I understand from the White Paper represent about 10 per cent. of the population, should be left out. It is perhaps extraordinary that I should be defending the cause of these people from these Benches; but we are a non-class Party, and we believe in looking after the interests of all sections of the community, not merely the interests of 90 per cent. of them. We think that this unfortunate 10 per cent. should equally get the benefit of the security of tenure which is afforded to the remainder.
In the White Paper there is a recommendation that nothing shall be payable to a tenant in respect of improvements to his premises. That seems to me rather strange. It is not in accordance with the recommendations of either the Majority or the Minority Reports of the Committee, and the ground for it seems to be quite illogical. The case that is made against giving the tenant anything for improvements which he has effected is that in many cases these improvements were not sought by the landlord; that he does not want them; that they are of no use to him; that he would rather be without them, and so on, and that they may even be burdensome to him if he resumes possession of the premises. Nobody has suggested that there should be indiscriminate compensation, regardless of the nature of the improvements. The case that is made is that where the improvements to the property have the effect of increasing its value, and they are surrendered by the tenant, the tenant should be recompensed only in respect of the increased value. Nothing could be fairer than that. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will seriously consider this matter, and see whether something cannot be done to compensate the tenant for the improvements he has effected to his premises and, furthermore, to encourage and not discourage tenants from making these improvements.
I know that there is the legalistic view, which is put forward in the White Paper. It is to the effect that the tenant made the improvements with the knowledge that he would have to get out at the end of his term, and that he would have to surrender the premises, with all improvements, to the ground landlord. But we
522
are seeking to adjust the relationships, and to make them mere equitable as between landlord and tenant, and it certainly was inequitable that that should have been the case. I trust, therefore, that we shall put this matter right. This morning I had a letter from a gentleman whom I do not know, but who gives me this case in respect of improvements that have been carried out by him. This is what he says in his letter:
"I purchased this house in 1928 with some 28 years of lease (out of 99) still unexpired. The rateable value at that time, as a single house, was £230 per annum. I then spent some£5,000 on converting the house into six flats…to-day the rateable value is£904 per annum."
The writer then goes on to say that he had rather a lean time during the war, but that he is now getting rent in respect of these flats. But the lease expires in 1956, and then he will get nothing. According to the terms of the White Paper, all his expenditure will have been frustrated; and he will certainly not have received by way of rent anything to compensate him for the£5,000 he has spent. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will have regard to that kind of case, which can be multiplied to a considerable degree.
I have already referred to the question of business premises. I welcome most cordially the decision of Her Majesty's Government to extend the definition of "business premises," to cover professional premises and all other types of business. I feel that perhaps it is a good idea to fix the compensation in respect of adherent goodwill on the basis of rateable value. But, on the whole, the amounts suggested are not very generous. I feel that two years' rateable value, the case of a person who has built up goodwill in a period of more than fourteen years—and it may be considerably more—is most ungenerous. The normal value of the goodwill is two years' purchase of the profits of the business. It would be a very poor business where the profits did not exceed the rateable value. On the other hand, there will be many cases where there is no goodwill at all, or very little. I appreciate that Her Majesty's Government have been anxious to avoid the immense amount of litigation that might ensue if each case had to be considered on its merits, and if people were put to proof as to the goodwill attaching to their businesses. Therefore I have no quarrel with the principle of attaching the amount of

523
compensation to the rateable value. But when the time comes for consideration of this matter, in the form of a Bill, I think that Her Majesty's Government might consider something rather better than a maximum of two years. My own view is that in respect of goodwill which is the result of more than fourteen years of effort, at least three years', and possibly, four years', rateable value would not be unreasonable.
There are two other points to which I should now like to refer, in relation to the question of business premises. Normally the tenant of business premises will have an automatic right to renewal; but there are two exceptions. One of those exceptions is where the landlord requires the premises for the purpose of his own business. As I have said before, I do not expect this White Paper to have the precision of an Act of Parliament, but this is a very loose term, and I should like some explanation of what is in the minds of Her Majesty's Government when they speak of "the purpose of his own business." Of course, a man can make anything his own business if he wishes to. Had the Government in mind that the landlord must be in the same line of business as the lessee, or that he could go into that line of business? Suppose the business is that of a tobacconist, and that the landlord is in some other business altogether but wants the premises in order to run the shop, say, as a newsagent's. Would he be entitled to have the premises? Would that position qualify him for getting possession? If it did, this would give the landlord a considerable loophole, and the security of the lessee would become rather tenuous. This question will, of course, be defined much more closely when the time comes, but if the noble Lord who is shortly to speak for the Government, or the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who is to reply to the debate, can more clearly explain what is in the minds of Her Majesty's Government on that point I shall be grateful. The other exception to the automatic right to renewal of the tenancy of business premises is in cases where the landlord requires the premises for the purpose of redevelopment. I take it that that means approved redevelopment; that it would not be open to a
524
landlord merely to say, "I want to redevelop"; that he must have a scheme which has been approved by the local authority, or some other authority, and which he wants to carry out.
Yet another point. The compensation in respect of the adherent goodwill is payable only when the tenant has made a request for extension of his lease and the landlord requires the premises for his own purposes. If the tenant does not make a request, or if he is entitled to a renewal of his lease and does not ask for it, he is not entitled to the compensation. That, again, is in complete conflict with the unanimous view of the Leasehold Committee. In their view, the compensation should be payable regardless of whether or not the tenant wants a new lease. After all, the landlord gets the benefit of the goodwill, and he ought to pay for it. May I just quote a few relevant sentences from the Report? They occur in paragraph 208 on page 73:
"It has been suggested to us that a tenant who voluntarily forgoes his claim for renewal, when this is the principal relief, should not be able to claim compensation instead. We think that in the few cases where this situation is likely to occur, hardship might be caused by refusing compensation. e.g., to a small shopkeeper on the point of retirement, and we see no serious grounds for objection by the landlord to the payment of compensation assessed on the existing basis"—
I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will look at this point again to see whether they can be a little more generous, at the expense of the landlord, to the person who is giving up his lease on the ground of old age or for some other good reason.
I am afraid that many of the points I have taken are in the nature of Committee points, but I saw no alternative. The only big principle involved in the White Paper is the question of leasehold enfranchisement. The other matters I have discussed are important, and I thought it right to give Her Majesty's Government the considered views of noble Lords on this side of the House, so that when the time comes for introducing legislation, which I hope they will be able to do in the next Session of Parliament, they will have these views before them. I must apologise for the considerable length of my speech, but I have done my best to make it as short as possible. I beg to move for Papers.
3.32 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on deciding to tackle this difficult problem, and I think we should like to pay some tribute to the Leasehold Committee, whose Report is the basis, or at all events the background, of the important document which we have before us to-day. As for Part II of the White Paper, which deals with the enfranchisement of leaseholds, I am glad that the Government have decided to reject this idea altogether. The matter is so clearly set out, in such moderate language, in eight pages of this White Paper that there is little that I need add on the matter. But I should like to make one comment. It is extraordinary to me that a certain political Party, which is not normally well disposed towards landlords, should be trying to invent a new way in which certain people might become landlords. That appears to me to be illogical, but perhaps there is some explanation of it.
As to Part III of the White Paper, which deals with security of tenure for residential tenants, I have never concealed my views on the Rent Restrictions Acts. These Acts may be necessary, but they are an abomination of desolation. They should have been abolished years ago, and the business of determining fair rents for all properties in the country should have been confided to fair rent tribunals, with a right of appeal, both on fact and on law, to the High Court. Nothing has been done in that connection and, although I am not a prophet, I may say that nothing ever will be done. In the meantime, we must consider the specific proposals in Part III of the White Paper. I dislike any extension of the Rent Acts, or any extension of the application of the existing Acts, but we have to remember that the Government probably take a different view of the matter, and we must deal with things as we find them. The extension of the protection of the Rent Acts to the ground lessee where the ground rent is less than two-thirds of the rateable value is, in the circumstances, both logical and acceptable. As to the machinery for enabling a ground lease to be converted into a statutory tenancy, it is satisfactory to see that a reasonable rent will be fixed by agreement or by the tribunal and will be the standard rent for the period of the statutory tenancy. I should like a little more information
526
about what is meant by the word "reasonable." In particular, I should like to know whether it will take into account the greatly increased cost of repairs which may fall on the landlord.
Then there is the proposal that where a tenant is occupying under a lease of more than twenty-one years, the tenant shall have security of tenure on the expiry of his tenancy, even though the rent under that tenancy is less than two-thirds of the rateable value. I am not quite clear why this suggestion is made, as I do not think it will apply to many properties. So far as it does apply, however, it appears to me quite reasonable, and no doubt will find a place in future legislation. I am glad to see that a special security of tenure scheme for tenant occupiers outside the rateable value limits of the Rent Restrictions Acts has been rejected by the Government. When I read that in the White Paper I said to myself, "Let us be thankful for small mercies."
Part IV of the White Paper, which deals with business premises, is undoubtedly the most interesting and most attractive part of the whole document The Landlord and Tenant Act of 1927 was well-intended but has not proved very effective in practice. As your Lordships know, the value of goodwill is a value not to the tenant but to the landlord. If a landlord states that at the expiration of a tenancy he wishes to let the premises for a purpose other than the existing purpose, then the item of goodwill virtually disappears. In any event, the element of goodwill, if it exists, raises all kinds of academic and confusing arguments about the various classes of goodwill—which are known as "cat," "rat," and "dog goodwill." The only goodwill that counts is the "cat goodwill," which remains attached to the premises. As your Lordships know, the eat is a noble animal, and if he finds that premises are acceptable, he will remain there, whoever is the owner. On that basis the only type of goodwill that is worth a farthing under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, is the goodwill known as "cat goodwill." As a matter of fact, goodwill is always troublesome, wherever one finds it. It is a snare and a delusion in the balance sheets of companies. It imports an illusory and often fictitious figure into the purchase price of going concerns—in

527
other words, it is an undiluted nuisance. I am glad to see that the intention of the Government is to abolish altogether the element of goodwill in this connection. The granting of a new lease at a fair contemporary market rent to a sitting tenant is a far more satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said about the basis of compensation. I do not suggest that the statutory basis of compensation which is suggested is wrong, but it will be interesting to know why that should be related to the rateable value of premises and how much that will mean in certain specific cases. I agree that there should be no power of contracting out of the provision relating to security of tenure.
Passing on to deal with Part V of the White Paper, which deals with a number of miscellaneous matters, I entirely agree with the Government that no compensation should be paid for improvements to residential premises, as distinct from business premises. Those who are concerned with the administration of building societies know that borrowers frequently ask for a further advance, on the ground that they have carried out some purported improvements to the property. On examination it is frequently found that the so-called improvements do not add one single farthing to the value of the security. On that ground, among other grounds I am very pleased that the Government have decided that no compensation should be payable for improvements to residential premises. As to repairs, I have no personal motive in saying so (I am not a director of an insurance company, and I hope I do not look like one), but I think it is a thousand pities that in the past there has not been intensive propaganda urging tenants to take out insurance policies in the nature of lease redemption policies which would make available a sum of money for carrying out repairs at the expiration of the lease. If that had been done in the past there would be far fewer slums in this country. In the majority of cases the annual premium payable on such a policy would be relatively small and would not cripple the tenant. However, that is only a suggestion of perfection, and we have to face the position which arises when leaseholders are faced with
528
a substantial bill for repairs at the end of their lease. I do not think that the enactment of a code of standard repairing covenants will go any distance towards solving this problem.
The proposal to extend the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act, 1938, so as to apply it to all classes of property, whether residential or business and irrespective of rateable value, requires much more consideration. The general rise in prices, which is continuing and which shows no sign of rescission, is not a temporary phase, but is likely to become permanent. I am sorry for everybody, including myself, that prices have risen, but I am unable to see why because of rising prices an extra cushion should be provided to tenants any more than to other sections of the community. Reverting to the rather painful subject of the Rent Restrictions Acts, I would point out that no consideration whatever is given to landlords of controlled properties on the ground that the cost of repairs has increased materially in the last few years. Yet here the Government are proposing to provide an extra cushion to tenants by extending the provisions of the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act. 1938. I hope that the Government will consider this matter most seriously, because, as I have said, the rise in prices is not a mere passing phase, but is something which is likely to exist permanently, and I fail to see how any good can be done by selecting tenants, as distinct from landlords or any other section of the community, for special consideration.
Finally, as to the revision of the law relating to restrictive covenants, I disagree entirely with the suggestion that an absolute covenant against assignment or sub-letting should be construed as a covenant not to assign or sub-let without the landlord's consent. I am totally unable to understand why such a suggestion has ever been made, but, as I have said before, I am a simple person among a lot of very clever people, and I have no doubt at all that the Government will give a reply to that and to other matters in a few moments.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt my noble friend while he was speaking, but I should be interested to know why he said he hoped that he does not look like an insurance company director. I

529
am a director of an insurance company, and proud of it, and my noble friend sitting behind me is chairman of a very good one. I personally felt rather hurt at the noble Lord's remark.
LORD MESTON: What I meant to say was that I was sorry I did not look like a bank director.
3.44 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, if one who is, unfortunately, neither a bank director nor an insurance director may at this moment intervene in the debate, it may possibly be for the convenience of the House; because I should like to address myself to the Second Reading of the Bill which is on the Order Paper after the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and which, as he explained to your Lordships, is closely linked with his Motion and with the White Paper. Then, if that is agreeable to your Lordships, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will be able to wind up the debate and deal with the many questions which have defeated me. If that is also agreeable to the House we can then take the Second Reading of the Bill rather more formally than usual. I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for having given us the opportunity of discussing this matter this afternoon and also for the moderate and reasonable way in which he has put his point of view forward. Indeed, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, also, on having successfully resisted the temptation to utter those happiest words in the English language, "I told you so." Two or three nights ago I availed myself of the pleasure of reading the speech which the noble Lord addressed to your Lordships upon the last occasion when we debated this matter. He was gloomy, and full of prophecies. Most of his gloom has been justified, and almost all his prophecies have come true. This I will try and explain, as shortly as I can, in a moment.
As to the Bill itself, I propose to deal with only the English part of it. I think your Lordships will agree, having heard the recent brush between the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that this is a wise move on my part. Those of your Lordships who in looking at the Scottish portion of the Bill, are intrigued to know what "sist" means, and how exactly you terminate an "ish,"
530
will please be so good as to address yourselves to my noble friend Lord Selkirk who, if your Lordships wish for explanations of the Scottish provisions of the Bill, will do his best to explain them. The English portion of this little Bill which is before the House to-day is quite a simple matter. All it does is to extend the operation of two temporary measures which were introduced by the last Government and which were originally designed to stay alive for two years only. They came into operation on June 24, 1951, and the operative provisions that were drafted into the terms of that Act would have run for two years from the beginning of the Act, and would, therefore, have expired by midsummer of this year, 1953. The simple and plain purpose of this little Bill is to extend those provisions until Christmas, 1954. Your Lordships may well have fallen into the same trap as I did, and thought that you could do that merely by substituting "three and a half years" for "two years" in the original Act, but it has been explained to me by those who read and understand mathematics that if we tried to do that, and the Act were to end at Christmas Eve, 1954, it would be three and a half years and one day. That is why slightly different wording is required. This new Bill, therefore, expires at midnight on December 24–25, 1954.
May I weary your Lordships for a moment by reminding you of what was the purpose of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1951, introduced by noble Lords opposite? Part I of the Act extended to the end of what is called the protected period any long lease of a house which would otherwise expire before that date, provided that the lessee himself was in occupation on the date of expiry. The effect of our new Bill upon that particular part of the old Act will be as follows. Any lease which was extended by the 1951 Act will automatically continue until 1954. Any long lease which has not yet expired, bat which would expire between midsummer of this year and Christmas of next year, will be automatically continued until Christmas of next year, provided, of course, that the conditions of the 1951 Act still prevail—that is, that it is held on a long lease and the lessee is in occupation. Part II of the original Act applied to shops. If a shop tenancy of any length was due to expire during the protected period the

531
tenant could apply to the county court for a new tenancy, but of not more than one year, and the court would decide the rent. That, I understand, has been frequently complied with. The Act has been widely used and, so far as I can understand, used satisfactorily. The effect of the new Bill upon that part of the old Act will be to give the right to apply to the court for the renewal of a shop tenancy up to Christmas, 1954, in favour of any tenant whose tenancy is due to expire before that date.
That, very briefly, is the purpose of the Bill, and I would say at once that Her Majesty's Government present it to the House with reluctance. We should have preferred to present to the House some more permanent measure. This is the point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said he had told us so. He said that the time would come when this Act would expire and we should not yet be in a position to present a permanent measure to the country. That is true, though not, I think, for the same reason as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, thought. There has been, I expect he may have noticed, a change of Government between that speech and his speech to-day. We criticised that Bill when we were in Opposition. We moved Amendments against it, and I think we carried some as well, so it is no good my standing at this Despatch Box and trying to pretend to nurse a great love for the Act of 1951. But this fact does obviously stand out a mile. To attempt to amend that Act, instead of just extending it, would undoubtedly produce a great deal of hardship and much confusion. So Her Majesty's Government have reluctantly decided to extend this Act for which they have no love, rather than amend it. We are, therefore, copying the Socialist portrait, warts and all.
The reason we have chosen the date of Christmas, 1954,is this. The Jenkins Report, of what was formerly the Uthwatt Committee, after the late Lord Uthwatt of still much-lamented memory, was put before the country in June, 1950. The Bill which eventually became this temporary Act of 1951 was not introduced until November, 1950, and the Government of the day announced that they would not be ready with permanent legislation for some considerable time. There
532
was then a two-year standstill. I do not doubt for one moment that noble Lords opposite can well say that had they still been in power they would have produced, in this two years' interregnum, their permanent legislation. But we have had fifteen months to consider it, and we are not yet in a position to produce the permanent measure which we should like to lay before the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has generously pointed out, the skeleton of the body is here in this new White Paper. The general principles of the legislation which Her Majesty's Government have in mind are quite clearly laid out and put before the country. But it is clear, I think, from a perusal of this White Paper—and I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with his technical knowledge on this subject, will be the first to admit it—that it is obviously going to be an extremely difficult Bill to draft. It is going to be a draftsman's dream.
EARL JOWITT: A nightmare.
LORD MANCROFT: It is going to be our nightmare, but it will be the draftsman's dream. Whichever way one looks at it, it will be an extraordinarily difficult Bill, and therefore, although Her Majesty's Government regret that they are not in a position to put permanent legislation now before the House, that may be an advantage. It may be the fact that now the general policy can be thoroughly and, I hope, amicably threshed out, and that the very difficult and technical points can be talked over by the experts and by those who are interested, and we may—who knows?—eventually be able to produce an agreed measure. Certainly it will require a great deal of debate, and Her Majesty's Government welcome criticism and comment on this White Paper, so that we may get the best possible solution to this very vexed matter.
We hope that a Bill will be introduced into Parliament next Session and, we also hope, passed. Christmas, 1954, has been chosen because there might conceivably be a risk of not getting the Bill by midsummer of 1954, after a proper discussion. After all, the 1951 Act was nearly six months before Parliament. Then, of course, provision must be made for the transitional period between the end of this Bill and the permanent legislation, and probably an interval after the Royal

533
Assent would also be required for people affected by the new measure to put their affairs in order. So much for the Bill which foreshadows the permanent legislation in the White Paper.
May I now offer a few words upon the White Paper? I think it is fair to say that it is a good White Paper. It has had a good Press. It is the common function of Oppositions, when they are in Opposition and they wish to find a stick to beat the Government, to say: "Ah, but did you see what the Economist said about you this morning?" Governments can use the same stick, and I am happy to inform your Lordships that the Economist regards this as a good White Paper. So does the Conveyancer and so do a large number of other journals which I do not expect normally find their way on to your Lordships' library tables. Two of the journals which I read upon this subject have gone so far as to praise Her Majesty's Government for a White Paper which, they say, appears clearly to have been written in English. The White Paper deliberately devotes more space to what the Government do not intend to do than to what the Government do intend to do, and that for a reason which must have made itself apparent from the length of time—I am not complaining in any way at all—which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, devoted to this most vexed, long-standing and troublesome question of leasehold enfranchisement. I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on to the Tom Tiddler's ground of leasehold enfranchisement.
LORD OGMORE: Why not? May I say that I understood that the main purpose of the White Paper was to refute the idea of leasehold enfranchisement. It is rather odd for the Government spokesman to say that he is not going to deal with it.
LORD MANCROFT: If the noble Lord will allow me to continue my sentence. I will try to explain why I do not propose to deal with it. It is because it is dealt with at very great length and in very great detail in the White Paper. All I want to say about it is this. Her Majesty's Government would have had two reasons for dealing with leasehold enfranchisement. One would have been the political reason, and one would have been the practical reason. I want to
534
assure the House that the reason why Her Majesty's Government have taken the attitude they have about leasehold enfranchisement, and why they have adopted the point of view so clearly set out at length in the White Paper, is not primarily because they hold strong political views upon it, but because they are convinced that, practically-speaking, it is not possible. That is the reason why it has not been included in the permanent legislation. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is well aware, the minority view was put forward by Mr. Leslie Hale, the Member for Oldham, and Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas, the Solicitor-General, in the late Administration. That was neither a wild nor an extravagant view; it was a very reasonable and moderate view. It is discussed in detail and, despite the moderation of that view, Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion—for the reasons I have just explained to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and which are set out in great detail in the White Paper—that they do not propose to follow the view put forward by the Minority Report to the Jenkins Report. I think that the proposals put forward in this White Paper and, therefore, foreshadowed in the Bill which is before your Lordships to-day, are eminently reasonable.
I believe that, ultimately, when both these Bills are on the Statute Book, we shall have achieved a valuable and much needed measure of reform of which Her Majesty's Government may well be proud. It will be a measure of reform not governed by political prejudices and not controlled by concessions to extravagant views on either side in politics. There is nothing in the legislation which Her Majesty's Government are putting forward to-day, or envisage in the near future, which can be of the slightest assistance and encouragement to a grasping, greedy or a bad landlord. There is nothing in this legislation which can give any encouragement to a negligent or untrustworthy tenant. It is the reasonable man in both cases whom this legislation seeks to assist; and I submit to your Lordships that that assistance is given. We recommend this temporary Bill and recommend most cordially the contents of the White Paper. The temporary Bill is the pill which we now have to swallow

535
in order eventually to enjoy the jam which I can assure your Lordships is included in the White Paper.
4.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said he was interested not in 90 per cent. of the people but in 100 percent. of the people. But he was wise enough not to extend his attentions to the people of Scotland. As, however, his Motion includes a reference to the White Paper dealing with Scotland, perhaps I may be permitted to say one or two words. With reference to leases in Scotland, the second clause of the Bill deals with that matter. We have a White Paper for Scotland, just as for England, and it is obvious that there is a tremendous area of common interest. The Report which we had was produced by Lord Guthrie, a Judge of the Court of Session and is unanimous. In the second place, the Report makes it abundantly clear that what has been found in Scotland has very little bearing on the position in England. With your Lordships' permission I will read the relevant passage.
"…the position in Scotland in the matter of ground leases is so completely different from that obtaining in England that no comparison of possible solutions to the problems of lessees north and south of the border would be useful."
The reason for that is simple. In history, in law and in psychology, the outlook in this matter is entirely different. Leaseholds would not normally have been used but for the fact that for a certain period landlords believe that the nature of their tenure, of their entail, precluded them from using the feu. The use of leaseholds was a second best, and was used upon occasions. I should like to quote another passage from the Report—the Report, incidentally, of a body which was appointed by the last Administration and which, I believe, included representatives of all points of view on this subject. The passage I should like to quote is as follows:
"Indeed, we are satisfied that the usual practice of Scottish landowners, so far from showing an insistence on their legal rights, has been generous."
The Report goes on to recommend that the normal practice and usage in Scotland should be continued and, in one particular, be made statutory.
536
I will turn to other recommendations of the Report. It recommends that a tenant in his permanent home should have a statutory right of conversion from lease to feu, provided that the lease was granted before 1914 and provided that the length of the lease was at least 50 years. The Report goes on to give the basis of the payment to be made to the landlord for conversion—namely, the value of the property with vacant possession at the date of the enabling Act deferred at 5 per cent. compound interest for the unexpired period of the lease, but subject to an assumption, where the unexpired period is less than thirty years, that the lease has still thirty years to run. This means that no tenant will be called upon to pay more than about one-quarter of the market value of the property. This payment can be met partly in cash and partly by creation of a feu duty. The Committee recommend that where a Government Department, local authority or development corporation are the landlords, they may refuse to grant a feu. In such cases the tenant would have no statutory right. The Rent Restrictions Act, the Committee say, should not be extended to ground lessees in the ordinary way, but an occupation or rack-rent tenant should continue to be protected by those Acts when the ground lease fell in. The Committee further recommend that the statutory right of conversion should also apply to manses occupied by ministers and houses occupied by Trust benefices; and, finally, that the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949, should not be extended to business premises other than shops. I apologise for these few remarks, but as no mention has been made of Scotland, I thought it well to recall that Scotland was, in fact, included in the noble Lord's Motion.
4.5 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I should apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for not having been able to hear the speech with which he opened this discussion. I may, perhaps, say in excuse that some months ago I promised to go and address a luncheon meeting to tell them what good work your Lordships' House was doing in the Legislature of this country; and I had to keep that engagement. That is why I am late and I apologise to your Lordships. When

537
we were discussing the Act which we are now continuing for another eighteen months, the noble Lord made several prophecies. I find, on re-reading the speeches which I made then, that I, too, made one prophecy. Lord Silkin had said that the Government of which he had ceased to be a member would at some time have to make a decision on this matter; and when I spoke I said that I did not feel that it would be that particular Government. That has come true; and it is the present Government who have to make the decision.
The outstanding question, and the one which creates the most sympathy, is that of the man whose ancestors took a ground lease of a plot of land for perhaps ninety-nine years and built a house on it; and new, when the term is coming to an end, the lessee may find himself at any moment out of his home and the place in which his forefathers lived. It is always a sad thing to see that happening. But there are many families in this country to-day who since the war have had to give up living in the homes in which they and their forefathers had lived for much longer than ninety-nine years. Some of them had lived in those homes for 300 or 400 years. These people have had to give up living in their homes because of high taxation, high rates or high costs of upkeep. We have sympathy with all the people who have to leave their old family homes. They do not, of course, get any compensation—and there is no reason why they should, for all this is due to the difficulties of the times in which we live and the appalling expense which the country has to bear in paying for two wars, and so forth.
Should we pay compensation or not in the case of these people whose leases fall in? Should we by legislation take away from the lessors something which rightfully belongs to them? Nobody can say it was wrong to grant a long lease on a low ground rent for a private individual. The Office of Crown Lands have set that example for years, and they are still doing it to-day. Under recent legislation, the Town and Country Planning Act, for which more than anybody else the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was responsible, if the local planning authority acquire land under that Statute they are allowed to dispose of it only under a long lease not
538
exceeding ninety-nine years. Under the New Towns Act, which was a Bill similarly brought in by the late Labour Government, a development corporation is allowed to dispose of the land it acquires only under a long lease not exceeding ninety-nine years. So these long leases cannot be said to be things that are against the public interest. The granting of them cannot be said to be an immoral proceeding. Therefore, it would be quite wrong, in, my submission, for Parliament to take away the lessor's rights without paying him some compensation. It may not be the original lessor or his descendants who are now the ground landlords. The rights may well have been bought by trustees, or by people who were anticipating the falling in of the lease and acquired the landord's interest for perfectly bona fide considerations. Surely it would be wrong for Parliament to take away those rights without paying some compensation for them.
Is this a case where the taxpayers of the country as a whole should pay compensation to a private individual, whose forefathers entered into a contract and who has no right in law at the time the lease expires? Would it be right for the State to pay compensation to enable that individual to acquire a freehold which was never his? That is the short, simple proposition. It is often right for the taxpayers of the country as a whole, or for the ratepayers of a local government authority area, to pay compensation when they want to acquire something for the national good or for the local good but it would be carrying matters rather far if taxpayers were to be charged with compensation given for the individual gain of a private individual, however much we sympathise with him. As I believe, we cannot in this country deprive landlords of rights without paying some compensation—because we still live on the pleasant side of the Iron Curtain; those things are done on the other side, but on this side we do not do them. If we cannot do that, then we have to make up our minds whether this is a case for transferring the freehold from the lessor, or the inheritors of the original lessor, to the inheritors of the original lessee.
I personally do not see why the country as a whole should be charged so that these people should get the freehold of

539
premises conferred upon them as of right. However, I do see every reason why these people should be treated as they would be treated if it were not a long lease, if it were the ordinary kind of weekly tenancy which would be embraced by the Rent Restrictions Act. I see every reason why those people should be given that security of tenure, at a proper rack rent to be agreed between the landlord and the tenant, or to be settled by the county court if they cannot agree. Those are the Government's proposals upon this subject, and I think that that is the right way of dealing with it. We shall not then get people turned out of their homes by unscrupulous landlords—a good landlord would not do it, in any event, but there are some unscrupulous landlords who might do it—and the tenant will be protected from them. I think that this is the right way of dealing with that problem.
I want to say only one thing with regard to the other part of the White Paper, and that is on the question of goodwill of business premises. The fact that the term "business premises" is used may mean that something much wider than has hitherto had protection is involved, because a factory does not have goodwill such as a shop has; nor does a store; nor do many other premises which can be called "business premises." I should like that point looked into before the new legislation comes along—whether it is the intention of the Government to widen the scope so as to include such buildings as factories, storehouses, docks, railway lines or whatever it may be. I should have thought not, but we are largely giving up the test of goodwill. By doing that, therefore, these other kinds of premises, which were not included in previous legislation, may now be brought in. I am sorry to have intervened at this late hour. I have been bold enough to step on to Tom Tiddler's ground, as I think it was called earlier in the debate, but I thought this point of view needed to be put, despite the sympathy we have for anybody who, for any reason whatever, is no longer able to live in the home in which his forefathers lived and which he has long considered to be the family home.
4.19 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I have listened with considerable interest to the various speakers on the subject that is before us to-day, a subject which will affect, I presume, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people in this country. As I see it, the policy of the Government involves a further freezing of the relationship between landlord and tenant, or, to put it, I suppose, more accurately, the bringing into the refrigeration process of a larger number of landlords and tenants. There is already to a large extent a freezing of this relationship, under the Rent Restrictions Acts. I doubt whether any of your Lordships would say that the Rent Restrictions Acts are not necessary in principle. Whether the principle of refrigeration should be extended in this way is a matter of argument. If we agree that some such standstill arrangement as this is necessary, then possibly the Government's proposals in the White Paper form a basis for reasonable argument, and might form a basis for the future relationship between the landlords and tenants concerned. I myself think that if this is so, then some of the provisions are obviously desirable—for example, the proposal in Part IV of the White Paper whereby:
"The Government accept the general proposition of the Leasehold Committee that improved security of tenure should be made available as a permanent measure to all business tenants, including tenants of premises used for professional purposes."
I fully agree with that. I believe that it is necessary and desirable to extend to a wider class of business premises, including professional premises, the protection already given to shops under the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1951. There is no real reason why the protection afforded by that Act should concern itself simply with shops. Many other businesses and professional premises should come under the same umbrella. There are other details of a like kind, some of which have been mentioned by my noble friend who preceded me. If ever this measure comes before the House I think we should consider those points in Committee.
In my view, however, more radical measures are needed. I do not think it is possible to deal with this huge subject by tinkering with it, and by extending what I have called the refrigeration process in the way that the Government

541
propose to do. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, spoke at some length, but he did not go into the question of leasehold enfranchisement. He gave the rather curious reason. I thought, that because the reasons regarding it were in the White Paper there was no need for the Government spokesman to repeat them in this House. As my noble friend Lord Silkin had already repeated them at some length, it seemed to me very odd that the first spokesman from the Government Front Bench did not deal with those matters and did not refute the arguments that had been put up by my noble friend Lord Silkin. I would at once acquit the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, of any suggestion of being unfair or discourteous to the House. Possibly he intended to leave this matter to his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
LORD MANCROFT: Perhaps I may intervene for one moment. I am glad to hear the noble Lord's last remark, because I should not like him to give the impression to the House that I was being discourteous in not having discussed the most controversial point. I deliberately avoided it because, as I explained to him, it was set out in detail in the White Paper and, furthermore, because I was concentrating almost solely upon the temporary provisions of the Bill which is down on the Order Paper for Second Reading to-day. I would also remind the noble Lord that I am not the only spokesman of Her Majesty's Government in the House to-day.
LORD OGMORE: I appreciate that. I do not think it is an argument for the Government spokesman to say that because the Government's views are set out in the White Paper there is no need for him to repeat them. After all, this is a place of debate, and it does not necessarily follow that everyone who comes here has to read up all the White Papers which the Government have published. The House expects the arguments of one noble Lord to be controverted, if possible, by the next, if that next one happens to be the Government spokesman speaking after the spokesman for the Opposition. I think that unless we get the clash of the hammers between the two Front Benches it rather spoils the debate. I do not accept the view that, because something is mentioned in a
542
White Paper, there is no need for arguments to be adduced in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, certainly gave as poor a reception to a Bill as anything I have ever heard when he described the Bill which the Government propose to continue in operation as being one which he did not love and which was full of warts. That, I presume, was an allusion to Cromwell. He, presumably, loved his warts—at all events, he was quite happy to have them painted. But Lord Mancroft is ashamed of the warts in this Bill, and I think it is rather odd for the Government to propose to this House and to the country a Bill which they talk of in such a disparaging way. To my mind the noble Lord was quite right in talking of it in a disparaging way. Many other people in this country think that what is needed is a far more radical alteration of the law, and in fact some measure of leasehold enfranchisement.
I speak with some feeling on this subject, because it affects particularly the part of the country from which I come, South Wales. The problem has been with us there for just about a hundred years. In the early lays of the Industrial Revolution in Wales the little valleys among the hills in which coal was found were populated only by a few scattered hill farmers, and there grew up villages and towns to satisfy the needs of the hill farms. I believe that Lord Llewellin's ancestors, and those of Lord Lloyd and myself, were all, at one time hill farmers in South Wales, and by a coincidence we are all here to-day. At all events, very soon there came a drastic alteration in the appearance of the locality. Coal was found, and the Industrial Revolution got into full swing. As a result, there was a need to build a large number of houses. These houses were built, and often they were very poor houses indeed, even at the beginning. One hundred years of life, together with the subsidence that exists in a mining district, have not improved them. In many cases they are to-day little more than hovels.
The houses were poor because in some cases, to my knowledge, it was the intention of those who put them up that they should be poor. Some fifty years ago, in my own town of Bridgend, an architect whom later I knew well was approached

543
by a business man to put up some of these houses for sale. He drew plans, and there is no doubt that they would be called "desirable residences" if they were put up for auction to-day. But the person who was employing him turned down the project. He said, "I do not want comfortable houses; I want uncomfortable houses. We are putting up these houses in order to get a licence for a public-house that we are going to build, and if you build people comfortable houses the people will not go and drink in the public house."
There were various reasons for the erection of these houses, but all of them indicated that in all probability the houses would be badly built, as indeed they were. Now of course the time has come when the original leases are falling in, and we in South Wales were perturbed a year or two ago by the fact that a number of people in the City of London and elsewhere had bought up blocks of these ground rents and had served dilapidations notices for very large amounts on the owner-occupiers of the premises, saying, "Either you buy the freehold or you pay for the dilapidations, notice of which we have given." That was the position in which many of these owner-occupiers, working men, were placed: either they had to pay exorbitant sums for the dilapidations, and of course lose the premises, or they had to pay large sums—far more than they were worth—for the freehold reversions. In that way, a property which perhaps was worth only£40 or£50 might go for£300 or£400. The same thing happened in the residential areas, in the towns of Cardiff and the like. There, too, quite a number of houses were built on these great estates. By a singular coincidence, it seemed, about a hundred years ago, or perhaps from a hundred years ago to fifty years ago, there was a considerable number of eligible young heiresses in South Wales, and they were picked up and married by noblemen and gentlemen from outside. These gentlemen developed large estates on the land of the heiresses, and the result, in many cases, has been that, in respect of these estates, the reversions have been in the hands of very few people indeed.
Quite apart from the housing aspect, there was another aspect which has had really bad results in South Wales.
544
Cardiff, at the present moment, and some of the other South Wales ports, are in a very serious position. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, the Under-Secretary for Wales, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, will confirm this, I am sure. Cardiff was built up very largely on its coal exports. It was the greatest coal-exporting port in the world. It used to export something like 30 million tons of coal a year, and it has never had any spread of industry which could come in and assist the port now that the original export trade has practically ceased to exist. Unfortunately, very little coal is now exported from Cardiff. I have always been given to understand that the reason why Cardiff has not a wide range of industries, such as Swansea has, is that the land was in the hands of one or two people who refused to sell it, and, in fact, would grant only very short leases. The result has been that many industrial firms, who might have been inclined, or induced, to take leases of premises, long leases, or to buy pieces of land and erect factories, decided that they would not do so and went elsewhere—particularly to Bristol. It is significant that Bristol was built up as a centre for the Midlands when, in many ways, South Wales was far more convenient for that purpose. It is not only bad transport which has resulted in Cardiff being so badly placed in relation to the Midlands: it is also due to the fact that years ago people could not get land there when they wanted it.
It will be said, I have no doubt, that this system, the leasehold system, is both desirable and necessary. If that is so, I am surprised that it has not been copied in other countries and, indeed, in many parts of England. If it is as desirable as we are sometimes told, I suggest that it should be taken from South Wales. It was exported there about a hundred years ago—it is not the old Welsh land system. We shall be glad to re-export it to England where it is desired, because it is a fact which the Front Bench opposite cannot escape that in South Wales there is a unanimous opinion—and it is held by all political Parties, including that of noble Lords opposite—against the system. It is part of the Labour Party's policy in general terms that there should be leasehold enfranchisement. To my

545
knowledge, it has been the view of the Liberal Party—and if am surprised that nothing has been said to that effect from the Liberal Benches to-day—for many years. And it is the Conservative policy. In fact, the late Under-Secretary of State foe the Home Office, the Welsh Under-Secretary, Mr. David Llewellyn (who I am sure we are all sorry to know has had a promising career cut short, or at least suspended, by reason of ill health: he is an excellent man in many ways) when he fought his election in Cardiff had leasehold enfranchisement as a plank in his election programme. I should be surprised to learn that there are any Conservative Members from South Wales, or any Conservative candidates, who would not support everything which I am saying in this debate to-day. They know that nothing can be said for this system as it has applied in South Wales—and I am speaking as it applies in South Wales. If there were a Welsh Parliament in being the system would go with the wind: it would be abolished immediately. It would not be retained for five minutes.
I think this Parliament of the United Kingdom should have regard to the feeling of its constituent parts. Scotland is more fortunate than Wales. Scotland has its own system of law. Wales has not. The old land law of Wales went in the reign of Henry VIII, and we had to accept English land law, whether we liked it or not. Scotland, as I say, is more fortunate. But I do think that we here, as the United Kingdom Parliament, should have regard to the special conditions and the special requirements of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. I know that it will be said that the majority of lawyers are against this reform. That may be so; but there is a very responsible minority which is in favour of it. I would remind the House that the Minority Report was signed by Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas, Q.C., and by Mr. C. L. Hale, who are both lawyers and both men with great experience of this subject. Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas represented Barry, where they are very badly affected by the leasehold system. He is a Q.C. and a Chancery leader, so he knows not only the practical side of the problem but the theoretical effect of it. Mr. Hale, I understand, has had a busy practice as a solicitor in Lancashire, where I am told
546
they are also affected by this system. So when one comes to the opinions of the various distinguished lawyers who have considered this topic, one must have regard not only to their legal eminence but to the fact that some of them have been brought more closely into touch with the results of the system than have others.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? Would the noble Lord's proposal apply with regard to Crown leases, as well as private leases, or would he differentiate between the two?
LORD OGMORE: I would not make any differentiation at all. I would say that wherever there is an owner-occupier of leasehold premises, whether the premises are owned by the Crown or by a private individual, the owner-occupier should be entitled to some form of leasehold enfranchisement. The exact details, would, no doubt, be considered, when the Bill came before the House, by whichever Party brought the Bill in. But I would make no difference whatsoever. I would draw the attention of your Lordships to Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas's proposals as set out on page 154 of the Leasehold Committee's Final Report. Your Lordships will see under the heading" Summary of Recommendations" these words:
"Subject to the recommendations made below, occupying ground lessees of dwelling houses should have a right of leasehold enfranchisement by compulsory purchase of the fee simple and any intermediate reversions.
"The right should be exercisable by sub-lessees in the same way as lessees."
I think that quotation shows how fair were these two gentlemen who made these recommendations, because they not only give the right of compulsory purchase of the freehold but also of any intermediate reversion.
The Government's proposals deal only with the occupying lessee. I do not know whether all your Lordships appreciate that under these proposals a person—let us say a widow whose husband has saved some money and has invested it in the purchase of property, in order that she shall in her old age have some little income—is not protected at all if she has let the premises to a tenant. Under the Government proposals the only person protected is the man who happens to be in

547
occupation of the premises. Although he has not a penny piece invested in the premises, so long as he is in them he is protected. There is no protection given, and no reference whatever to the person whom we usually regard as the true lessee—the man who, whether it was he himself, or an ancestor, or the person from whom he bought the premises, erected the house or buildings on the land. There is no suggestion from the Government that this person should be protected. Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas and Mr. Hale do propose to protect such a person, at all events, before the term has completely expired. They propose that the sub-lessee shall be entitled to purchase the intermediate reversion, as well as the fee simple. That is fairer to many honest and deserving people than are the proposals of the Government. In my view, the proposals of the Government are bad because they affect only a limited number of people. The Government have made no attempt whatsoever to deal with this problem, which has been of great importance in our life and will become of greater importance in the next few years, when so many leases fall in. I hope that the Government will think again. I hope that they will not neglect this opportunity of making a real clean-up of this Augean stable. If they had seen its operation in South Wales and in Lancashire, they would have realised how badly it needs cleaning up and not tinkering with, which is all the present proposals seem to do.
4.42 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, it falls to me to reply to this debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. Perhaps I may explain my own personal position in this debate. This was a motion which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, was going to move and for which the noble Lords opposite called, in order that they might criticise the White Paper. Having called for the Motion, it was convenient that at the same time I should move the Second Reading of the Bill which we propose, because they both cover the same subject matter. As Lord Jowitt's name was on the Order Paper as the mover of this Motion, I had intended to follow him, as I thought that was the proper thing to do. When it appeared that he was not going to speak until
548
later, I thought it better that my noble friend Lord Mancroft should speak first and that I should have an opportunity later of replying to the noble and learned Earl. But the noble Earl has not given us the advantage of hearing his views upon this subject, so it falls to me to speak without knowing what they are.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I hope the noble and learned Lord has not any sort of grievance against me. I arrived back from abroad only last night and I have not been able to consult other members of my Party. Some of my other noble friends here have, and I therefore thought it better that they, who have had consultations and know what the Party is thinking, should state our views rather than that I should do so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am expressing disappointment, not a sense of grievance—it is far from grievance. The position of this matter is rather curious. During the whole of my lifetime—I do not say political lifetime, because that has been a matter of fifteen months—it has been a burning issue. One would have expected that the Socialist Party would have a view upon it, and that the Socialist Government would have had a view upon it as a matter of policy. Therefore, I venture to think, it was a little surprising that in the year 1948, apparently not having made up their minds on this burning question, the Socialist Government appointed a Committee to consider this matter as a question of policy. They were to consider policy, because this was the first question that was put to the Committee:
"Whether, and in what circumstances, and on what terms an occupying tenant of residential or other premises should be given the right to purchase compulsorily the freehold and any other prior interests in the premises, and to consider any other aspects of the problem of Leasehold Enfranchisement."
The noble and learned Earl appointed a Committee to consider that question, and I think one must assume that at that date, as the Labour Government had appointed a Committee to advise them on a question of policy, they had not made up their minds about it as a Party.
What happened? A Report was issued, after a prolonged consideration of all the relevant law, all the facts and all the arguments that could be adduced.

549
The majority—all the members of the Committee except two—totally rejected leasehold enfranchisement, and the minority of two were in favour of it. Now, one must ask noble Lords opposite whether it was in consequence of this Report that they were able to make up their minds, for ex hypothesi they had not previously clone so. I should say that anybody reading these two Reports with an unbiased mind—and for that I give them credit, for they have not made up their minds—would not come down in favour of leasehold enfranchisement. Yet in 1951, for the first time, leasehold enfranchisement found a place in the electoral programme of the Socialist Party. That is a most extraordinary thing.
Now we bring forward this White Paper and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, criticises my noble friend Lord Mancroft for not having dealt with the arguments set out in the White Paper. But the fact is that although, having tabled a Motion upon (his subject, it was the duty of noble Lords opposite to criticise the proposals of the White Paper, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in a speech for which I have an admiration for its temper and can dour, did not seek to challenge one of the arguments in the White Paper on the basis of which Her Majesty's Government reject in toto the theory of leasehold enfranchisement. That is why I do not feel a incumbent on me to go at length through the arguments in the White Paper, and I say that with equal temper and candour.
In the White Paper the Government do not go into the theory of the matter at any length. This is a matter, perhaps, of social and political philosophy upon which people have different opinions. It rather concentrates on this: no practical measure of leasehold enfranchisement has been proposed or discussed before the Committee. I would ask noble Lords to observe this. Even now the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, though he has professed himself in favour of leasehold enfranchisement in theory, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, though he has referred to the difficulties in South Wales, with which we are very familiar and with which the members of the Committee were also very familiar, do not commit themselves on the question: should there be compensation when there is compulsory enfranchisement or should there not? And
550
for whose benefit is this being done—for the benefit of anybody who has a leasehold interest or for the benefit only of the occupier?
Now it is a point of great importance that the minority, Mr. Hale and Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas, although they were in favour of leasehold enfranchisement, were in favour of it only upon the terms of proper compensation. If that is so, what is the value of that? Well, we have the statement, not, indeed, of the minority, but of the majority, in regard to that point, and this is what they say on page 34 of the Report:
"As already noted, the effect of the evidence is that enfranchisement on the basis of the tenant paying the fair market value of the freehold in reversion or relatively imminent reversion would not meet the alleged grievance of building lessees as it is generally presented."
The alleged grievance of building lessees as it is generally presented is just that grievance to which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred.
I appreciate—we all do—that there is a grievance there which has been nourished for many years, and has been vividly emphasised and brought home to the South Wales miner, because there is no doubt that it has been a slogan of the Liberal Party and the Socialist Party these many years. I do not think that any ground lessee in South Wales is taken by surprise when he learns that his interest will come to an end when his ground lease is over, because that has been a Party cry for so long. May I, in parenthesis, say how delighted I was to hear the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party, say that he, at least, dislikes intensely the idea of leasehold enfranchisement. It is a curious thing that one of the reasons which the Liberal Party always gave in favour of leasehold enfranchisement was this: that it would be a bulwark against Socialism, because they thought there would be nothing which would militate more against the Socialist doctrine than the ownership of houses which leasehold enfranchisement would bring. There are strange revolutions in history, and now we find the Socialist Party, if anybody, an advocate of the scheme of leasehold enfranchisement.
I do not want, any more than my noble friend Lord Mancroft, to be discourteous to the House by not going through all the

551
arguments in favour of rejecting the principle of leasehold enfranchisement, but if noble Lords will read the White Paper I am sure they will agree how cogent are the arguments against it. It is easy to disregard all exceptions and say: "Whatever the injustice may be, we think it right that there should be universal leasehold enfranchisement." I do not think that anybody would embark upon that proposition. If not, he will find, as we found when we began to consider the matter, that there are so many exceptions, and so many exceptions upon exceptions, that the thing is whittled down to nothing at all. For my part, I think that if we attempted to base any general principle or policy of the law upon the hard cases which we hear of in South Wales, it would be the supreme example of hard cases making bad law. I cannot think that the Socialist Opposition to-day can say as a general principle that the long lease system is a bad one. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and his colleagues, as has been pointed out, were responsible in the last few years for introducing just that system in a new sphere. It is therefore clear that the long lease system, which involves a freehold reversion which in good time will revert to the landlord, is one that is acceptable to the Socialist Party. How, then, can they put in their programme lease hold enfranchisement as an item on which they are going to fight?
In this matter, in which, as I think, the good will of all Parties is very important, not only in the comparatively small area that we are covering to-day, but in the whole sphere of the relation of landlord and tenant, it is most important that we should meet as far as we can. For that purpose, it is surely essential to get out of the way this leaning back towards the idea of leasehold enfranchisement. If there is anything that can be done—and nothing occurs to me—which can mitigate particularly hard cases, let us consider it at a later stage. But let us embark upon the legislation which faces us in the next few years—not only, of course, in relation to the subject matter of the White Paper, but to the far larger sphere of the whole relationship of landlord and tenant, and particularly in regard to the Rent Restrictions Acts—with this problem of leasehold
552
enfranchisement thrust so far into the background that no Party will bring it up again.
LORD OGMORE: May I interrupt? Does that also include the Conservative candidates in South Wales at the next Election? They brought it up prominently at the last Election, and possibly won a seat or two on it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It may seem to the noble Lord that that is an apposite intervention.
LORD OGMORE: Yes, it does.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not propose to say anything about it. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything about the negative part of the White Paper, if I may so describe it. We have given our reasons, which I commend to all in this House—and I include, if necessary, the prospective candidates in South Wales—as to why leasehold enfranchisement is not on the map at all.
That brings me to what I may call the positive part of the White Paper. Here there has been a measure of agreement which is most encouraging. I think it would be proper for me to pay a tribute to the generous attitude adopted in this matter by noble Lords who are accustomed to sitting on the Government side of the House, to many of whom it seems a great hardship that for a further period of eighteen months an uncovenanted benefit should accrue to the lessees. For, in fact, it means that landlords are for a further eighteen months beyond the former two years kept out of the reversion to which they might reasonably have hoped to come. Not a voice has been raised against that, and I venture to think that it does great credit to the generosity and public spirit of noble Lords on that side of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised a number of points which he rightly said were important, but which perhaps were in the nature of Committee points—and, of course, they are Committee points upon a Bill which is not yet in existence; but since they are adumbrated in the White Paper, it was no doubt quite proper for the noble Lord to raise them. I may say, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft said, that we welcome at this stage all those criticisms. Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that they

553
will be fully considered before we come to put on paper the Bill which is outlined in our White Paper.
I should like to deal with some of the particular points which the noble Lord made. The first point, of course, is on the question of security. It seems to me that in the security which we now propose to establish for the ground lessee, to a very large extent we give that advantage which leasehold enfranchisement was intended to secure, because, apart altogether from the joy of ownership—a man likes to have a little property of his own—one reason why he wants it is that he may feel secure; and that security is what we shall give to him by the intended legislation.
The noble Lord asked me what was the nature of the statutory tenancy, and said that we are vague about the rent. It is quite true that in the White Paper we do not go into any details as to the factors which should weigh with the tribunal to whom it will fall to prescribe the terms of the statutory tenancy. I do not think I could say more than this: that the county court judge—for it is to that tribunal we intend the matter shall go—will, of course, have to consider that he is now creating an entirely new relation between the ground lessee and the ground lessor. The old covenants will have gone and, of course, the old rent will be inadequate. It will be the duty, as we see it, of the county court judge to prescribe all the terms of the new relation, and they will be interdependent—that is to say, the quantum of the rent must depend, to a large extent, upon the nature of the new obligations in regard to repair which will be thrown upon the tenant. As we see it, the county court judge, who is skilled to do this sort of thing, will have no difficulty in prescribing fair terms for the tenancy, including what is a fair rent having regard to the other terms. He will, no doubt, take into account what are the rents payable in respect of similar property, whether such property be what is called new controlled, old controlled or subject to no control at all. He will have to take at those things into account, and I do not think he will have any difficulty, not in coming to a scientific result, but in coming to a result which is fair in all the circumstances.
Then the noble Lord asked about the effect of the repairing covenant. In
554
regard to that, I would ask him to consider the terms of the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act, 1938, and the earlier Act of 1927. That is a matter which must be taken carefully into consideration. Then the noble Lord asked me about the question of improvements. Upon that matter it is possible to come to different conclusions. The conclusion to which Her Majesty's Government have come is this. So far as residential property is concerned, it is not right to put upon the landlord the burden of paying for improvements which he does not want. It is so much a matter of taste and personal preference that it would be likely to result in grave hardship and injustice if a landlord were compelled to pay for improvements for which he would have to bear the burden, which he did not want and for which he had not asked. It is much better that that should be left as a matter of bargaining between the landlord and tenant. As at present advised, we cannot commit ourselves to the conclusion to which the noble Lord would come—that improvements ought to be paid for by the landlord at the end of the lease.
I do not know whether I shall be able to cover all the points raised by the noble Lord. Dealing with compensation, I am very glad indeed that he found himself able to agree with the proposals in the White Paper in regard to compensation for so-called adherent goodwill. I think I give away no secrets when I say that nothing caused us so much difficulty as arriving at a fair conclusion in regard to that. The noble Lord asked one question on that point. One of the cases in which compensation will arise will be where the landlord will be entitled to recover his property because he wants it "for his own business." I read that quite literally and generally as meaning that he wants it for his own business, whether it is the same business as that of his tenant or a different business of his own. That is how we intended it; and again, subject to any second thoughts, that seems to me to be absolutely fair, for it ought not to make any difference whether the business he carries on is a similar one to that carried on by his tenant or a different one of his own. The noble Lord also asked a question about re-development. I should concur in the view which he expressed, that in order that the landlord may be in a position to refuse a renewal

555
to his tenant upon the ground of re-development, it must be in respect of some scheme of re-development which has been approved by the appropriate authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked some questions, one or two of which I should like to answer. He referred in particular to the proposal in the White Paper in regard to restrictive covenants, and objected altogether to the suggestion that where assignment could not take place without the landlord's consent, that should always be read as subject to the word "reasonable." It is rather late in the day for the noble Lord to take that objection, because it has become a regular part now of the law of landlord and tenant in, I think, every sphere. But I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, speaking for his Party, agreed that no compensation for improvements to residential premises should be allowed. Then he said—and I felt the force of it—that he saw no reason why the compensation for goodwill should be related to rateable value. My only answer to that is that some test has to be found. It is arbitrary and, if you like, capricious, but we had to find something. Unless we are going to indulge in what might be a field day for lawyers and other professional men, it would not redound to the advantage either of the landlord or the tenant. There would, I fear, be a good deal of litigation in this matter unless we adopted some arbitrary standard.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, whose speech I welcomed, said much that I should have liked to say myself, and he said it better. I shall not repeat it. As the noble Lord has said, the prime object of the measures which we propose to introduce will be to get security of tenure where the tenant is a reasonable tenant and there are not overwhelming considerations the other way, as in the case, for instance, of re-development. I was very glad that the noble Lord was able, even somewhat late, to come down and support the Government in this measure.
I have dealt, I hope in a quite friendly way, with a few of the observations the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made. I agree with him that more radical measures will have to be made, but we really cannot
556
do everything at once; and I can assure him and other noble Lords that there is no aspect—I use that word advisedly—of the law of landlord and tenant which is not under our urgent and earnest consideration. Those are words commonly used by Her Majesty's Ministers, but in my mouth on this occasion they are no idle words. These are indeed matters which are exercising our minds.
I have not been able to deal with all the points made in the debate, but I have endeavoured to cover the principal matters raised by noble Lords. It only remains for me (I think I am in order), formally to move the Second Reading of the Bill which has been expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. No criticism has been made of it, and I think it is unnecessary for me to add anything more except that it has been discovered that, so far as the time for making application to the court is concerned, there is a certain gap. I assure noble Lords that that matter will be put right—and I must say that I do not think any noble Lord found it out.
LORD SILKIN: May I suggest that it will be necessary to take the Motion?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am informed that before I move the Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, should first have an opportunity to reply on his Motion. I apologise to the House.
5.12 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I think it is desirable that I should do so, otherwise I may be putting Her Majesty's Government to the trouble of submitting Papers on this subject; and they have already submitted at any rate one Paper. There is not a great deal that I find it necessary to say. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord thought it necessary to imply a criticism of the Labour Government in setting up a Committee to consider this question. According to him they ought to have made up their minds long ago about the right solution, and the Committee was unnecessary. He will not be surprised to hear that, although one may be in complete agreement about the problem, there may be differences of opinion as to the solution. Inside the Socialist Party we are still allowed to think, and even to have views. It was thought that as there had been no inquiry on this subject since

557
the 1880's it would be a good idea to set up an influential Committee to investigate the facts, particularly in view of what was regarded as the urgency of the problem at that time, and of the leases that were falling in. We therefore set up this Committee; and I am glad we did so, because we secured a most valuable Report.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that in my speech I did not think it necessary to put the case for leasehold enfranchisement. I do not know whether I am being criticised for that or not. But if I had dealt with that matter in detaill might still have been speaking—and that would have been deplorable. But I did indicate that I thought the case on both sides had been admirably put: the case for Her Majesty's Government in the Majority Report and in the White Paper, and the case for leasehold enfranchisement in the Minority Report. I felt that no discussion here today would be likely to change the view of any noble Lord, and that it was best to reserve one's position until legislation was introduced. I believe that that was the right course, and I hope that the noble Lord approves. That does not in any sense mean that we accept the position; but, of course, when the Bill comes along we shall have the opportunity of saying what we want to say on this very difficult subject.
I recognise that it is a difficult subject and not one on which one wishes to score debating points. This is one of those subjects where, if one reads the Report of the Majority Committee, it appears to be conclusive—the noble and learned Lord said that there seems to be no answer—but when one comes to read the Minority Report, that seems equally convincing. The noble Lore shakes his head but he conceded the one point, and I hope he will concede the other. It is possible to be thoroughly convinced so long as one sees only one's own point of view. But here we have to make up our minds between two conflicting points of view; and noble Lords on this side have made up their minds.
Assuming for the moment that the noble and learned Lord will be introducing measures of reform, I shall devote the rest of my speech to examining the particular proposals that have been put
558
forward. I have no complaint about the way in which the noble and learned Lord dealt with my suggestions, but I hope the last word has not been said on them and that they will be carefully considered. I did not, for instance, wholeheartedly approve of the compensation proposals in respect of goodwill I thought, however, the method proposed was a convenient one and that it might avoid a good deal of litigation. I think there will have to be a good deal of discussion before we arrive at a right solution, even on the matter of the principles. There are some things which the noble and learned Lord rejected but which I believe perhaps, on further consideration, he may accept. This applies particularly to the question of tenant's improvements. I believe that it is right that where there is a definite increase to the landlord in the value of his property, he should not expect that for nothing. But I will not argue that point this evening.
I should like to say one word to the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Llewellin. I was disappointed with Lord Meston's speech. I expected from the Liberal Benches a rather more radical and liberal approach than we have had; but in fact we heard speech which gave me, at least, the impression that Lord Meston is very much to the Right of Her Majesty's Government. I hope that he will not make many more speeches of a kind which might well influence Her Majesty's Government to go to the Right of him. That would indeed be a tragedy. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, made a rather unfortunate remark in comparing the plight of the person who is at the end of a long lease, and has to leave his home, with the position of those who leave their ancestral homes. We are all of us sorry for both, but to put them in the same category seems rather a flight of fancy. The one is very much in danger of being homeless. The problem we have to face is that so many people who come to the end of their lease will be rendered homeless. For them it is a question of real urgency, whereas in the case of the others, the class of person to which the noble Lord referred, although, undoubtedly, a great many of them can no longer afford to live in their ancestral homes, they do in the vast majority of cases adjust themselves to living in somewhat more modest conditions. Although one is sorry for

559
both classes, the hardship to one is not in the same category or of the same order as that to the other.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I understood that the hardship on the former class—those who were coming to the end, say, of their ninety-nine years lease—was met, if they were still the sitting tenants, using the home as a home, by their being covered by the Rent Restriction Acts. I believe that to be the case.
LORD SILKIN: Yes, I agree. It was only that I thought the comparison was perhaps somewhat unfortunate. However, I do not want to carry that point any further. I think this has been a useful debate, and I now beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LEASEHOLD PROPERTY ACT AND LONG LEASES (SCOTLAND) ACT EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
5.22 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I think the arrangement we have had to-day has been a most convenient one. We have had a general discussion on the White Paper which has really covered the subject matter of this Bill, and I am quite sure that your Lordships do not want to hear any more about this Bill from me now. I have a kind of satisfaction. I have just been looking through the incidents that took place when I introduced the Bill which is now being extended. I see cheery faces opposite me at the present moment, though the same faces were then very hostile to me. There sits the noble Viscount, Lord Buck master, in peace and contentment, but when I introduced my Bill, which is now being extended with his obvious approval and delight, it was described as a measure which utterly violated the sanctity of existing contracts. Very harsh things were said about it. I am glad to think that, notwithstanding all the energy and
560
skill which have been employed on this matter, the Government have decided that they can do no better, as a temporary measure, than I did as a temporary measure some year or so ago.
I should like just to add this. I was very surprised to hear the Lord Chancellor say—though I may have misunderstood him—that he thought the system of long leases which had been developed over the centuries was a good and satisfactory system. I think it was an absolutely disastrous system. The whole difficulty of the problem, however, is in knowing what to do now, in view of the fact that that system has lasted so long, that interests have arisen, that money has been invested and things of that sort. That, to my mind, is the real difficulty, and if any of us to-day could start with a clean slate, I venture to say, with great respect to the Lord Chancellor, that I think all of us would say, "Well, this system whereby you had long leases for ninety-nine years—the men who were building the houses and all that sort of thing—has turned out, in the events which have happened, to be a most unhappy system."
It is sometimes (said that the real grievance of these tenants is that they thought the property was theirs. I do not doubt that in some cases that is true. The real trouble is that the situation which exists now, when the lease is coming to an end, is so totally different from the situation that existed when the lease was granted. When the lease started there may, for aught I know, have been plentiful accommodation. Now, unhappily, when the lease has come to an end, there is practically none. The problem which confronts us all is, "What are we to do about it?" I concede at once that it is a very difficult question. I also concede at once that merely repeating the phrase "leasehold enfranchisement," as if it were a kind of incantation, is not to the point. Anybody who has studied this matter knows that the whole problem is: on what terms do you enfranchise your lease? Unless and until you enumerate what those terms are, you cannot do much about it.
I confess that I am sorry that the Government have bolted and barred the door on leasehold enfranchisement. I believe that it would have been useful to have more thought given to this matter. No doubt when we come to

561
consider the Bill which is envisaged for the future we shall have an opportunity of considering the matter. That is all I rise to say. I take it as a sincere compliment that the noble and learned Lord is extending for a still further period of time this wholly admirable temporary Bill which I introduced. I call it "wholly admirable," because, although I never liked it, and nobody else liked it very much, we all came to the conclusion that in the circumstances it was the best thing we could do. Her Majesty's Government have obviously come to the same conclusion. Therefore, we shall certainly not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.
5.28 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I believe that I am in order in speaking again because we are now on another item. As the noble and learned Earl has referred to some smiling and cheerful faces on this side, and said that surely, if we went back to the past, if we could start with a clean slate, we should not have these long leasehold terms at all, I cannot help reminding the noble and learned Earl that he was a member of the Government which started new towns with a clean slate. And the only thing that the development corporation is allowed to do is to let its land on leases not exceeding ninety-nine years. The problems which that situation may create in ninety-nine years none of us can envisage now. After Lord Jowitt's speech, in which he twitted us very pleasantly, if I may say so, I thought I might just rise and twit back on that, because both in the Town and Country Planning Act and in the New Towns Act there is being started exactly the same thing, under, it is true, the development, corporation or the planning authority. But the tenant would be no more happy to know that his reversion goes back to them than he would be to know that it goes back to a private individual.
5.29 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, did not speak on the White Paper which dealt with leasehold enfranchisement, in which case I should have had an opportunity of replying to him, but chose to make his speech upon leasehold enfranchisement in regard to this Bill which does not deal
562
with that matter at all. It was rather a strange proceeding, I thought. The noble Earl commented upon the fact that I had said that the leasehold system, and particularly the long leasehold system, worked well. I do not know whether I used those exact words, but the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has pointed out that, if I did so, I did so following the example of the Government of which the noble and learned Earl was a member. The leasehold system is a good one, but, like other systems, it is capable of being worked badly by bad men. It is a good system and, on the whole, it has worked very well in this country. Unfortunately, it has given opportunity for had landlords to act badly and, I think, for unreasonable tenants to act badly, too. That is all I want to say.
EARL JOWITT: Is that not the test, after all, of a good or a bad system? If a system enables bad landlords to exploit the situation, is that not, by virtue of that very fact, a bad system? Whilst not attacking the leasehold system as such, I venture to think that the vice of the long lease was that it gave men the chance to exploit, and they did exploit.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Earl has made his point, which might better have been made, I think, before the Motion was withdrawn, and the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has dealt with it.
With regard to this particular Bill, providing for an extension of the Act which the noble and learned Earl introduced in 1951, there is, of course, this vital difference: that that measure, which provided for a two years' extension period, was not accompanied by any statement as to what was the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the future. Our proposed extension by this Bill is mitigated by this: that it does not leave either tenant or landlord in darkness as to what is the future policy of Her Majesty's Government. One cannot tell what may happen before Christmas, 1954; no doubt noble Lords on one side or the other have hopes. But at any rate, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is there laid down, and that, I think, is why the Bill, even though it does inflict a great hardship, as I realise, upon ground landlords, is accepted by them will good will, which the Bill of 1951 was not, because then

563
they did not know what legislation was coming in the future.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOSPITAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
5.31 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Home I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Perhaps I should explain its origin. The Hospital Endowments Commission made certain recommendations to the Secretary of State, and it is on those recommendations that the Secretary of State has brought forward this Bill. I should perhaps explain that, under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, all endowments were transferred on the appointed day to the hospital boards of management. At the same time the Hospital Endowments Commission was set up to prepare schemes which would eventually regulate the management of these endowments. This is different from the system in England where, as I understand it, endowments were transferred to the Endowments Fund and then distributed by the Minister of Health.
The Endowments Commission is under the chairmanship of Sir Sydney Smith. Sir Sydney Smith is very well known in Scotland. He was acting Principal of Edinburgh University, and I had the great pleasure of learning at his feet the subject of forensic medicine, on which he lectures with such great authority. He has recommended that part of these funds should be devoted to research, but although the individual hospital boards can, in fact, use their funds for research, he has felt that this can be more usefully done by an independent body of trustees acting for the whole country. He thinks that adequate funds are available—he estimates them at somewhere in the order of about£120,000 a year. So there is a fairly substantial sum which he considers can be made available for a research trust of this character. It is proper to say that this scheme has been fairly widely canvassed in Scotland, and it is understood that there is a wide
564
measure of support for it, both from the hospitals and from the universities. In proposing this arrangement Sir Sydney has, of course, borne in mind the fact that adequate funds must be available to provide reasonable amenities at individual hospitals, and he has said that even when a fund of this character has been provided, the hospitals will be reasonably catered for.
I should perhaps explain the procedure under which the Endowment Commissioners have to operate. It is laid down in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, and is as follows. They have, first of all, to consult all those whom they consider to be interested in the endowment, including, of course, the endowment trustees. They then draft a scheme; they hear objections, and, if necessary, they hold an inquiry. That is the first step in the formation of the scheme. The next step is to submit the scheme to the Secretary of State, who may approve it with or without modification. The third step is that the scheme is submitted to Parliament, which may annul the scheme if it disapproves of it. I want to emphasise this point, because it is obviously of great interest to people that endowment funds should not be entirely used for what the Endowment Commissioners may think fit, until there has been proper consultation. I have therefore elaborated the procedure, so that it may be clear that there is a very careful system, and that there are regular steps whereby objection can be taken. But over and above all that, it is laid down in the Act that in the working of the Endowment Commissioners regard must be had to the spirit of the intention of the original founders of an endowment. In many cases it is known that the purpose of the founder was to run the hospital. That work is now being carried on by the Exchequer, so that the purpose of the original founder is now defeated and some other purpose has to be found. In this case, it is proper to divert the trust.
The Bill itself is a simple one. It does two things. On the one hand, it sets up a Trust, and then it empowers the Endowment Commissioners to transfer funds to the Trust, which they had not previously the power to do. So far as the Trust itself is concerned, the chairman and members will be appointed by

565
the Secretary of State, and it is considered that a small body will be adequate for this purpose—probably about seven people. Not only can they receive funds transferred to them, but they can also receive legacies or gifts, should they become available. They have the task of consulting an advisory committee, as designated by the Secretary of State. The Bill does not say which advisory committee will be consulted, but the Committee to be designated in the first place will be the Advisory Committee on Medical Research, under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Edward Appleton who is now Principal of Edinburgh University. I should add that this body has links with the Medical Research Council, so that, as far as possible, there will be no overlapping or difficulty. Information gained will be circulated as widely as possible.
The Schedule lays down that accounts shall be kept. There will be submitted an annual report, which will be laid before Parliament. Clause 2 simply gives power to the Endowments Commission to transfer to the central fund. Clause 3 is procedural. I do not think that I need add anything more, except to say that this will be an independent body of Trustees—men of standing. They will have the funds at their disposal, and though they will be authorised to borrow or use capital if they should think fit, in each case the capital will have to be repaid over thirty years. If they wish to extend that period they must obtain the approval of the Secretary of State. May I end, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, by thanking the Endowment Commissioners for the valuable Memorandum which they have submitted? They have said that to set up a Research Trust for Scotland would be an act of imagination and a constructive step at the present time. I believe that to be the view which your Lordships will take. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
5.38 p.m.
LORD INMAN: My Lords, after the reference in the debate earlier this afternoon to the intrusion of Englishmen into Scottish affairs, I feel a little diffident about dealing with this particular matter. As the noble Earl has pointed out, this is the Hospital Endowments (Scotland)
566
Bill, and he has given a clear exposition of its provisions. We shall certainly not oppose the Second Reading, though it is quite likely that there will be certain points that we shall wish to deal with on the Committee stage, I was particularly glad to hear the noble Earl give certain safeguards. I have made a note of some of the questions I should have liked to ask; in some cases, he has already answered them. I lay particular stress on money donated for definite purposes being used, if at all possible, for that purpose. This afternoon I looked up the Industrial Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, and there it refers to:
"the spirit of the intention of the founder or donor of the endowment to which the scheme relates and in particular to conditions intended to preserve the memory of any person or class of persons…."
I am not an anti-vivisectionist; I can well understand there are those who believe in vivisection, and it would be a gross betrayal of any trust if money which had been left for that particular purpose were used for some other purpose of an entirely opposite character. So I am grateful to learn that a strong committee is to be formed to investigate and listen to complaints of that character.
The second thing I was particularly pleased to hear was that consultations were being held with the other research bodies. I find that there is a danger of overlapping, and this ought to be provided against as far as possible. With regard to these surplus funds which would be taken over, I assume that adequate funds will be left in the hands of the particular committees now existing for maintaining hospitals in Scotland. These are some of the points that have occurred to me in reading through the Bill. We can, of course, deal with matters of detail when we come to the Committee stage. In the meantime, we on these Benches shall not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.
5.41 p.m.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to those which have been used to congratulate the Department of Health for Scotland—I think it was that Department which conceived this notion. I also wish to congratulate Sir Sydney Smith and the Hospital Endowments Commission whose labours have resulted in this Bill being brought before us. It is of fundamental

567
importance. We are glad to hear that it is acceptable to hospital boards, and I am certain that it will be given a tremendous welcome by all the people of Scotland. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said, a great deal of this money which is always given for specific purposes in connection with maintaining and running hospitals, cannot now be used for that purpose. I think the idea of giving a large part of that money to research is of immense value to every single member of the community of the country. Everyone stands to gain by it.
I should like to refer for a moment to Clause 1 of the Bill and to ask the noble Earl this question: is it clear that the trustees will be able to take into consideration applications for grants for research work carried on in hospitals outside the National Health Scheme? As the noble Earl knows, there are still voluntary hospitals in Scotland, and as I read the Commission's memorandum most of the references seem to be to regional hospital boards and to hospitals that would be within the National Health Scheme. I would mention hospitals such as those run by the Scottish Branch of the British Red Cross in Scotland. They have two hospitals in the neighbourhood of Aberdeen, at Tor-na-dee and Glen-o'-dee, and research work is done there in connection with tuberculosis. Research work is definitely being carried out, and I think I could say without any fear of being contradicted by the Department that it is research work of great value in the fight against tuberculosis. To run these hospitals at the present time means finding some£30,000 a year in addition to the grants we get. It is a considerable sum, and it is not becoming any easier to get it in these days. So I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he can give me an assurance that voluntary hospitals not in the National Health Scheme may make applications, which will be considered, for grants. There is a further point one might make. In the Explanatory Memorandum, I notice it is stated that the trustees are empowered to accept new gifts and legacies. I would suggest to the noble Earl that if he can give us the assurance that money given by donors will be available for voluntary hospitals, as well as for State hospitals, then I think people
568
will be still more willing to give and to leave money to the Trust. I should like, in conclusion, to congratulate the noble Earl on the exposition which he has given of this Bill.
5.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords for the warm welcome they have given to this little Bill. I should also like to take this opportunity of welcoming Lord Inman—whom we have not seen here for quite a long time—back to this Chamber. I hope we shall see him frequently in the future. He asked me some specific questions. First, he emphasised—and quite properly—the question of purposes. There is nothing more discouraging to any donor than to see funds diverted to purposes directly antagonistic to the purposes for which they were originally intended. It is implicit in the Bill that this should not be done. I take it that, in some sense, the idea is to find the next best object when the one for which funds were originally intended has, for some reason or other, been superseded. The noble Lord mentioned the question of overlapping. It will obviously be the purpose, not only of the Research Council in Scotland but of the Trustees, to avoid that type of difficulty. Looking at the Report, which the Endowment Commissioners who, after all, are in the best position to judge, have made, I think it is clear that there will in each case be adequate funds available for the hospital management boards. The total capital of the funds amounts to about£13 million, which is a fairly considerable sum, and it was thought that some substantial part, at least, of that should be made available for research.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, that I am sure the Scottish Office will appreciate very much what he said about the imaginative understanding with which this Bill has been put forward? I can assure him that the purpose of the Bill is to enable the Trustees to assist any medical purpose that may be brought to their attention if they think it worthy of assistance. It matters not whether the establishment concerned is connected with the National Health Service, or is a private hospital, a university, or any other organisation, if they consider it most useful to promote a

569
particular type of research. I have nothing further to add. I hope that your Lordships will agree to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
5.48 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
House adjourned at eleven minutes before six o'clock.