Sitting of 10 March 1953

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (by Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Exports to China (Streptomycin)
    Dr. Strossasked the President of the Board of Trade how much streptomycin was exported to China and Hong Kong in the first six months of 1950.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): So far as I am aware, none, Sir.
    Dr. Stross: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that on 16th December the Parliamentary Secretary told the House that future exports to China for normal civilian purposes would be based on the amounts exported in the first six months of 1950? Will he give an assurance that, although we exported none during that period because we had none for export, it does not mean that we shall not export streptomycin to China for normal civilian purposes in the future?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The export of streptomycin is governed not by the exports of that particular drug during the period, but by the export of the group of drugs in which it is included.
    Dr. Stross: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further on that? Will he give an assurance that there will be no ban on the export of streptomycin to China for normal civilian purposes?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think I can go further than I have gone already. The
    1094
    amount of exports will be based upon the exports during that period, not of this specific drug, but of the group of drugs concerned.

    Monopolies Commission (References)
    Mr. Haleasked the President of the Board of Trade what matters are already referred to the Monopolies Commission; what was respectively their original date of reference; when reports are anticipated; and what other matters are to be referred.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 16th and 19th December to my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) and Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers). I hope shortly to receive the report on non-ferrous metal semi-manufactures and, later this year, the report on imported timber. I cannot yet say how long it will take to complete the other outstanding inquiries, or what other matters will be referred to the Commission.
    Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the very excellent work which the Commission are doing is to some extent being frustrated by lack of staff? Secondly, will he tell us whether he has now completed his consideration of whether he should refer the question of the textile machinery industry to the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's well-deserved tribute to the work of the Commission, but I am afraid that, at the moment, I am not in a position to say what further reference I shall make. That does not mean that I am not giving anxious consideration to it.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet made up his mind about what changes should be made in the legislation under which the Monopolies Commission was appointed? Will he bear in mind that if he were to come forward with a really effective Measure, it would receive support from this side of the House, so that there is no excuse for the Government in delaying this matter on account of lack of Parliamentary time?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly give consideration to any changes which might usefully be made in the Commission, but I dealt with the prospect of forthcoming legislation in a debate some time ago

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of small businesses operating in the years 1938 and 1952, respectively.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I regret that the information is not available.
    Mr. Shepherd: In view of the fact that this is a Question of more than academic interest, can my right hon. Friend say whether any sources of information exist?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If my hon. Friend would see me, perhaps I could assist him to get at the point which, I think, he has in mind.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman say, as some guide towards the information which his hon. Friend would like to have, how many small businesses went bankrupt in 1938 and how many in 1952?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have dealt very fully with those matters on a previous occasion. I think it is unwise to base too many deductions on them, but the fact is that a number do go bankrupt under all Governments, and probably should.

    Description

    Number

    £'000

    1950

    1951

    1952

    1950

    1951

    1952

    Adding and listing machines

    14,022

    27,156

    26,420

    1,324

    2,400

    2,547

    Accounting, book-keeping, billing or posting machines

    1,898

    1,482

    547

    650

    TOTAL

    14,022

    29,054

    27,902

    1,324

    2,947

    3,197

    Children's Footwear (Sizes)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade to ensure that all sizes of children's footwear manufactured in accordance with the British Standard shall be available in three fittings.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have no powers which would enable me to put the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion into effect, but I am asking the British Standards Institution to have it considered by their technical committee on children's footwear.

    Office Machinery
    Mr. Fellasked the President of the Board of Trade the export figures for the years 1950, 1951 and 1952, for calculating machines, listing machines, including printing calculators, and for accounting, billing, book-keeping and posting machines, respectively, which were wholly manufactured by the British office machinery industry.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: While I could readily give figures of our total exports of office machinery, I regret that no figures are available to indicate to what extent the machinery exported incorporated components which were not wholly of British origin.
    Mr. Fell: Does that mean that my right hon. Friend cannot give me the number of wholly-British manufacturers who are engaged in the manufacture of these machines?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If my hon. Friend wishes, I can circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the total exports of office machinery, but I cannot distinguish between those which may have some non-British components in them and those which have not.
    Following is the information:
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three widths of fitting are available only in highly-priced footwear, which penalises the children of poorer parents who cannot afford to pay the high prices?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: As I have said, I have no power to impose conditions on anybody, but I will draw the attention of those concerned to the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he makes this compulsory he will also make dearer the cheaper footwear?
    Hon. Members: Why?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have neither the intention nor the power to make this compulsory.
    Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if shoes will not fit they cannot sell them? Is not that the solution to the problem?

    Clothing (Quality Markings)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking arising from the rejection by the Wholesale Textile Association of the quality mark scheme of the British Standards Institution for clothing.
    Mr. Lewisasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Wholesale Textile Association has rejected the whole "Kite Mark" scheme for quality standards for clothing; and if he will make a statement on the progress that has been made towards the setting up of quality standards schemes in the textile industry to replace the old Utility specifications.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I assume that the hon. Members have in mind the adoption by the Council of the Wholesale Textile Association of a report by one of their sub-committees to the effect that the use of a "Kite Mark" or any other general mark on textiles is unnecessary and undesirable. That, of course, in no way prevents the British Standards Institution, of which the W.T.A. is an active member, from continuing its work on the preparation of British Standards in accordance with its normal procedure. I have always made it clear that the adoption of such standards is voluntary. Similarly, any "Kite Mark" scheme for goods reaching such standards must itself be first worked out and then applied on a voluntary basis. No action on my part is required. A statement of progress was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) on 5th February.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: But will not the President recall that he scrapped the Utility scheme in the hope that manufacturers would voluntarily adopt the quality markings approved by the British Standards Institution? To that extent, has he not both misled himself and deluded the public?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think not. The Wholesale Textile Association is not the only association in this field; it does not represent all the manufacturers.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the President give an assurance that if the association do not eventually come to some agreement on the question of standards and the quality of standards, he will reintroduce the whole procedure of the Utility specifications?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No. I think that would be a very drastic action to take.
    Mr. Fort: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the action which has been taken is welcomed among sections of the textile industry and that there is every hope that standards will shortly be agreed?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding us of that fact.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is not this a rather serious development? The Wholesale Textile Association is a very important body and has, in effect, turned down the Government's proposals. Will not the right hon. Gentleman intervene in this matter and ask them why they have adopted this extraordinary attitude towards standards of quality?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The Wholesale Textile Association, of course, condemned the use of the "Kite Mark." They did not condemn the working out and application of standards. I think it is important to draw a distinction between the two. For my own part, I disagree with the views expressed by the Wholesale Textile Association. I think that theirs is a retrograde step, and I hope they may reconsider the matter. In general, the textile industry are genuinely seeking to work out the policy which we suggested.

    Light Industries, County Durham
    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade what is being done to provide light industry in the area covered by the Easington Rural District Council, in the county of Durham, including the new town of Peterlee.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I share the right hon. Member's desire to see some light industry introduced into this area, and I am actively trying to provide sufficient

    1099
    opportunities of employment here as in other parts of the North-Eastern Development Area.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that in other parts of County Durham light industry has been established whereas nothing has been done in this area?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: We are prepared to consider suitable applications for building publicly financed factories in the district. Consideration of some suggestions of that kind is being given at the present time.
    Mr. Shinwell: I do not want to exert any undue pressure upon the right hon. Gentleman, but would he be able to give me a more favourable answer in, say, a month's time?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman can always try.
    Mr. Willey: In view of the exceptional circumstances at Peterlee, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the building of an advance factory there?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: All these cases are under constant consideration.
    Captain Pilkington: Has there not been inadequate Parliamentary representation?
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to his hon. and gallant Friend that he should resign his seat and come up to my constituency and fight there?

    Textile Machinery
    Commander Donaldsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the value of textile machinery exported has increased from £40,435,086 in the year 1950 to an amount of £50,446,766 in the year ended 31st December, 1952; and if he will give an assurance that our own textile industry will now have a prior claim on new machines in order that we may compete fairly in the world markets.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am, of course, aware of this welcome increase. While it has been accomplished, the time taken to deliver machinery to our own textile industry has shortened considerably, and there is no need for any special priority arrangement of the kind my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind.
    Commander Donaldson: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that there is reason for concern in the textile industry in that our machines are being exported to our competitors overseas to compete in dollar and other markets, thus leading them to operate that type of machine? Will he make sure our textile manufacturing plants will receive those machines?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that those hon. Members in all parts of the House who have textile machinery manufacturers in their constituencies will agree that they are able and willing to handle exports and the re-equipment of the home industry.
    Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind and tell his hon. and gallant Friend that there is widespread unemployment in the textile machinery industry now because countries are not able to purchase the exports of textile machinery? It is a very grave problem. So far from restricting exports, we want to increase them.

    Copyright Committee's Recommendations
    Mr. R. Robinsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made with the drafting of legislation to implement the Report of the Copyright Committee; what organisations he is consulting in this connection; and whether he has accepted the recommendation of the Committee that a standing tribunal should be established to decide disputes between collecting organisations controlling performing rights and would-be users of the works controlled.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The recommendations in the Report are being carefully considered, but I have no statement to make at this stage about legislation. No organisations have yet been consulted, but a number have commented on the Report. As my hon. Friend knows, the Copyright Committee did, of course, hear the views of the organisations concerned in the course of their inquiries.
    Mr. Robinson: Will my right hon. Friend say, then, if he expects to be able to announce any decision this year?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I would rather not tie myself down. It is a very large, complicated Report on an extremely complicated subject.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the claims of competing organisations in the field of musical copyright especially have been the source of embarrassment and confusion, and that a standing tribunal of the nature suggested would serve a very useful purpose?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will bear the point in mind.

    Anglo-Czechoslovak Trade Agreement
    Mr. W. R. A. Hudsonasked the President of the Board of Trade how far any payment of gold or dollars by this country is involved in the trade agreement recently concluded with Czechoslovakia.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Under the current trade and financial agreement with Czechoslovakia, which was signed on 28th September, 1949, and the schedules to which are reviewed annually, payment for imports from Czechoslovakia is made in sterling.
    Mr. W. R. A. Hudsonasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent, as a result of the trade agreement recently concluded with Czechoslovakia, supplies, not otherwise obtainable of sugar, fat and products containing these commodities are available to British manufacturers and consumers; and if he will abandon this method of supplementing supplies as soon as possible.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 20th January last to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) which explained the origin and purpose of the five-year Anglo-Czechoslovak Trade and Financial Agreement of 1949 and gave details of the quotas fixed for sugar/fat, fondant and confectionery for the year ending June, 1953. There is also a quota of 20,000 tons of sugar for the same period. The amounts of the quotas to be fixed for imports from Czechoslovakia for the year July, 1953, to June, 1954, will be determined in the light of the conditions prevailing at the time, including the policy on imports from other sources.
    Mr. Hudson: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that manufacturers and consumers alike desire less of these
    1102
    costly mixtures and more of the ingredients from which they are made, and would he represent that fact to the Minister of Food?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear the point in mind, but, of course, my hon. Friend will appreciate that in any agreement of this kind both sides probably accept some things which they would prefer to do without.

    Controlled Materials
    Mr. Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade how many materials or manufactured products cannot be purchased freely without a licence from, or the sponsorship of, his Department; whether he will give a list of such materials or manufactured products; and what is his policy towards the removal of such restrictions.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: A permit from the Board of Trade is at present required for the purchase of home-produced nylon yarn for the manufacture of nylon stockings, but this arrangement will terminate on 30th April. The purchase of six other materials for use by industries for whom the Board of Trade is the production Department is subject to licensing. I am circulating the details of these arrangements in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the last part of the Question, my policy on this, as on other matters, is to get rid of such restrictions as soon as conditions allow.
    Following are the details:
    The purchase of steel, softwood and controlled hardwood for use in production for which the Board of Trade is the sponsoring authority, is subject to licensing by the Board of Trade. By arrangement with the Ministry of Materials, the purchase in the United Kingdom of selenium and diatomaceous earth imported from dollar sources for use in Board of Trade industries is restricted to firms whose need is sponsored by the Board of Trade. The purchase of starch for use in Board of Trade industries is subject to licensing by the Ministry of Food against sponsorship by the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade how many orders issued by his Department are still operative which prohibit or limit the use of any material in the manufacture or construction of any article or structure; whether he will give a list of any such materials so affected; and what is his policy concerning the removal of such restrictions.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There is only one Order, namely, the Nickel Prohibited Uses (Board of Trade) Order, 1951 (S.I. 1049 of 1951): and the only materials affected are nickel and nickel alloys. As regards the last part of the Question, my policy is to remove the remaining restrictions under this Order as soon as I can; but, so long as there is a world shortage of nickel and supplies remain subject to international allocation, we must continue to exercise economy in its use and to concentrate on meeting the needs of defence and other essential industries.

    Food Imports
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage was the volume of total food imports during 1952 of the volume during 1951.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The volume of imports of food and drink in 1952 was 92 per cent. of that in 1951.

    Raw Cotton Imports (Review Committee)
    Mr. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement on the future policy of raw cotton importation and of his recent conversations with the trade organisations involved.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) on 5th March. I am glad to say that all the organisations which were represented on the Cotton Import Committee have agreed to be represented on the Review Committee. I am circulating the Members' names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the trade organisations involved were pleased and satisfied with the arrangements made?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The trade organisations involved, that is, the spinners, the merchants, and the trade unions, have all expressed their willingness to co-operate in finding an answer to some of the practical problems involved, and I should like to express my appreciation of their action in this matter.
    Mr. Rhodes: Will the right hon. Gentleman favourably consider giving the same facilities to the wool industry?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a Question on the wool industry, I should consider it.
    The following have accepted invitations from the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Materials to serve on the Cotton Import (Review) Committee:

    The Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Hopkins, G.C.B. (Chairman).

    Mr. Richard Brooks.

    Mr. E. W. Cockroft, O.B.E.

    Mr. G. Hasty.

    Mr. W. B. Hutchinson.

    Mr. A. J. Kentish-Barnes.

    Sir Ralph Lacey.

    Mr. A. Naesmith, C.B.E,. M.A., J.P.

    Mr. F. Napper.

    Mr. A. Roberts, C.B.E., J.P.

    Mr. C. Schofield, O.B.E., J.P.

    Sir E. Raymond Streat, C.B.E.

    Mr. A. V. Symons.

    Mr. W. T. Winterbottom, C.B.E.

    Mr. P. W. Carey of the Ministry of Materials and Mr. R. R. D. McIntosh of the Board of Trade have been appointed Joint Secretaries.

    China, Earthenware and Sanitary Ware
    Dr. Strossasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of all forms of china, earthenware and sanitary ware exported to Australia in the last quarters of 1951 and 1952; and what estimate he has made of recovery in these export figures in the near future.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Exports of china, earthenware and sanitary ware to Australia during the last quarters of 1951 and 1952 were valued at £1,063,000 and £169,000, respectively. It is not possible to make the estimate for which the hon. Member asks in the last part of the Question.
    Dr. Stross: Will the President bear in mind that exports of these commodities, certainly china and earthenware, to Australia require specific decorations to fulfil the particular type of demand? That being the case, it is difficult to re-export them to any other part of the world easily, and if the right hon. Gentleman can make representations to the Australian Government, will he please assure them that that is a further problem and difficulty of our manufacturers here?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I hope, of course, that the exports of these goods may benefit somewhat from the relaxations recently announced by the Australian Government.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether these articles are affected by the increase in tariffs in Australia announced a few days ago?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Not without notice.

    Flower Bulbs
    Mr. Alportasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the quota for the import of spring flower bulbs for the 1953–54 season has now been agreed, in view of the fact that growers must complete their contracts at an early date.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The arrangements for the import of flower bulbs for the year July, 1953, to June, 1954, are still under consideration, and I shall make an announcement as soon as I can.
    Mr. Alport: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious inconvenience and cost to growers if at a later date the total quota is below that expected, which means they must re-negotiate their contracts? Will he hasten an announcement of the quota this year?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will announce the quota as soon as I can, but discussions with the Dutch on trade for 1953 are not quite complete.
    Mr. T. Brown: May I stress the real urgency and importance of this matter, because already people are asking if they can put out quotations for flower bulbs for planting next spring or this autumn? It is very important that flower growers should understand what they may expect at a very early date.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the great importance of this industry, in view of the new developments in West Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, when making his decision?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I shall certainly bear these matters in mind.

    Unemployment, Caernarvonshire
    Mr. G. Robertsasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to check the rise in unemployment in South Caernarvonshire.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 17th December, 1952, about unemployment in the Lleyn area. We shall continue to do what we can to help; but I would in fairness remind the hon. Member that it is not easy to encourage new industries into the area. There is, of course, as he knows, a large seasonal element in the unemployment there.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unemployment problem in this area is now almost as bad as in pre-war days, and that we depend very largely on small but efficient engineering works, and that if he could help to take steps in those factories, by sub-contracts by Government agencies, an appreciable difference would be made? Would he look into that?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear in mind the points which the hon. Gentleman makes, but he will appreciate that there is a very large seasonal element in the situation in this particular area.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that his reply, referring my hon. Friend to his answer of last year, indicates that the Government have no constructive proposals to deal with the problem, and are we to assume that there is nothing at all different from last year in the Minister's approach?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that the hon. Gentleman adduces rather more than was implied by my answer.

    Filling Stations (Branded Petrol Supplies)
    Mr. J. Hyndasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the oil companies are boycotting new petrol-filling stations in Sheffield for which planning permission and building licences have been issued; and whether he will bring this to the notice of the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am aware that supplies of some brands of petrol are being withheld from some filling stations. I will bear this matter in mind in choosing matters for reference to the Monopolies Commission, and will certainly take note of any information which the hon. Member may care to send me about cases in Sheffield.
    Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that it is not only some petrol companies which are refusing some brands, but all petrol companies are refusing all brands to particular stations in order to set up a monopoly in a particular area after planning consent has been given, and will he consider the matter?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will give consideration to this matter in relation to any reference to the Monopolies Commission.

    Industrial Production
    Sir W. Smithersasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, taking 1948 as 100, industrial production in Germany is now 253 and in Britain only 119; and, in view of the fact that Britain is not, and cannot become, self-supporting and must export at world competitive prices or starve, what steps he is taking to improve this state of affairs.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The need for increased exports in the face of growing competition from other supplying countries is consistently stressed by myself and other members of Her Majesty's Government. I would add, however, that the figures quoted in my hon. Friend's Question are not really comparable; Germany's industrial production in 1948 was still at a far lower level than the United Kingdom, compared with pre-war.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will the President of the Board of Trade ask the B.B.C. to allow him to broadcast the truth of the facts to the nation before it is too late, and is he aware that if he has not the time to do that I will willingly deputise for him?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for 1938 and for last year?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Not from memory.
    Mr. Osborne: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House, if these figures are not comparable, what are the comparable figures between German production and British production for these years?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If my hon. Friend would like to put down a Question I will do my best to answer it. I do not carry all the production figures in my head.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that during the whole period of the Labour Government production went up and up and that since this Government have been in office it has been going down and down? Is he not further aware of the fact that the best thing he can do is to ask the Prime Minister to hand in the resignation of this Government?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is raising rather wider issues than those in the Question.

    Tariffs and Trade Agreement (Japan)
    Lieut.-Colonel Schofieldasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the admission of Japan to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will enable her to claim a right to most-favoured nation treatment, which was denied to her under the Japanese Peace Treaty; and if he will take this factor into account in opposing Japan's membership of the organisation.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It is, of course, true that, if we assume the obligations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade towards Japan, we shall assume an obligation to accord her most-favoured-nation treatment. But, as my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade indicated in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on 3rd March, the Inter-sessional Committee has suggested, in its recent report, certain provisions for permitting a suspension of obligations towards any country whose competition caused violent disruption of trade. No decisions have been made in this matter and, in considering these suggestions, we shall certainly take into account the points to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred.
    Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this right to deny the most-favoured-nation treatment to Japan is the United Kingdom's most powerful weapon against cut-throat Japanese competition and that there will be much misgiving in Lancashire if that weapon is thrown away?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: This raises large and complex questions of commercial policy. As I have said, no decisions have been made, but a report has been referred to the Governments concerned.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Of course we must protect ourselves against unfair Japanese production through the International Labour Organisation and in other ways, but will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we must hold out the hope of a prosperous future to the Japanese people if they are to remain a democratic and peaceful nation?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that it was the object of the Inter-sessional Committee to try to find, if possible, a compromise between those two views.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be a reasonable period during which the Japanese will be put to the test to see whether they are going to play fair in normal methods of trading?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have said that this report has only just been received and is still under consideration.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Whatever may be the truth about Japan, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is even more important to guarantee a prosperous future to Lancashire, and will he say what steps the Government are taking to prevent Japan seizing to its own advantage the trade with China, which the policy of the Government has prevented us from doing?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The Question refers to the specific recommendations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the interests of Lancashire are very close to my heart.

  FILM INDUSTRY

    Cinematograph Films Act (Registrations)
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade what changes he is contemplating asking Parliament to make in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, in the light of Mr. Justice Vaisey's judgment in the Monsoon case.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: None, Sir.
    Mr. Fletcher: May we take it from the answer that the right hon. Gentleman would regard the recent decision as applicable to the rather special facts of
    1110
    that case and that it will not be interpreted by the Board of Trade to exclude from the British quota certificate any genuinely made British films?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It certainly would not exclude any genuinely made British films. I think the judgment in that case was based on the facts of that case, which, as the hon. Member knows, were rather special.

    Production Fund (Continuance)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he will take to arrest the decline of the British film industry, in view of uncertainty about the future of the British Film Production Fund and declining attendances at cinemas.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion that there has been a decline in British film production.
    Mr. Swingler: Has not the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to the recent statement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the declining revenue from Entertainments Duty, which the Financial Secretary admitted was partly due to a decrease in attendances at the cinemas, and will he say whether he will enter into discussions now with the Chancellor about this aspect of the matter? Also, would he, perhaps, make an announcement about the quota and the Eady Levy?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Questions of revenue, of course, should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am happy to say that the forward bookings of films at present are looking healthier than they have for some time.
    Mr. O'Brienasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of the British Film Production Fund.
    Mr. Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the continuing uncertainty as to the future of the Eady scheme is having serious effects upon the forward prospects of British film production; and whether he is now able to say when a decision will be announced.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that support for British film production of the kind provided by the British Film Production Fund should continue after August, 1954, when the present scheme is due to end. I think it desirable that extension of the scheme for a period of at least three years should be achieved, if possible, by voluntary agreement within the industry. I hope that such agreement will be forthcoming; but I am convinced that the production of British films must be maintained by some such means, and, if need be, the Government will be prepared to seek powers to institute a statutory scheme.
    Mr. O'Brien: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful and welcome reply, may I ask him if he will undertake to secure a voluntary agreement between the various sections of the trade and impress upon those sections the need for such a voluntary agreement before he decides to embark on legislation?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Certainly I should very much prefer a voluntary agreement, but I have made this statement in order to give that assurance which, I think, is necessary to the production end that some such arrangements as the Eady Scheme will go on.
    Mr. Shepherd: As it is quite certain that some of the delays are due to the fact that there are negotiations going on with the Treasury about the Entertainments Duty, will my right hon. Friend co-operate with the Chancellor with a view to trying to ensure there is no delay after the notification of the Budget details?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I regard the continuation of the British Film Production Scheme as something quite separate from the question of the level of Entertainments Duty, which must be judged every year upon its merits.
    Mr. Gaitskell: While welcoming the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask if he is satisfied that three years is really long enough for this purpose? Will he, particularly if legislation is necessary, consider extending that to, say, five years, or even longer?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in
    1112
    mind, but I think in principle we agree that an adequate period of security in this matter should be laid down in advance, preferably by voluntary agreement.
    Mr. Swingler: As the negotiations for a voluntary agreement have been going on for some months, would the right hon. Gentleman say what is the principal obstacle which prevents a voluntary agreement being arrived at, since negotiations have been going on for more than six months?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think it would be helpful if I started to throw obstacles between the parties to a voluntary agreement. I think the best thing I can do is to encourage them to bring them to a head and offer any assistance that lies within my power.

    Quotas
    Mr. O'Brienasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now made a decision about the quota of British films to be shown by exhibitors during the year beginning 1st October, 1953.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir. After consulting the Cinematograph Films Council I have decided not to make any Order this year to amend the Cinematograph Films (Quotas) Amendment Order, 1950, but to leave the prescribed quotas at 30 per cent. for first feature films, and 25 per cent. for the supporting programme, for the exhibitors' quota year beginning 1st October, 1953.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. Benceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of post-war credits, standing in the names of deceased persons, has been paid out to-date to their next-of-kin;
    (2) how many holders of post-war credits have died before becoming eligible to draw their post-war credits.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Bence: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider paying out the post-war

    1113
    credits immediately on the decease of the holder, because it is quite possible that post-war credits may be held by the Treasury for decades and even centuries?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is an interesting question, but it is not this Question.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is the Financial Secretary aware that in many instances the wife of the deceased may be a little younger and left in dire circumstances and often dependent upon the family? Cannot there be a scheme whereby post-war credits can be paid to those families, if they find themselves in dire need?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put that question on the Order Paper.
    Sir Edward Keeling: Should not the figures asked for, at least in Question No. 29, be kept from now on, so as to show the unfairness of the present rule?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Without prejudice to the innuendo in that question, I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can the Minister state the actual reason for refusing any relaxation in this matter? Is it because the Government have not the money, or is it because of the fear of inflation? Will he tell us the actual position?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put down a Question on the subject, I shall be glad to answer it.
    Mr. Bence: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in framing his Budget, he will improve the conditions on which post-war credits are held, by enabling holders of these credits to secure repayment earlier than they can at present do so.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister not realise that unfavourable conditions were introduced after post-war credits were
    1114
    instituted and that is a breach of faith to the people who hold post-war credits? Does he not also realise that this is a matter which should be rectified, and will he take steps to rectify it in the interests of honesty and fair play?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While not accepting the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman that there was any breach of faith, I am bound to remind him that if there were, nothing was done to put that right during the six years of the previous Administration.
    Mr. Shinwell: Now that the hon. Gentleman has shown that he is not prepared to answer questions about the past and cannot answer questions about the future, will he say what he can answer?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman might recall that in my previous answer to a supplementary question I drew his attention and that of the House to the past of the previous Administration.

    Small Savings (Government Securities)
    Mr. Morleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider taking steps to issue Government securities with guaranteed purchasing power, with the amount of interest and capital repayment based on the cost of living, in order to encourage saving.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Morley: Will not the Financial Secretary agree that the continuing fall in the value of money has made the interest on post office deposits a negative quantity, and cannot he frame some sort of security to attract more savings which would guarantee the integrity of the capital value?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little out of date in the implication of his supplementary question. I would draw his attention to the fact that the cost-of-living index figure today is at the same level as it was last June.
    Sir H. Williams: Would the Minister consult the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) as to the kind of security to issue?

    Purchase Tax
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in his next Budget, he will endeavour to remove some of the anomalies of Purchase Tax, in accordance with the list of suggestions recently sent to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend will bear in mind my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestions.
    Brigadier Clarke: Will my hon. Friend use his best endeavours on the chance that Purchase Tax may also be removed from essential articles in every-day use?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have read my hon. and gallant Friend's letter on that subject.
    Miss Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up a committee of people in touch with the necessities of everyday life to advise him on the anomalies of Purchase Tax and the articles of common usage which should, to reduce the cost of living, be relieved of Purchase Tax.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Miss Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole matter is in complete chaos, and is it not about time that the Treasury got some people who really understood this Purchase Tax question?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So far as any anomalies which my hon. Friend may have in mind are concerned, I have never found that we have any lack of assistance on this subject both from the industries concerned and from hon. Members.
    Mr. Jay: Does not the hon. Lady realise——
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Miss Ward: Let him have his say.
    Mr. Jay: Does not the hon. Lady realise——
    Mr. Speaker: Questions have to be addressed to Ministers, not to hon. Members.

    Petrol (Tax)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in his next Budget, he will reduce or eliminate petrol tax on public transport as this is the main reason for the increase in fares.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the tax on petrol and diesel oil affects the cost of living, and will he try to do something about it?

    Scottish Timber (Credit Facilities)
    Mr. Spenceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will allow increased credit facilities to be available, if required, to carry out the financing and marketing of the abnormally large quantities of timber which will be processed in Scotland this year.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): The provision of credit is a matter for the banks, and I have no reason to doubt that all justifiable needs of credit for the marketing of timber this year will be met.

    Foreign Ships (Sterling Purchases)
    Sir E. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the prohibition of the expenditure of sterling by British travellers in foreign ships cannot be enforced in Italian ships which present to them wine lists that give prices in sterling but not in lire; and what steps he is taking to prevent this breach of British law by such travellers.
    Mr. Maudling: We cannot prevent foreign ships from offering prices in sterling. While I deprecate this practice, I do not agree that this makes it impossible for British travellers to comply with our exchange-control rules.
    Sir E. Keeling: Is my hon. Friend aware that these ships print two lists, one in sterling and one in lire, and not only do they induce British travellers to break the British law by showing them only the sterling list, but they also diddle them by converting lire to sterling at a too low rate of exchange and by not including the cheapest wines in the sterling list at all? They carry British mails.
    Mr. Maudling: I am glad that my hon. Friend's researches were sufficiently exhaustive to prevent his being diddled.

    Foreign Travel Allowance
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated cost to the Treasury would be, using the basis of the figures available for last year, if the foreign exchange allowance for United Kingdom tourists travelling outside the sterling area for the present year were increased to £35 per tourist.
    Mr. Maudling: I estimate that the additional cost in foreign exchange might be from £5 to £6 million in a full year.
    Mr. Lewis: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Government hope to make their announcement about the foreign exchange allowance for tourists?
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot add anything to the very full reply made by my right hon. Friend on 23rd February.
    Mr. Lewis: But that was not an answer at all. It was a complete evasion.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is our hope that when he next comes to make a statement on the subject he will do so in a better temper than he did last time?
    Mr. Maudling: I shall be glad to convey to my right hon. Friend any serious point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

    Crown Pieces (Minting)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the total cost of labour and materials used in minting the new crown pieces.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It would not be in the public interest to disclose the figure asked for by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is not that a really astonishing statement? How is it that this decision has suddenly been arrived at? Is it because we have discovered, after questioning, that it costs a halfpenny to make a farthing? What is the reason for the refusal to give the
    cost?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The reason is that the Royal Mint undertakes a considerable amount of work for foreign Governments in respect of which it has to tender against competition. It would
    1118
    obviously hinder it in its admirable activities as a trading concern doing work for foreign Governments if details of its costs had to be disclosed to its competitors.
    Mr. Paget: Is it a fact, therefore, that it mints crowns for foreign Governments—and, if so, which Governments—but does not mint farthings for foreign Governments, because we have been given the costs in that case?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will put that question down I shall be glad to answer it.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is this a change of policy, or has the Government's spokesman always refused to give the cost?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, but there are a number of precedents for refusing disclosure and, I think, only one, the farthing, for revealing the cost.
    Mr. Vane: Will my hon. Friend say whether he is likely to refer the activities of the Royal Mint to the Monopolies Commission?

    Government Departments (Amalgamation)
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated annual saving which will be effected by the extinction of the Ministry of Pensions.
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated saving in money and staff of the decision to combine the Ministry of National Insurance and the Ministry of Pensions, giving separate figures for 1953–54 and the first full year of the amalgamation.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on 2nd March.
    Mr. Simmons: Are we to understand that the Government have taken the decision while being entirely in the dark about the saving in staff and money? Before such an attack was made upon ex-Service men, surely there must have been good grounds for it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While not accepting the implication of the last part of the supplementary question, which is a

    1119
    very obverse fact, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the supplementary question was both asked of and answered by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Jay: Though it may not be surprising to find that the hon. Gentleman cannot answer the question, are we now to understand that the Treasury also does not know the figures?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to put that question to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the obvious reluctance of the Government to give any of these figures, are we to understand that, instead of there being a saving, there will be increased cost under this arrangement?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever is the amount of the financial saving compatible with an efficient service to the pensioner, it will be extremely welcome to the taxpayers? Is my hon. Friend also aware that the general body of taxpayers will welcome this measure as a precursor to the elimination of the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Materials?

    War Damage Payments
    Mr. Odeyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now settle all claims still outstanding for business chattels insured under Part II of the War Damage Act, 1943.
    Mr. M. Lindsayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he anticipates the commencement of payments under Part II of the War Damage Act, 1943.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) on 25th November last.
    Mr. Odey: Will the Financial Secretary bear in mind that hon. Members on this side of the House at any rate, and, I imagine, many hon. Members opposite, expect the Government to act in these matters according to the finest principles of human conduct, and that it is wrong to accept a premium and then not be prepared to pay claims?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend will, no doubt, be aware that out of an original total of £92 million, £67 million has already been paid.

    Tobacco Coupons (Personal Case)
    Mr. Padleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Mr. J. W. Henderson, 22, James Road, Blaengarw, was deprived of tobacco relief coupons for eight weeks when, through no fault of his own, the issue of his pension book was delayed.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I have already told the hon. Member, it is, I am afraid, not possible to issue tobacco duty relief coupons to a pensioner until he produces his pension order book at the Post Office.
    Mr. Padley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 13th February I received a letter from the Minister of National Insurance handsomely apologising to my constituent for the failure to issue the pension book? Is he aware that ordinary mortals find it difficult to understand why when one Ministry admits responsibility for failure to issue a pension book at the correct date, another Ministry, the Treasury, refuses to grant the concession decided upon by the House? Is there no method whereby the great brain power of the Civil Service can solve this relatively simple administrative problem?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have been into this matter, about which the hon. Gentleman was good enough to write to me. As I have already explained, the trouble is that it is necessary to produce the pension book for the coupons to be issued. That is an essential part of the scheme, which was introduced not by this Government but by their predecessors.
    Mr. Simmons: Is this a sample of the kind of treatment ex-Service men will get when the Ministries are amalgamated?
    Mr. Paget: When the Government have acknowledged that it was their fault that the man did not have the pension book, surely they can pay out 10s.?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. and learned Gentleman knew anything about the scheme, he would know that it involved not the paying out of 10s. but the issuing of a book of coupons.

    Tobacco Shredding Machines (Tax)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds shredding and pressing machines, used by amateur tobacco growers in the preparation of their cured leaf, have recently been made subject to Purchase Tax.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: These machines are taxed under Group 12 of the Eighth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1948. They have only recently been marketed on a commercial scale.
    Mr. Vane: Will my hon. Friend see whether this Purchase Tax can be reduced, and, further, will he look into the means whereby the amateur tobacco grower could save this country dollars; at the present moment he is operating under a set of rules which amount almost to persecution?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The marketing of these machines on the present commercial scale is itself an indication of the success of the concession to the amateur tobacco growers and an indication of the extent to which that concession is fully used.

    Dental Sticks (Tax)
    Miss Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in view of the removal of Purchase Tax from dental sticks in the interest of dental health, he refuses to remove tooth paste from the incidence of Purchase Tax on similar grounds.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend appears to have been misinformed. The tax applies to dental sticks at the same rate as it does to tooth paste.
    Miss Ward: I think my hon. Friend had better look at that again, because I saw the other day that dental sticks have been relieved of Purchase Tax, and I am delighted to know that tooth paste is going to be relieved of Purchase Tax. I thank my hon. Friend very much.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should hate to obtain my hon. Friend's gratitude by false pretences.
    Mr. Snow: When the hon. Gentleman is considering the removal of Purchase Tax on tooth paste, will he bear in mind the fraudulent claims of the so-called
    1122
    chlorophyl tooth paste and remember the current trade adage:
    "Look at the goat upon the hill.
    He is filled with chlorophyl,
    And he stinks like nobody's business"?

    East Coast Flood Losses (Compensation)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if, following consideration of the problem of the best procedure to deal with the financial situation of trading organisations where the losses caused by the recent floods exceed £5,000 and are not covered by insurance, he can yet make a statement to clarify the situation;
    (2) what compensation can be expected by householders and the business community where damage by the recent floods amounts to between £2,500 and £5,000 which is not covered by insurance.
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the Government will meet out of public funds claims for compensation from those who suffered damage or loss of houses, farms or business property in the recent East Coast floods where these cannot be covered by private insurance or the Lord Mayor's Fund.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the assistance, over and above their contribution to the Lord Mayor's Fund, which the Government will give to private persons who suffered damage in the recent storms.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer hon. and right hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) on 5th March, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Dodds: For a business-man's Government, is not this an astounding reply? Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that Parliament and the people accepted the Prime Minister's words, that the flood disaster losses would be a national responsibility? Does not the hon. Gentleman know that there are scores of business firms who are told to apply to the Lord Mayor's Fund for £2,500, and unless they get more than that they might as well go into liquidation? That promise must be honoured.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to consult the answer to which I have referred him——
    Mr. DoddsI have seen it.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:—he will see the magnificent degree to which my right hon. Friend's undertaking has been honoured.
    Mr. Dodds: What undertaking?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As regards the latter part of his question, if he will look at the statement that has been issued on behalf of the Lord Mayor——
    Mr. Dodds: I have got it here.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:—and the statements which from time to time have been made from this Box by my right hon. and learned Friend, he will see the massive contribution that has been made to those who have suffered from this disaster.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, and, if not, is the Prime Minister aware—because the Prime Minister made the original statement in very general terms asserting that the nation ought to accept responsibility in this matter—that many people are in grave financial positions over their bungalows and small houses and that a number of moderate-size business concerns are in grave difficulty? Ought not the Government to be more forthcoming in giving financial assistance in addition to the Lord Mayor's Fund, which is doing excellent work, and can the hon. Gentleman, or the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister's reputation is involved in this—say what they are really doing to live up to the right hon. Gentleman's specific promise that this would be boldly and courageously faced as a national responsibility?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I need only attempt to refer the right hon. Gentleman to some of the contributions that have been made with respect to rehabilitation of agricultural land, reconstruction of sea defences, emergency feeding, stopping the gaps, lodging payments and so on, and the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noticed the last sentence of the answer to which I referred his hon. Friend.
    Mr. Morrison: That does not answer the question. The Financial Secretary must not be as smart on the Treasury Bench as he was in Opposition. I want to know, apart from the point of the subjects to which the Government are contributing, whether the Government intend to live up to the undertaking that they would accept national responsibility for this matter, and are they coming to the point that they will give financial help to the extent that will inevitably enable the business man, manufacturers of moderate capital and people with houses to get going again, and whether they are going to stand by them in their hour of trouble.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter——
    Several Hon. Members: The Prime Minister.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The number of statements that have been made in this House by my right hon. Friends and by myself on different aspects of this matter seem to me to indicate that we are clearly carrying out my right hon. Friend's undertaking.
    Mr. Alport: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many other ways in which the Government can assist firms who are placed in a very difficult position, apart from direct financial aid, and will my hon. Friend consider any suggestions along these lines that may be put to him?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister bear in mind that it is the number of the statements that have been made about this matter that has led to confusion in the public mind, and that there is a considerable demand from individuals and organisations that have suffered heavy damage to know what is going to be done and what "national responsibility" in this sense really means?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate the force of what the hon. Gentleman says as to the number of statements. It may well be that it will be possible to coordinate them into a complete statement, and while I give no undertaking to do that, I will gladly look into it.
    Mr. Morrison: May I ask a question of the Prime Minister direct? Will he be so good as to make a statement as to

    1125
    what he meant in his original statement that the nation would boldly face up to a national responsibility?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): We were confronted with a grave national disaster and I certainly, in speaking on that Monday, had in mind that we should endeavour to face the physical effects in regard to restoration of land, reparation and repair of houses, safety of life and so forth. I was not at that moment contemplating the detailed processes which arise in making sure that in no circumstances had any person been liable, whatever their business, to loss in money from that event. I was dealing with the broad physical effects. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
    I do not say that the other does not require consideration, and great consideration is being given to it by the Lord Mayor's Fund, to which we give £ for £, and also in the very large sums of money which will fall upon the Treasury directly or through the local authorities, for all the great measures of repair and reconstruction. But this is certainly no time to slacken off the efforts to endeavour to mitigate the force of this blow upon individuals. We cannot undertake—I never intended in what I said to undertake—that the business affairs of every shop or company affected would be restored by the nation.
    Mr. Jay: Is there any reason why the Government should not say clearly that where private losses in houses, farms or businesses are not covered by private insurance or by the Lord Mayor's Fund, the Government will give compensation just as in the case of war damage?
    The Prime Minister: These matters should not be answered offhand across the Table. They require careful consideration. I am very doubtful whether, in the cases of other disasters which have fallen upon us, all indirect and consequential losses have been made good by the State.
    Mr. Jay: I asked the Home Secretary that question three weeks ago and he asked me to wait and give the Government time to think it over. The three weeks have now passed.
    The Prime Minister: They have not been sterile. I have not participated in the detailed discussions. Perhaps a
    1126
    Question addressed to the Home Secretary would show to the right hon. Gentleman exactly how the matter stands.
    Mr. Hare: In view of the considerable concern which is obviously felt on both sides of the House, I would like the Financial Secretary to give an undertaking that he will make a complete statement—or his right hon. Friend—just to show us what the real position is. If we could have that, it would perhaps be more possible for the Financial Secretary to consider the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport).
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that it would fall to me to make such a general statement as my hon. Friend has been good enough to suggest, but we will certainly consider whether it would not be advantageous for this to be done by one of my right hon. Friends.
    Mr. Morrison: In view of the Prime Minister's statement of 2nd February, namely:
    "It is not yet possible to measure the magnitude of the loss either in life or in material, but it is clear that the catastrophe is one which will require to be treated upon a national basis and broadly, as a national responsibility."—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1951; Vol. 510, c. 1483.]
    and in view of the ambiguity of the situation and the grave anxiety and possible suffering of many people of middling or modest means, I must give notice that we must ask the Government to provide facilities for a debate in order that the matter may be cleared up.
    Several Hon. Members——
    Mr. Speaker: We are to have a debate on the matter.

  HUNGARY (MR. SANDERS)
  Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the offer made by the Hungarian Government in regard to the release of Mr. Sanders.
  The Prime Minister: Since my statement in reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question on 2nd of March, the Sultan of Perak has commuted the death sentence on Lee Meng to one of life imprisonment.

  1127
  I am, however, not yet able to make a statement with regard to the Hungarian Government's offer in this matter.
  Mr. Davies: I take it from the Prime Minister's reply that he stands by the answer he gave to a supplementary question last week, in which he said that once the capital sentence had been resolved, then it did not exclude further consideration of this matter, and does that mean that the principle of exchange in this case has not been entirely rejected?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that certainly is the fact.

  ELECTORAL REFORM
  Mr. G. Thomasasked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the Cardiff and District Women's Liberal Association concerning their resolution sent to him on the need for electoral reform.
  The Prime Minister: An acknowledgment was sent to the letter to which the hon. Member refers, and I have noted its contents. I have no statement to make on the subject of electoral reform at present.
  Mr. Thomas: Is the Prime Minister aware that these ladies are not at all satisfied with the Prime Minister's reply; that they have expressed their very great disappointment of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government; and may I ask if he has now said his last word on this subject?
  Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Prime Minister, as an old member of the Liberal Party, if he will get together with the very promising recruit to the principle of electoral reform, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), to see if together they cannot send a joint and more favourable answer to these excellent ladies?
  The Prime Minister: I had the opportunity and advantage of receiving a deputation some time ago, but no definite results were arrived at as a result of those discussions. I am bound to say that I fear that a Measure dealing with this subject would not receive any very marked support from any part of the present House of Commons.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he was a Member of the Liberal Government the Government were not in favour of Proportional Representation, or at any rate they did nothing about it? Is he also aware that when he was Leader of the Opposition he urged very strongly upon the Labour Government that we should appoint a Select Committee of inquiry? It is true we rejected the proposal, but, now that the right hon. Gentleman is in power, is he going to appoint a Select Committee of inquiry and can he say whether or not the Conservative Party is in favour of some form of Proportional Representation or the alternative vote?
  The Prime Minister: I really might retaliate by asking those questions in almost exactly the same words of the right hon. Gentleman.

KENYA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (MEMBER'S ARREST)
Mr. Fenner Brockway: I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, concerning a matter of which I have given you notice, although I may have made it rather short, and on which I have given the Secretary of State for the Colonies notice, which I am afraid was even shorter. It is whether the arrest and detention, without charge, of a member of the Colonial Legislature set up by this House and without full self-government is a matter coming within the cognisance of this House as a breach of Privilege?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was good enough to give me notice, which was rather short, but was quite long enough for me to determine that no possible question of the Privileges of this House could arise from the circumstances which he is postulating.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: Accepting that reply, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"the arrest without charge and detention of Mr. Fanuel Odede, a member of the Legislative Council of Kenya."
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"the arrest without charge and detention of Mr. Fanuel Odede, a member of the Legislative Council of Kenya."
I regret to say that this matter does not fall within the Standing Order. It has been done by due process of law, and I cannot myself make it agree with the terms of the Standing Order.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: May I put this point to you, Sir? Mr. Odede is a nominated African Member of the Kenya Legislative Council. He has been detained without any charge and without any prospect of trial. Is it not a matter of urgent importance that a member of a Colonial Legislature is placed in that position and that the matter should be discussed by his House?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that this man has been detained under powers possessed by the Governor to deal with the emergency. Even in our own case, where an hon. Member of this House was detained under similar emergency legislation during the war, it was held to be outside the Standing Order. I could not possibly ask the House to proceed to a debate on this matter without violating all the precedents.
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask, through you, Sir, if in view of the circumstances of this case——
The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you not given a definite Ruling in this matter, and is it not contrary to the procedure of the House that matters of this kind, under this rule, on which a definite Ruling is given by the Speaker, are subject subsequently to interrogation and debate?
Mr. Speaker: That is perfectly true, but I did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman was rising to debate the matter.
Mr. Griffiths: If the Prime Minister had waited for a minute, he would have heard that I was not challenging your Ruling, Sir, but was asking whether, in view of the importance of the matter, he would take an early opportunity to make a statement.
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. What the right hon. Gentleman asked was whether the Colonial Secretary will take an early opportunity of making a statement on the matter, and I think that is a matter for him.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  IRON AND STEEL BILL
  As amended (in Committee and on re-committal) further considered.
  IRON AND STEEL BILL

    Clause 3.—(SUPERVISION OF IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY BY BOARD.)
    3.43 p.m.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, after "conditions," to insert "and the equitable distribution."
    I feel sure that this Amendment will commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman on two simple grounds. It is both logical and advisable for practical reasons. Let me first deal with the good sense or the logic of the matter in general. The Clause as drafted provides that when the Iron and Steel Board discharge their paramount duty under the Bill of exercising a general supervision of the iron and steel industry they have to do so with the view to promoting the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products. There follow certain particular instances of the matters that they have to keep under review including, for instance, the arrangements for procuring and distributing raw materials and fuel for use in the iron and steel industry and, a very important matter and one with which another Clause of the Bill is concerned, the prices charged for iron and steel products.
    "Supply" is, of course, a slightly ambiguous word but, as used in this context, we ought at least to make it clear which of the two possible meanings it has. Does it, as I understand it to do, refer to production and production only, or does it refer both to production and or distribution? The reason I take it to refer to production is that the words that go with it seem more appropriate to production than to distribution, and, of course, it is possible for the Board to endeavour to promote an efficient, economic and adequate production and, at the same time, to neglect, because they are not enjoined to regard, the distribution of what is produced.
    I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary will agree at once that any such review of
    1132
    the iron and steel industry would necessarily be quite incomplete because, put broadly, what we are concerned with, and what the Board are concerned with, is the national interest. For that purpose we do not merely want an adequate supply, we do not merely require that, in order to make the industry efficient, its product should be adequately and economically produced but that, when produced, it gets round to those who need iron and steel. This is an industry which is producing what I could roughly call a primary product, one the vital importance of which both sides of the House are very well aware.
    Clearly, it verges on the ridiculous, if the Board are to be efficient guardians of the national interest even within this very limited sphere of review, to set the Board only to look at production without, at the same time, considering distribution. When we get to distribution, what is it that we want? The words "efficient," "economic" and the rest, become rather inappropriate. What I hope we want on both sides of the House is obvious, namely, that when the product is there it should be distributed equitably among those who need it.
    It has to be borne in mind that there are reasons for putting a decision of this sort expressly into the Bill and I need take only two of them. The first is that during what one might call the transition period, when the organs set up by this Bill, particularly the Holding and Realisation Agency, will be engaged in selling off the securities of the iron and steel companies to anyone who will buy them—let us hope on suitable terms—there will be in the industry certainly a public sector and, unless the hopes of the Minister are to be completely frustrated, at any rate some private sector.
    I want to see that there is a fair deal as between the public and the private sector and we have to remember that the Board themselves, though they will no doubt be composed of excellent and well-meaning people, are not yet quite known. The character of the Board will have to depend to some extent on the very functions they have to perform, and it is all the more essential that those should not be left to the better judgment of the Board, or to some vague phrase of that sort, but that it should be stated quite clearly in the Bill that a fair deal is required.

    1133
    I have given the instance of a fair deal between the public and private sectors of the industry. Perhaps that is the most obvious example. There is another situation which will continue, even if the Government and the organs which are established under the Bill succeed in disposing of the whole or virtually the whole of the iron and steel industry back to private hands. This is an industry which to varying degrees has large vertical concerns—and by "vertical concerns" I do not necessarily mean concerns which are capable of standing up, because some of these concerns have not always been very good at that; but I mean vertical in the sense that they run from the earliest raw material through the various stages to the completely finished article.
    If the industry were entirely composed of equal vertical concerns, the point which I am about to mention need not bother us so much, but, in practice, we find that some concerns run right from the raw material to the finished product, others stop halfway and others begin halfway. The point which I have in mind affects the position of the concern which begins halfway.
    Let me take one instance. I do not claim for a moment to be an expert in this industry—I have no more than a general knowledge of it—but one instance which occurs to me is that of wire which is, I suppose, a halfway product towards wire netting and things of that sort—all the products which are used so widely and are of considerable importance to agriculture. I understand that there are some concerns which stop at the wire itself and others which go right on to the wire netting or whatever the final product made with the wire may be. I understand, too, that there has been some discussion and difference of opinion——
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Is it not a fact that wire is not contained in or referred to in any part of the Bill?
    Mr. Mitchison: I should have thought that wire made out of steel was an iron and steel product. It does not matter for my purpose, however, whether we take the example of wire or of anything else. I took an instance. If the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) or the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister take another example, that does not matter. This is a question of principle. The position is perfectly plain.
    1134
    There are some concerns which go halfway towards the finished product, others which begin halfway towards the finished product and others, again, which carry on all the processes right from the raw material to the finished product.
    What we want to ensure is that the concern which carries its operations right through from the raw material to the finished product does not, by virtue of so doing, get an undue and unfair preference over those other concerns which, as it were, come in halfway, and take a product from halfway through to the complete stage. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should be at all touchy on this matter. Indeed, I hope the intervention of the hon. Member for Kidderminster was an isolated instance. Surely we are all concerned to see that there should be an equitable distribution of these iron and steel products at every stage. It is obvious that if one concern carries through all the stages of manufacture, it is in a position to give itself, or perhaps one of its subsidiaries, a preference in the distribution of the semi-finished article which may be both inequitable and most inadvisable in the national interest.
    I hope that the Minister will feel with me that in a matter of this sort, in defining the paramount duty of the Board, to leave out all mention of distribution, equitable or otherwise, is to put on the Board a wholly artificial field of review and to prevent them, if they keep strictly to that limitation, from doing what we mean them to do—review the iron and steel industry in the national interest, including, of course, the interests of both producer and consumer. I will not go as far as the Co-operative movement, which is reported to have brought out a journal called "The Producer" with which is incorporated "The Consumer." That would perhaps be a little artificial in this trade, but it is clear that any comprehensive review of the industry will be quite impossible if it is confined to supply and if distribution is omitted. Obviously, distribution must be equitable.
    I commend these simple words to the Minister and I hope he will accept them as one of the obvious improvements in the Bill which are so frequently contributed by the Opposition and, I am bound to say, so frequently accepted afterwards by the right hon. Gentleman. I notice that he sometimes takes a little time about

    1135
    it, and if he wants to think this Amendment over we should have no objection provided that he accepted the principle.
    Mr. Jack Jones: I beg to second the Amendment.
    What we seek to do is very simple—to make sure that the consumers of steel get a fair and equitable share of the steel products of the country. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has suggested that they can well look after themselves, but they would have been in a sorry mess in the last 10 years if they had been left to look after themselves without a scheme of equitable distribution and licensing. We should have had the little men having to go without supplies, which would throw their work people out of employment.
    Mr. Nabarro: Does the hon. Gentleman envisage conditions of scarcity in steel supplies and the need for rationing and allocation systems for ever? Is that his belief?
    Mr. Jones: One never can tell. My father, who was in the industry before me, never envisaged that there would be scarcity in the last 10 years, but there has been scarcity and there is scarcity today.
    Mr. Nabarro: There was a war.
    Mr. Jones: Of course there was a war, and the hon. Member for Kidderminster has no right to assume that he can dictate whether or not there will be another war. If it were left to him to decide whether there should be a political war, there would be one in the House every afternoon. We will leave it at that.
    I suggest that the Minister can easily accept the Amendment. We are simple people on this side of the House and what we have in mind here is the idea of making certain that, in the event of war or extraordinary circumstances, an equitable amount of steel will continue to be supplied to those who need it. I know of firms in this country who have extremely big interests in finished products. Take Dorman Long, for instance. That great firm in Middlesbrough may receive a huge order for the erection of a bridge, as they have in the past and as, I hope, they will in the future, and if that big firm had a big demand thrown upon their own rolling and production resources, they could easily look after their own
    1136
    those consumers who, in normal times, receive a fair amount of sectional steel from Dorman Long.
    Take the case of the Manchester Steel Corporation, for whom I had the privilege and honour to work for over 30 years. They make about one-third of the country's supply of wire—and I hope the hon. Member for Kidderminster will not again try to suggest that wire is not steel and is not included in the Bill. Any steel which is reduced in its cross-section by rolling or re-rolling, by hot or cold methods, is in the Schedule. Wire is produced that way, and if the hon. Member for Kidderminster is trying to make me think that it is not, I will show him 3,000 tons a week being made near where I live.
    Supposing that firm had a time of boom and peak demand for wire netting, pit ropes and other wire products, they could easily forget, for the time being, the interests of persons upon whose demand they rely in normal times. We suggest that the persons to whom we turn in normal times should be looked after in the abnormal periods.
    4.0 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) knows something about wire in its billet form before it is turned into wire by the firm with which he is acquainted. He knows that there are times when the people so engaged are driven into seeking billets abroad because of the abnormal demand throughout the world. We suggest that firms of that description should have a continuance of distribution of the resources available in this country. That is all we ask today—that the little man should have at all times a fair share.
    All we are asking is that the Board, among their multifarious duties, should see that there is equitable distribution of the steel, no more and no less. That is a very simple and decent thing to do. The party opposite claim to be the party of the little businessman, but apparently they are in difficulty in getting a provision in the Bill which will give that assurance to the small businessman.
    We also have in mind the public utilities. It is no good, in war-time, making shell steel without, at the same time, being able to ensure that British Railways get the steel for the tracks on which to

    1137
    carry those shells. They need practically the same kind of steel, high manganese steel. We also have to ensure that the National Coal Board have steel for mine arches in order to get the coal on which we depend. Without this provision they might be denied the right to get those mine arches. It is no use putting all our steel into manganese steel for tank tracks if we do not also see that the farming community get sufficient steel for tractors. We are asking for fair shares for all—our election pledge—including fair shares of steel.
    Mr. Nabarro: I hope that my right hon. Friend will oppose this Amendment and that the House will decisively reject it. There is nothing odious or prejudicial to the public interest in the process of vertical combination in industry. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) seemed to find something immoral in the process of a primary producer arranging through a suitable firm of distributors or stockists to sell his particular products or in the purpose of a vertical combination of a primary producer using a manufacturing business which is a subsidiary or allied in some other way to the primary producing business, as an outlet for the sales of steel products or manufactured goods.
    I cannot believe that anything connected with equitable distribution could conflict with vertical combination; the two things are entirely separate and different. The hon. and learned Member referred to it as a process of vertical arrangements, but no doubt he meant combination. In our long industrial history it has often been proved that costs can be reduced, distribution can be improved and a better service can be given to the consumer by that very process of vertical combination.
    Mr. Mitchison: I never accuse anyone, not even a vertical trust, nor the hon. Member, of immorality. I merely ask for equitable distribution.
    Mr. Nabarro: If the case of the hon. and learned Member rested only on equitable distribution there was no need for him to introduce the question of vertical arrangements in industry.
    Let us come back to the crux of the question. I believe that the gulf between us is exactly the same as that which was
    1138
    between us a few weeks ago on the question of consumers' consultative councils for the steel industry. Hon. Members opposite envisaged that forever and a day we must have restrictionism and rationing of steel and steel products.
    I and other hon. Members on this side of the House believe that we are moving into a period when the supply of steel and steel products will at least equal demand, if it will not exceed it. The indication, as each month passes and steel production steadily increases, is that, with the notable exception of one or two specialised products such as plates for shipbuilding and sheets for motorcar bodies, and so on, there will be a matching, a balance, between the supply of steel products and the demand for them. In those circumstances, we shall probably re-enter what in pre-war days we were pleased to call a free market. In a free market there is no need at all to have statutory control or limitation over the distribution of steel and steel products. [Laughter.]
    The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) laughs. Has he never used the services of a steel stockist, a steel merchant, a steel distributor or a factor such as have been created in many different forms up and down the country precisely to serve the small businesses to which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) referred? It is those stockists, factors, distributors and merchants who, in a free market, afford a ready and efficient service to consumers of steel in industry and those firms which are not sufficiently large to buy their steel supplies direct from the manufacturers.
    There might be a case in time of continuing shortage, if indeed there is any period of such shortage still remaining, for a steel allocation scheme to be continued. If that case were made out it would be the duty of the Minister of Supply to operate the scheme. It should not be the duty of the Board to operate it. Hon. Members opposite are suggesting that duties at present vested in the Minister in the steel allocation scheme should, in future, be delegated to the Board themselves——
    Mr. Mitchison: No.
    Mr. Nabarro: The hon. and learned Member says "No." His Amendment

    1139
    seeks to insert the words, "and the equitable distribution." He seeks to make that one of the functions of the Iron and Steel Board; there cannot be any doubt about that.
    Mr. Mitchison: With respect, I must teach the hon. Member a little grammar. "Equitable distribution" are, respectively, an adjective and a noun and the verb is "supervise."
    Mr. Nabarro: But there is no mention of the word "supervise." The Amendment is to insert after the word "conditions" the words, "and the equitable distribution." That is the function of the Board. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on."] The title of the Clause is:
    "Supervision of iron and steel industry by Board."
    What hon. Members opposite are seeking to do is to make the Board responsible for a function which is currently vested in the Minister of Supply. For all these reasons I hope that my right hon. Friend will recognise the fact that we are moving into a free market and into a period when supply will match demand for steel and steel products—that we are moving towards our Conservative goal of freedom in distribution of iron and steel and that this Amendment is, therefore, rendered wholly unnecessary.
    Mr. Eric Johnson: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) alluded to a firm of which I have some knowledge. I do not think I need to declare an interest, because I am not a director. It is true that rod rollers, in particular, are very uneasy about the supplies of their raw material. I think it right for me to say that the billets supply position has not improved since the industry was nationalised. Whether the supply came from abroad or elsewhere it was easier before the war.
    We feel serious concern about this matter which applies not only to the smaller firms who operate through a merchant, but to the larger firms who buy steel in considerable quantities. Such firms welcome the Bill, particularly Clauses 3 and 4. I hope my right hon. Friend will assure the House that the point raised in this Amendment is met so far as supplies are concerned by
    1140
    the words, "adequate supplies" in line 41 of the Clause, and that on those grounds the Amendment is unnecessary.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) seemed to indicate that the word "supply" as it is used in Clause 3 was ambiguous. As a result of this debate it is apparent that there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the word "distribution" as well. At an earlier stage we discussed the word "supply." During our debate on marketing arrangements I pointed out that the word meant not only production but also sale and marketing.
    In so far as the word "distribution" may be intended to cover the selling and marketing of iron and steel products, we are advised that all the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) are covered by the Bill as at present drafted. The Board's duty already extends to the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products under competitive conditions and, therefore, covers their distribution by the industry. The Board will be concerned with the general marketing arrangements of the industry to small, large and medium-sized consumers. If there are restrictive agreements or practices in operation, whereby producers discriminate unfairly against consumers, the Board would take note of them and use their influence to bring them to an end. In the last resort they would report to the Minister.
    4.15 p.m.
    I gather from what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, and even more so from the remarks of the hon. Member for Rotherham, that what they were driving at was allocation in times of shortage—which is quite a different matter from distribution. We have quite deliberately, for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), not included those matters in the duties of the Board. In our opinion, responsibility for allocation in times of shortage is a matter for the Government who alone are qualified to judge between the conflicting claims of various iron and steel using industries.

    1141
    Hon. Members opposite referred from time to time to distribution being in the national interest. But the House will have clearly in mind the difference we have drawn between the responsibilities of the Board under the Bill and the responsibilities of the Government. My right hon. Friend has on a number of occasions indicated that the national interest is the responsibility of the Government, and so is the allocation of iron and steel products in times of shortage.
    I have little to add to what was said on this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster. But I would refer to one point made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, who talked of a fair deal between the public and the private sector of industry in what he called the transitional period. I think that what he meant was a fair deal in raw materials. I cannot think he meant in finished iron and steel. Though we should be wrong to assume there will always be a shortage of iron and steel, in so far as we are referring to finished steel, that is a matter for the Government. The raw materials aspect is covered by the present Clause 10: the hon. and learned Member will recall our discussion in Committee on the Amendment to insert similar words when I pointed out that in our opinion the words "satisfactory arrangement" covered all those matters.
    Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will deal with what I tried hard to make clear; that is, the question of the supply of products half-way down the chain. I was not talking about raw materials or finished products, but things half-way from the raw material to the finished product. May I also ask him to tell me—if "supply" includes production, or, at any rate, some production—why it is that the word "equitable" is not put before "supply"?
    Mr. Low: I will deal with the last question first, because I was coming to the point about "equitable."
    The duties of the Board which cover efficient, economic and adequate supply under competitive conditions surely extend to seeing that the distribution is efficient, economic and competitive; which amounts to seeing that the consumer has the choice of buying what he
    1142
    wants. That covers the idea behind the use of the word "equitable" by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If what he wants to see is the pattern of the distribution of iron and steel on this particular day frozen once and for all—I cannot believe that is what he is attempting to say—he will want something else. But I think he will be satisfied if the supply is adequate and about that I can satisfy him. It is only when there is a shortage that the danger of inequity or unfairness arises.
    Mr. John Hynd Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe) rose——
    Mr. Low: I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to finish this part of my argument. The hon. Member for Rotherham is agreeing with me at the moment. I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) does not agree, but I should like to finish the argument.
    In times of shortage the national interest may require allocation in a way which is not equitable. For example, the allocation schemes that the right hon. Gentleman administered, and even the scheme which is in operation now, could be said to be inequitable between one man and another if we consider merely the interests of the individual. Allocation in the national interest is not necessarily equitable. In our opinion the word "equitable" would not be rightly introduced into a Clause like this even if we intended that the Board should be responsible for allocation. We think that responsibility for allocation in time of shortage is for the Government and not for the Board.
    Mr. Hynd: Does the hon. Gentleman really mean to say that when supplies are adequate distribution must necessarily be equitable? Does he not know that in industry there are restrictive practices and that there have been restrictive practices in the iron and steel industry? Does he not know that there have been boycotts of certain firms in connection with certain material and that such an instance was referred to in the House today in reference to another industry?
    Mr. Low: The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten something I have said earlier. I said that as the Bill is now drafted if there are restrictive agreements

    1143
    or practices in operation whereby producers discriminate unfairly against one or more consumers, the Board should use their influence to bring them to an end. If need be in the last resort they should report to the Minister so that action may be taken under other legislation, under the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act.
    My explanation has been rather diffuse owing to the number of points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I hope that I have covered all the arguments. I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) in his short but relevant speech on a special problem which concerns a firm about which he knows. If there is an adequate supply, the problem raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering will not arise.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: We do not propose to divide the House on this Amendment, as we are short of time. We are not in any way satisfied with the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary. On this occasion his answer was less precise and, to use a word which he used himself, more diffuse than usual. He realised that the answer he gave was most unsatisfactory and that we have a strong case.
    The hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), who has practical experience, appreciated that we were talking about something of great importance. We are surprised that the Government have refused to accept this Amendment, which would have had the effect of helping the small men against the big concerns, those primary producers who have their own subsidiaries and which take up all the semi-finished products temporarily in short supply.
    The hon. Gentleman's answer was divided into two parts. He said that our point was covered because the words "adequate supply" mean equitable distribution. We do not agree. There may be adequate supply of certain products, but to suggest that the Board will regard it as a duty to see that they are equitably distributed is another matter. If the Government have in mind the desirability of giving to the Board some authority for seeing that there shall be fair distribution of the products and semi-finished
    1144
    products between the various claimants that should be stated clearly in the Bill.
    Then the Parliamentary Secretary came to the other leg of his argument, where he was on very weak ground. He said that if there was a shortage it was the duty of the Government to allocate. He said it must be the duty of the Government and not of the Board. The hon. Gentleman does not realise that there may be two types of shortage. There may be an overall shortage, in which case the Government would introduce an allocation scheme. But there may be a shortage which would not justify the introduction of an allocation scheme with all the difficulties, troubles, worries and red tape that inevitably go with it. There may be a shortage of certain products only. When that happened, as it did frequently before the allocation scheme came into operation, the old Forbes Board, if they had a complaint from an independent producer or consumer of a product, ensured that those interested got fair shares.
    For instance, the producers of wire—and there are only a few—should not hog the whole lot for themselves for use in their subsidiaries. It was the duty of the Forbes Board to ensure fair shares and to see that wire went to the independents. I see no reason why the
    Government should say that that duty should not go to this new Board. I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that when I introduced the 1949 Bill the Conservative Opposition urged that there should be special provision to ensure that the products of the industry were equitably distributed and that the independent producer should get his fair share. I accepted an Amendment to provide that the Corporation should ensure equitable distribution of iron and steel products. That was done to protect the independent producer outside the Corporation. That provision was put in at the suggestion of the Conservative Party.
    We say that a similar provision should be inserted in this Bill to protect the independent producer. We are surprised that the Government have not taken the opportunity to give to the Board this responsibility, the need for which may never arise. But knowing how unpredictable the future is and how iron and steel products can become short at any time, we thought that such a provision

    1145
    was necessary. We regret that the Government are unwilling to accept our Amendment.
    Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: The Parliamentary Secretary gave a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) which, though I do not think he intended it, was misleading and unsatisfactory. He said that if there were restrictive practices the Minister could take action through the Monopolies Commission. But that is quite useless in this sense. Apart from the fact that the Commission can have a long inquiry, they can do nothing more than report on the result of the inquiry. They can take no action whatever. As far as I can see, the only effective step which could be taken would be through some Bill which would have to be presented to Parliament. Therefore, the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary is not satisfactory. The action he mentioned would merely result in delay and would be ineffectual.
    Amendment negatived.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. John Freeman: I beg to move, in page 4, line 36, at the end, to insert:
    (2) The Minister may at any time give to the Board any such directions as to the performance of their duty under the preceding subsection as he shall think fit in the national interest.
    The effect of this Amendment is to provide that at the end of the first subsection of Clause 3, which lays down the general duties of the Board, the Minister shall have the power to give the Board directions in the national interest. This Amendment, in exactly the same form, was discussed in Committee, and I take it that the reason for reverting at a later stage to a matter which has already been discussed is that the Opposition either consider the matter to be one of some certain importance or that it is desirable to revert to the matter once again after the Opposition have had time to consider the arguments which the Government adduced at an earlier stage. In this case, both those arguments apply.
    This is an Amendment of great importance and of principle. It is also an Amendment which it is desirable the House should look at again in the light of the arguments which hon. Members
    1146
    opposite brought to bear during the Committee stage. Clause 3 establishes the general duties of the Iron and Steel Board, and very vague they are. The expressions used are "exercise a general supervision," "in particular to keep under review," and so on. Apart from certain specific tasks which are laid on the Board by other Clauses of this Bill, Clause 3 (1) relates to the whole of the duty which is placed on the Board. The Board do not really exist apart from this subsection and apart from the three Clauses 5, 7 and 10, which lay upon them certain narrowly defined specific duties.
    Clause 5 relates to the matter of sanctioning additional production facilities, Clause 7 to the matter of price fixing, and Clause 10 to the power to import raw materials. Those three Clauses place duties upon this Board but they define them with absolute precision and within narrow limits. Apart from those three Clauses, Clause 3 (1) is the whole stuff and substance of this Board.
    We are asking that the Minister should give to the Board directions in the national interest. We on this side of the House have never concealed—I myself stated it specifically on the Second Reading of the Bill—that we consider this Clause, and indeed the Iron and Steel Bill as a conception, to be little more than a sham. Our suspicions in that direction are confirmed by the way in which the Government, both in Committee and, so far, on Report, have treated a series of Amendments designed to strengthen Clause 3 and to give some effective teeth to the Board.
    The last time we discussed the Bill we dealt with the addition to this Clause of the duty of the Board to control these matters instead of merely to supervise them. The attitude of the Government in inviting the hon. Members to reject that Amendment went some way to confirm us in our view that this is all a deliberate put-up job to deceive the public about the nature of this Bill and the competence of the Board which it is setting up. It may be said—and I do not deny it—that to erect that superstructure of argument on the foundation that the Government have given us unsound reasoning. If that is said, at least the matter can be put to the test here.

    1147
    This is an Amendment the acceptance or rejection of which, I submit, precisely puts to the test the question whether or not the Government mean anything by Clause 3. It surely cannot be denied that the field within which the Board are to operate under Clause 3 is one which touches the public interest. Let any hon. Member who doubts that look at what the Board are asked in general terms to supervise and keep under review in Clause 3 (1). It goes right to the heart of public interest where the steel industry is concerned.
    We have already been told by the Government again and again, and even this afternoon by implication on the last Amendment, that they themselves must be the judge of the public interest; that the public interest can, in fact, only be determined by the Government. Where does that take us? Surely it means this: either the Board—which, if they are to operate within the terms of Clause 3 at all, must be touching the public interest—does not operate, or else the Government must be in a position to determine what the public interest is so far as the Board's operations under Clause 3 are concerned. That means that the Government must have the power of direction. I submit that that is sound logic, and it is an absolutely precise test.
    If Clause 3 means anything at all, if the Government's assertion that they must be the judge of the public interest means anything at all, the Government must have the power of direction over the general duties of the Board as set out in Clause 3. At present, if this Amendment is not accepted, apart from the special powers which the Board derives from the other three Clauses to which I have already referred, the Board exist in a vacuum. They cannot impose their purpose on the industry and the Minister, on the other hand, cannot direct their course.
    We are asked to suppose, both in the arguments at the Dispatch Box and in public propaganda from the Central Office, that this is making industry publicly answerable. Can the Minister be surprised that we reply by saying that it is nothing but a sham? The arguments which, at an earlier stage of the Bill, were brought against an Amendment in this sense are worth looking at.
    1148
    Owing, I suppose, to the pressure of time, only two hon. Members opposite addressed themselves to this question; but I do not think we need assume that the Opposition's case was in any way weakened by that, because the two hon. Members concerned were the Minister himself and the commissar from Steel House who sits behind him, the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones). I reckon that if we hear those two Members we hear the substance of the case which the steel interests are trying to develop against our Amendment.
    Let us look at what they said. The hon. Member for Hall Green developed three points only. He said, first of all, that direction is not necessary because advice is enough. I quote his words:
    "It is my experience that when a Minister gives guidance of this kind to an industry, and not only to the iron and steel industry but to all industries, that guidance is heeded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1323.]
    That is not a particularly well formulated argument, because it confuses the fact that what we are asking for here is the power of the Minister to direct the Board and not the power of the Board to direct the industry. But in so far as that argument has any validity, it simply is not true.
    Any hon. Member who has exercised Ministerial responsibilities knows perfectly well that on some occasions requests and advice are certainly not enough, and there may indeed well be valid reasons why they are not enough. I suppose that the present Minister of Supply may be able to furnish examples—certainly some of his colleagues in the present Government will be able to do so—where public authorities have specifically asked Ministers to issue a form of direction to cover them on some subject where there is some question of their answerability, arising either from public opinion or statute. This power to direct on the part of the Minister is absolutely essential to the efficient administration of this kind of public authority.
    Secondly, the hon. Member produced the argument that Ministers might be subject to political pressure. I will not quote his words, because he probably remembers the argument, but he said that, therefore, it is undesirable that Ministers should have power to direct. That is, of course, true, but one of the things which

    1149
    distinguishes a Minister from many other institutions of society is that he is subject to public control, and that is exactly what we are asking for this Board. The Minister is answerable to the House, and, therefore, to public opinion, and we in this House can keep a check on whether or not a Minister abuses his powers.
    It is perfectly true that an irresponsible Corporation—irresponsible in the sense that it is not answerable to the public in any way—is not subject to quite the same kind of political pressure as a Minister, but it can indeed—and the hon. Member for Hall Green knows it well—practise and perpetuate incompetent and self-seeking neglect of the public interest and nepotism almost entirely undetected, because it is not at any point answerable to the public.
    Finally, the hon. Member cited as an example of the sort of political pressure which might be brought to bear on a Minister who had power of direction the case of wage increases followed by price increases. He suggested that pressure might be brought to bear on the Minister, first of all, to authorise wage increases, and then to direct a price increase as a consequence. That is a singularly inept example of the sort of danger which might arise from accepting an Amendment of this kind, because price-fixing, which is dealt with in another Clause, is one of the few subjects on which the Minister virtually has power of direction even under this Bill.
    When the Minister came to address his argument to the rejection of this Amendment, in his engaging manner, for which we have been grateful on a number of occasions and by which we have been frustrated on even more, he wandered amiably and said that the Board would welcome guidance, but the only new thing he added was the remark that he feared that he would be unable to recruit proper membership to the Board if he, as Minister, held this power. His words on this subject, and I think they are worth quoting, were as follows:
    "People are not going to devote their time to being members of a Board with very great responsibilities knowing that after they have considered a problem carefully and conscientiously the Government can step in at any moment and tell them how to do the job. People who are going to become members of a Board of this kind want to know where they stand from the start, what are to be their
    1150
    responsibilities and what measure of freedom they are to be given to carry them out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1325.]
    That is the only argument of any substance or cogency whatever that the Minister addressed against this Amendment at an earlier stage, and what does that argument amount to? It is utter nonsense. In the first place, there are plenty of occasions on which boards have asked for this power to direct to be in Ministerial hands and on which they have invited directions on specific subjects to protect themselves. Secondly, let us look at the composition of the boards of the nationalised industries. Hon. Members opposite dislike this structure, but does any responsible member of the Government Front Bench really suggest that either they themselves or their predecessors have been unable to recruit the sort of people they would want to occupy the high positions on these boards because the power of direction remains with the Minister?
    I know very well that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), whom I served in the last Government, had some difficulty at one stage in recruiting a Steel Board, but it was not for that reason. The hon. Member for Hall Green can tell the House what the reason was, but it was nothing to do with directions given by the Minister. In any case, I have not observed in recent years a notable apathy in members of the Forces in taking high jobs because of the fact that there is an even higher authority resting in Downing Street which might frustrate their intentions from time to time.
    4.45 p.m.
    There is not a single argument against this Amendment except, possibly, the vague assertion, which, in any case, we do not accept, that the Amendment is not necessary. The arguments for it are overwhelming. Unless the Minister does have this power, then, in my submission, it can be categorically stated that Clause 3 is a sham and means just nothing at all, that, in fact, the Board will never be able to perform any of the functions listed in Clause 3, and that their powers are solely limited to the powers which are set out in Clauses 5, 7 and 10 of the Bill, in each of which the Minister virtually has a power of direction.

    1151
    In each of these Clauses, the power of direction which the Minister is given is a power of particular direction, and the real substance of this Amendment is that, to match the broad outline of the Board's responsibilities which is set out in Clause 3, the Minister should have a power of permissive general direction which he will use only at his discretion and for which he would remain answerable to the House. The fact that all these specific powers of the Board which come in the later Clauses are given one way or another subject to Ministerial direction is the real proof of what I am saying; they show that there is no objection in principle to direction.
    It is very tempting for hon. Members opposite to base their case on the undesirability of any form of Ministerial directions, but that case is disproved by the provisions of Clauses 5, 7 and 10, and the only reason for rejecting this Amendment must be an abjection to Ministerial and Parliamentary control over the matters outlined in the Clause. I want to conclude by quoting a few words from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said at an earlier stage, because it really is important that the Minister should not be able to ride away in urging the rejection of this Amendment on the suggestion that we are advocating an unduly restrictive approach and an attempt to limit the freedom of the new Board.
    It simply is not so, but let my right hon. Friend, who was speaking from the Front Bench on behalf of the Opposition, put the case in his own words. He said this:
    "We have never proposed or suggested that the Minister should interfere in day-to-day transactions, or anything of that sort. It is for the Minister himself to decide when he should interfere and when Parliament will want him to interfere. He can be certain that if he interferes unnecessarily Parliament will tell him he has done the wrong thing. Under our scheme we said there should be direct control and Parliamentary responsibility for the broad outline of the industry; that if anything went wrong, if there was insufficient production, general inefficiency, or if amalgamations did not take place which ought to take place, the matter should be discussed in Parliament; that the Minister should be questioned and give an answer, and if necessary, on behalf of Parliament, see that the desires of Parliament were carried out."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT. 29th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1328.]
    1152
    That is what we are inviting the House to do and what this new Board should also accept as part of their responsibilities.
    What happened before? This industry, for many years, has behaved without social responsibility, like a rogue elephant. After the war, public opinion made up its mind that that state of affairs was to be ended, along with the underhand contacts between the leaders of the industry and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Its terms, if I may paraphrase them, are something like this, "We recognise that you are now in a political difficulty owing to our past failures. If you would undertake to make certain that we are left free agents we, in return, will undertake to steer clear of the gravest excesses of the past."
    Out of that compact has arisen a whole new line of Tory propaganda seeking to pretend that this industry ought in some vague way to be answerable to public control, but taking very good care that at each stage such control shall be ineffectual. It is to put an end to that state of affairs that we move this Amendment, and, whether or not the Minister accepts it, we shall expose once for all if there is any truth in the suggestion of the underhand deal which I have put forward.
    Mr. George Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman), who always speaks with great fluency and usually with great conviction, did not on this occasion give the impression that he was deeply convinced by the case he was making. But be that as it may, he said that if the Government are to be the judge of the public interest they must have power of direction. I do not dispute that, provided that those powers of direction are precisely related to the functions of the Board under the Bill. However, I would point out to hon. Members opposite that in this Amendment they are asking for much more sweeping powers than they thought it right to give to the Government under the 1949 Act in relation to a State owned industry.
    It seems to me that where we have an industry which is owned by the State and

    1153
    where only public money is involved, we should be entitled to give the Government more direct powers of control and intervention than in the case of an industry which is privately owned and which is being run with private money. The 1949 Act gave the Minister no general power to direct the Corporation to carry out particular development schemes; it gave the Government no power to override the Corporation in respect of prices and no power to direct the Corporation to import finished steel or to keep in production works which were going to be dosed down.
    This Amendment proposes that the Minister should be given an unlimited right of interference in the affairs and responsibilities of the Iron and Steel Board. I can think of nothing that is better calculated to diminish the influence and to undermine the authority of the Board than that. We recognise that in exceptional circumstances it may be necessary in the national interest for the Government to intervene. The difference between us is that the Opposition want to give the Minister a kind of rover ticket to interfere when and where he feels inclined. We, on the other hand, prefer to give the Minister powers which are limited to what is necessary, and powers, above all, which are clearly defined in the Bill.
    I do not see that there is any sham about our proposals just because we think it better that the powers given to the Minister should be defined instead of being left vague, as is suggested in the Amendment—powers which, as I have said, were never given to the Minister in the 1949 Act. The Opposition seem to deduce from this that the Government are paying no regard to the national interest in all these matters. That is not only untrue, but it is not borne out by the Bill itself.
    As I see it, the principal national interest is that the industry should be efficiently run. We believe that the Board are better qualified to ensure that the industry is efficiently run than is any Government Department in Whitehall. However, we recognise that there are wider aspects of the national interest which it is the responsibility of the Government to safeguard, and we have, in consequence, provided specific reserve powers for this precise purpose.
    1154
    Apart from the efficiency of the industry, there are three matters connected with it which vitally affect the national interest. The first is prices. Under Clause 9, as the hon. Member for Watford has pointed out, the Government are given a complete overriding power to direct the Board in regard to the prices to be fixed. As I have said before, I hope that this power will not often have to be used, but there is no doubt that it exists. Therefore, I submit that the Opposition can have no possible complaint in regard to the Government's powers in respect of prices.
    The second matter which vitally affects the national interest is the adequacy of steel supplies. Not only have we given the Government the power to supplement the output of the industry by setting up and running steel works themselves either directly or through an agency, but we have also under Clause 10 given them the power to direct the Board to import additional supplies of finished steel. Thus the Government have power under the Bill to ensure that prices are reasonable and that supplies of iron and steel are adequate.
    There remains the third vital matter—development. In our opinion, development plans should be based on technical and industrial considerations. However, the Amendment which I offered as a bouquet to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) at the end of our last debate, in page 5, line 29, provides that the Board, in their consultations with the industry under Clause 4 on development plans, shall
    "… have regard to any considerations relating to employment in Great Britain or otherwise relating to the national interest to which the Minister may have asked them to have regard."
    In other words, the Minister is empowered to draw the attention of the Board to matters which affect the national interest outside their sphere of responsibility, and to ask them, without prejudice to their general responsibility for the efficiency of the industry, to take those considerations into account.
    5.0 p.m.
    In this way the Minister will be able to exercise a considerable influence over the Board in relation to development plans; but if persuasion should prove to be insufficient there remain in reserve important statutory powers by means of

    1155
    which the Government can control development. Under the Town and Country Planning Acts the Government are able to control the location of industry which, as mentioned in earlier debates, can be important in regard to employment. In addition, so long as it is necessary to control capital investment, the Government have the power to do so through the licensing of building work.
    Thus, I submit to the House that on all the main issues which affect the national interest—prices, supplies of iron and steel, and development plans—the Government possess effective powers, either by instructing the Board or by other means, to safeguard the national interest. I ask hon. Members to consider seriously what I have said and I hope that in the light of this explanation they will not find it necessary to press this Amendment.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Minister is quite right when he says that our Amendment throws up the difference in outlook between the two sides of the House on the measure of control and Parliamentary supervision which there should be over the iron and steel industry. He did not say it in those words perhaps. I paraphrase and, if I may say so, put it rather better than he did. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman did not suggest it, then I suggest it. The Amendment shows what our outlook is on the amount of Parliamentary supervision that there should be over the industry, and the Minister's reply has shown the entirely different outlook of the Conservative Party.
    I suggest to the Minister that he really misled the House when he suggested that in our nationalisation Act we did not give the Minister much authority over the industry. That is not true. First of all, we set up a body to own about 97 per cent. of the basic production of this industry. The duty of that body was to look after the public interest and the consumer, and not the interest of the iron and steel industry. Secondly, under our Act the Minister had general powers of direction over the Corporation. Thirdly, the Minister could give specific direction on any matter which any consumer brought to the consumers' council—any complaint about price, delivery, quality
    1156
    or anything else. The Minister could then give specific instructions to the Corporation and they had to carry them out. Under our nationalisation Act the Minister of Supply had full Governmental authority over the Corporation and the industry.
    Mr. Sandys: Surely the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the powers which would be given to the Minister if this Amendment were adopted are far more sweeping than anything which he provided in the 1949 Act. Does he not agree, for instance, that there is no power under the 1949 Act for the Minister to direct the Corporation to keep works going, to direct the Corporation to import finished steel, and so on?
    Mr. Strauss: I am not sure. The right hon. Gentleman could argue that in some matters the powers which the Minister had under our Act were much greater than the powers which we are now suggesting. In other matters he could argue that what we are now seeking to achieve by our Amendment would give the Minister wider powers.
    Mr. Sandys: Unlimited powers.
    Mr. Strauss: We say that the Minister requires wider powers when the industry is in the hands of this body. We take the view that this industry, for reasons which we have argued many times, is so important to the national interest that its general welfare and its efficient and proper running are matters far wider than those which the Minister mentioned. The industry should be under the direct control and be the direct responsibility of the Minister of Supply who is in turn responsible to Parliament.
    The Minister has given a list of matters in which he can interfere. He can fix the maximum price; the Board can veto development, and, in certain circumstances, the Board can advise the Minister to carry out such development himself. But the Minister himself told us that those circumstances are most unlikely to arise. In my view, it is almost impossible for a Conservative Government to carry out development if Steel House does not want it carried out.
    All sorts of very wide duties are placed on the Board under Clause 3. They must look after the efficiency of the industry

    1157
    and see that an economic and adequate supply of iron and steel is provided. But if they want to look after the general efficiency of the industry the Board are given no powers, or quite inadequate powers to do so. We say that on essential matters of that kind Parliament and the Minister must have some responsibility. If the pledge of the Government is to be relevant that this industry must be under general public supervision—and some Ministers have used the words "under Government supervision"—then this Amendment must be accepted. If it were accepted and made effective we would not have much quarrel with the Bill.
    There is practically no public or Governmental supervision under this Bill as it stands. We ask that the Board with the limited powers but wide functions
    which they are given should be subject to Ministerial direction so that we can question the Minister about these matters and so that, if necessary, he should be able to give general instructions to the Board to carry out what Parliament requires and believes to be in the public interest.
    That is the essential difference between us. It is because we feel so keenly that Parliamentary supervision over the industry should be effectively maintained, through the Minister of Supply, that we hold this Amendment to be of first-class importance and feel bound to divide the House upon it.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 254.

    Division No. 118.]

    AYES

    [5.10 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Deer, G.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Adams, Richard

    Dodds, N. N.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Albu, A. H.

    Donnelly, D. L.

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

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

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

    Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Edelman, M.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Jones, Fredrick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Baird, J.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Keenan, W.

    Balfour, A.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Kenyon, C.

    Bartley, P.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Finch, H. J.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Bence, C. R.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Kinley, J.

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Follick, M.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Benson, G.

    Foot, M. M.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Beswick, F.

    Forman, J. C.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Blackburn, F.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Blyton, W. R.

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

    McGhee, H. G.

    Boardman, H.

    Gibson, C. W.

    McLeavy, F.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Glanville, James

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Bowden, H. W.

    Gooch, E. G.

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P C

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hale, Leslie

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Messer, F.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Mitchison, G. R

    Carmichael, J.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Monslow, W.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Moody, A. S.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hastings, S.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mort, D. L.

    Coldrick, W.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Moyle, A.

    Collick, P. H.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hobson, C. R.

    Murray, J. D.

    Cove, W. G.

    Holman, P.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

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

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Oliver, G. H.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Oswald, T.

    Daines, P.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Padley, W. E.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Paget, R. T.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

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

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Pannell, Charles

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Viant, S. P.

    Parker, J.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Paton, J.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Pearson, A.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

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

    Peart, T. F.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Weitzman, D.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Snow, J. W.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Poole, C. C.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Popplewell, E.

    Sparks, J. A.

    West, D. G.

    Porter, G.

    Steele, T.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Wigg, George

    Rankin, John

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Reeves, J.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Willey, F. T.

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Rhodes, H.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Yates, V. F.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K

    Ross, William

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Royle, C

    Thornton, E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Timmons, J.

    Mr. Hannan and

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E

    Tomney, F.

    Mr. Arthur Allen.

    Short, E. W.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Deedes, W. F.

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

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

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Jennings, R.

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Drewe, C.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Kaberry, D.

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

    Fell, A.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Barber, Anthony

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

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

    Barlow, Sir John

    Fort, R.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Baxter, A. B.

    Foster, John

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Linstead, H. N.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lansdale)

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

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

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

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Godber, J. B.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Birch, Nigel

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Longden, Gilbert

    Bishop, F. P.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Black, C. W.

    Gower, H. R.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Boothby, R. J. G

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Bassom, A. C.

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Grimond, J.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Braine, B. R.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    McCallum, Major D.

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

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S.

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

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Bullard, D. G.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

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

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

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Campbell, Sir David

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Carr, Robert

    Hay, John

    Macpherson, Nigel (Dumfries)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Heald, Sir Lionel

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

    Channon, H.

    Heath, Edward

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Markham, Major S. F.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Marples, A. E.

    Cole, Norman

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Colegate, W. A.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Maude, Angus

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Maudling, R.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

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

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Holt, A. F.

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

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

    Horobin, I. M.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Crouch, R. F.

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

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hurd, A. R.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    1160

    1161

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Roper, Sir Harold

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

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Russell, R. S.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Tilney, John

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Turton, R. H.

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

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

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

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

    Vosper, D. F.

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

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Wade, D. W.

    Osborne, C.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Speir, R. M.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M

    Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Wellwood, W.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Stevens, G. P.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Williams, Sr. Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Storey, S.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Wills, G.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Roberts, Peter (Healey)

    Summers, G. S.

    York, C.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Teeling, W.

    Mr. Redmayne and

    Mr. Richard Thompson.

    Clause 4.—(PROVISION OF PRODUCTION FACILITIES.)
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, at the end, to insert:
    (2) Without prejudice to the promotion of the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products, the Board shall, in their consultations under the preceding subsection, have regard to any considerations relating to employment in Great Britain or otherwise relating to the national interest to which the Minister may have asked them to have regard.
    The Amendment has a background and it would be useful if I explain quite shortly why we have thought it right to come to the House to ask for the insertion of these words. During the Committee stage we discussed an Amendment about full employment in relation to Clause 5. All of us want provision to be made for full employment. Full employment is the Government's aim and is not in issue between us. It was not in issue when we discussed the Amendment in Committee, but there was a fairly wide discussion and a number of differing views were expressed by hon. Members opposite.
    I explained at that time that we wished as much as anybody else to see the maintenance of full employment, but that in our view full employment was a national responsibility which the Government sought to maintain through their general economic policy. I also explained that the Government had effective power over the location of industry by means
    1162
    of the industrial development procedure under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. I further explained that in our view the best contribution that the Board could make to full employment would be to be successful in helping the iron and steel industry to produce efficiently sufficient of its products at prices that were competitive in world markets.
    As I have said, a number of differing views were expressed from the other side in Committee, but I think that the official Opposition view was put by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), when he said:
    "We ask that this Board, which have to make important decisions which may affect employment in many parts of the country, should be permitted to take into account that factor before coming to a decision."
    That is, the employment factor.
    "They should have in their minds the effect which such decisions would have on employment. The Government's answer is that they should not have that consideration in mind at all."
    I do not believe that that was our answer, and it certainly was not our intention. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
    "We look on that as a monstrous decision on the part of the Government. We say that this should not be the over-riding consideration, but one which it would be right for them to have in mind. But the Parliamentary Secretary says that they are not to have it in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 660.]

    1163
    Once again, I never said anything of the sort. It was never our intention to prevent the Board having these considerations in mind. I was arguing then about the criteria that the Board should apply in deciding whether to give their consent to a development proposal.
    It is along the lines of those words from the right hon. Gentleman that we have been considering whether the Board ought to be asked in the Bill to take account of employment considerations and of other considerations of national interest in consulting with iron and steel producers about their development proposals, particularly in the formative stage, which is the stage envisaged by subsection (1) of the Clause.
    When I say "along these lines" I refer particularly to the end of the quotation which I have read from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, without overriding the other considerations of
    "efficient, economic and adequate supply"
    which must be paramount in the mind of the Board.
    At that formative stage of a development proposal, the proposal will not have been submitted for anyone's consent and no application will have been made for an industrial development certificate. It therefore seemed to us, after consideration, to be right that the Board should be asked in their consultations to have regard to employment considerations. They will, of course, have some knowledge themselves of employment considerations, but they will not have full knowledge of all the employment considerations. That knowledge lies within the province of the Government. The Amendment, therefore, refers expressly to employment considerations
    "to which the Minister may have asked them to have regard."
    Other things being equal, we think that the Board should, and would, just as industry would—as several of my hon. Friends have said in earlier debates—have full regard to employment considerations. In the same way the Amendment makes it clear that the Board, and through them the industry, will have regard to other considerations of national interest which are put to the Board by the Minister.
    If the House, in considering the Amendment, bears in mind also our
    1164
    Amendment to Clause 14 about closures and our Amendment to Clause 15 regarding publication of the Board's report relating to development, it will be seen that, quite apart from the frequent informal consultations that there will be between the Government and the Board, and between the Board and the industry, there is ample opportunity for full consideration by all concerned of the very real human problems that may arise in the course of the development of this great industry; and for full consideration of any opportunity that may present itself for the industry to help in alleviating any local employment difficulties. At the same time it is made absolutely clear that there is ample opportunity for the Board and the industry to give full consideration to any points relating to the national interest which the Minister may bring to their notice and to which he may request them to have regard.
    Without the addition of these words, the Minister would have brought such matters to the attention of the Board, who would have given them their attention and would have brought them to the attention of the industry. Since, however, some doubt was expressed during the Committee stage, it seemed to us right to remove that doubt. Indeed, this has been our policy throughout the various stages of the Bill.
    Mr. Arthur Palmer: It will not have escaped the notice of the House that we on this side had tabled our own Amendment on this important subject of full employment. We have not pressed it—indeed, we have withdrawn it from the Order Paper—in view of the Amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary has moved on behalf of the Government.
    Remembering the debates that we had on this subject during the Committee stage, I listened with some surprise when the Parliamentary Secretary said that it was never the intention of the Government that the Board should not take employment questions into account. If that was not their intention, all I can say is that it sounded very much like it. Many of the speeches made during the Committee stage from the Government side should be re-made now in the light of the statement—the apology, I think—which we have just had from the hon. Gentleman. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary, and for that matter the

    1165
    Minister also, rather remind me of Byron's celebrated lady who
    "… repented,
    And whispering 'I will ne'er consent'—consented."
    That is really what has happened here.
    5.30 p.m.
    The Government said, in Committee, that it was impossible to insert words of this kind, that there were substantial objections against doing so and there would be confusion and misunderstanding, and difficulties about definition. I remember those arguments all too well. If the Amendment is something for grace, we are glad about it. We like its principle, of course—we think it is only because of our pressure that it has appeared on the Paper; but we do not like particularly its wording. The Amendment begins:
    "Without prejudice to the promotion of the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products"…
    Whoever suggested that full employment could contradict the meaning of the beginning of that sentence? I suggest that the Amendment would be tremendously strengthened if these first words were left out altogether. No doubt they can be omitted when the Bill in due course reaches another place.
    Those who have studied the wording of the Amendment will, I think, agree that the rest of the wording is extraordinarily clumsy and could be vastly improved. Nevertheless, we are glad to confess that the Amendment concedes our main point: that industry today has something more than a financial obligation to its shareholders. It has a social and human obligation to the community and particularly to the workpeople employed in it.
    In the context of the Bill, and of the industry whose affairs we are discussing, it is important, especially in relation to the present Clause, that those responsible should take into account not only efficiency, economy and the quantity or quality of the material stuff that is used and produced by the industry but the immaterial aspect also—that is the security of the men who serve the industry and of their families.
    In reminding the House of some of the arguments that were used against our earlier Amendments in Committee, which demanded that employment should be
    1166
    one of the factors to be taken into consideration by the industry in deciding its policy, I am perhaps at the same time reminding a wider audience outside also. One of the arguments then used by hon. Gentlemen opposite was that the Board should not be asked to carry out a full employment policy because that was something for the Government of the day and was not a matter for a Control Board of this kind. That however has now been contradicted by the present Amendment and we are glad of the change.
    It was also objected from the benches opposite—by, I think, the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), who is not now in his place—that employment and full employment could not be successfully defined. That was an extraordinary comment upon a Bill which already contains wide expressions such as "competitive conditions," "adequate supply" and "substantial extent," to name only one or two. Something has now been done which denies to a great extent the facile objection.
    We on this side congratulate the Minister, who has succeeded in jumping over obstacles which were created by his own imagination at a previous stage of the Bill. Even though the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in that, I am certain that his Amendment would never have been before us at all but for the pressure put upon the Government from this side to make it one of the social and human obligations of the iron and steel industry to take into account full employment policy.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: I should have thought that the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) might have been somewhat more magnanimous about this Amendment. Hon. Members will recall that in Committee hon. and right hon. Members opposite made some somewhat harsh and rather sweeping statements about the Government's intention to deal with this problem. Indeed, they went so far as to say the Government had no desire to include some protective provision of this nature. They implied the Minister was not prepared to do anything, if I recall rightly. I think the fact that this subsection is included in this way shows how completely wrong those innuendoes were.
    The new Amendment sets out the considerations which the Board will have to

    1167
    apply, and puts them in their proper position and true perspective. It recognises, what the Opposition Amendments did not; that there must be other considerations, too; but it also recognises that the Board have the duty of taking some note of employment conditions either locally or nationally. I think it is important to have at the beginning the words that the hon. Member for Cleveland wanted to leave out, because they bring it clearly to the Board's attention that this is not their only problem. It shows equally clearly that the major responsibility for employment problems must be the Government's, and that the Board's responsibility will be a limited one in a limited field. I think that this is a valuable addition to the Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend c., introducing it.
    Mr. Walter Monslow: I welcome this Amendment, and I do so because I regard it as one to deal with one of the most important aspects of the Bill, and that is the human aspect. But I hope that the Amendment is moved in the spirit the Parliamentary Secretary intended—that we are to maintain a measure of full employment. I hope that we are not going to have only the expression of sentiments and no positive action taken, if the need should arise, by the Government, even if it should mean that they are in conflict with the Board, to achieve the desired result, namely, full employment.
    In my opinion an industry such as this, which does and will reflect prosperity, can embrace within its ambit even what are known at the moment as certain uneconomic units; and I suggest that whoever may be in charge of the future administration of the industry should have some regard, not only to the monetary aspect of the problem but also to the social implications which arise in connection with those uneconomic units. I would ask the Board when examining this aspect, to recognise these considerations.
    I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) for the excellent work which they did in connection with works within my own constituency in the lifetime of the last
    1168
    Government. When we made representations to them they certainly did everything that was humanly possible to keep going the works which were on the point of closing—which would have closed had it not been for the last war. I pay my tribute to them now, and I ask them to accept it from me in the spirit in which it is given.
    I sincerely hope that whatever happens in the change over the question of full employment will be kept to the forefront. I am not unmindful of the difficulties. We have experienced them in my own constituency. I respectfully commend to the Government and to the new Board that they give some consideration to making what are known as uneconomic units economic units by seeing that they receive a further measure of capital investment, so that they may have the required economic strength to play their part in an industry on whose prosperity that of the country largely depends.
    Mr. Robson Brown: The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) went right to the kernel of the matter when he said that this was a question affecting human values. So did the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer). It is for that reason I rise to support the Amendment, and to pay a compliment to the Parliamentary Secretary on the way in which he presented it to us. His was a full, lucid and effective statement, and the most important one that he has made during the whole of this debate.
    There is no question, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, about our having had in mind all the time the impact of the Bill, and of the powers of the Minister and of the Board, upon the men and women working in the industry as being of the greatest and most vital importance. Therefore, I am particularly glad the Opposition dropped their Amendment using the expression "full employment." I should like to concur in the observations made by the hon. Member for Cleveland. Throughout our debates his contributions have been made with great sincerity. At no other time did he touch the feelings of us on this side of the House as he did today when he spoke of the importance of the men and women in the industry and the necessity attaching to their employment in the industry.

    1169
    We in this House can talk about employment being secured to them, and the like, but that employment is their very life—the most important thing in life for them. That was why I said in a previous debate on this matter that it is a dangerous thing to put into the minds of the men any idea that by any Act of Parliament or any act of the Minister or of the Board we could guarantee the continuance of full employment. I do not think that the Bill of 1947 of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) ever used the expression "full employment." That showed that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite realised that it would not be guaranteed by a Parliamentary Bill, nor could it be introduced into a Bill to any good effect.
    What is important, above all, is a satisfactory and high level of employment. That clearly depends on three interlocking factors. The first factor is efficiency within the steel industry itself. The Minister himself referred to it today. Efficiency depends on three things—the quality of the plant, of the management, and of the men. Those are three interlocking factors that control the efficiency of the industry. The second factor relating to employment is the general level of trade in this country, which does and will largely decide the general level of employment within the steel industry. The third element is the general level of world trade and our ability to obtain a fair share of the world demand for steel.
    What I am saying is simple economics, but it has to be stated categorically, in a positive fashion, none the less. We have to obtain a fair share of the world demand for steel. Moreover, British manufacturers who are consumers of our steel, and for whom steel is a raw material in making their products in engineering, etc., must also obtain a fair share. Those are the three factors interlocking one with the other, and they control employment inside the steel industry.
    5.45 p.m.
    It is as well to emphasise that the steel industry now has to meet an impact of world competition such as it has not experienced for a number of years. It is only now that we are having to face world competition. The testing time has come, and I believe that healthy competition—and I use the word "healthy"
    1170
    in its true and proper sense—is a good thing for industry and is a guarantee of that efficiency with which we are all concerned. I believe that British steel can look forward confidently to meeting world competition and to being able to hold and to extend its fair share of world trade, because with few exceptions our plant is good. Beyond question, our management is first-class, and, equally vital, our steel workers, judged by the standards of loyalty, skill and good will, are second to none in the world.
    I reiterate the three great, important, vital requisites of efficiency in industry: quality of plant, quality of management, and quality of the men. It will be the prime function of the Board to consider efficiency in all its aspects—their first duty all the time. If they do their job effectively the industry will have every right to expect reasonable prosperity and, as a consequence, it should be able to maintain a satisfactory and high level of employment, which is the aim of all of us in this House.
    Mr. Frederick Willey: I intervene only very shortly to join in the general congratulatory amity of the House at the present moment, and to say that I should have thought that, in view of the experience between 1945 and 1951, full employment was a matter now that could have concrete, specific definition; but be that as it may, I appeal to the Minister to take the opportunity of looking again at this point to see whether it can be further clarified.
    We have gone a long way to meet the right hon. Gentleman. Obviously, he is a good Parliamentarian. By that I mean that, while he is out of touch with enlightened thought and progressive political ideas in this country, he is not at all immune to discussion in the House. He saw our Amendment down, and he endeavoured, I think I may say, very much to meet it, and I think he has gone a long way to meet us. I should like him to go further. This discussion should really be taken with the previous one. The difference between us is how far the concept of public supervision should be brought within the affairs of this industry. We differ about that, but, allowing for that, I think that the right hon. Gentleman could come nearer to meeting us.

    1171
    I intervene mainly because this is a matter which causes very real apprehension even today in my part of the world. I have only to say that Jarrow is only a few miles from my constituency for hon. Members to understand what I mean. There is still a good deal of apprehension about the reorganisation, the re-deployment, of the major industries of this country throughout what are, not by chance, called the Development Areas of the country. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary that when recently we had a debate on full employment the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour specifically referred to the White Paper of 1944. Let us refer back to that White Paper—that great White Paper.
    It emphasised above everything else the need for the country to deal with the problem of full employment, and that we had got to see that considerations of capital investment were subjected to that objective. That is the real keynote of that White Paper, and capital investment is, therefore, in the forefront as the major way in which we can offset the threat of a depression. Both sides of the House will agree that this country can survive economically only on the basis of full employment.
    We are all very proud of the Welfare State. The Welfare State can only be underpinned by full employment. That is what we all desire. I think that it is right and proper, if we are to have a supervisory Board, to provide that full employment should be a major, primary consideration. The Parliamentary Secretary has explained that that is his objective, and I should like him to express it a little more clearly.
    I think that this Amendment, good as it is, is expressed in rather a cagey way, as though the Government do not want to be pinned down. [Interruption.] There may be a difference of opinion between us, but I would argue that this is a primary national consideration, and it may well arise—although I hope we shall not be threatened with depressions—that the first consideration in the national economic plan is the maintenance of full employment. I would rather that were stated in the Amendment, if it could be done.
    1172
    All I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he has the opportunity of further considering this matter, is to go a little further to meet the wishes of both sides of the House that we should have a clearer expression of view that the Government accept this principle of the White Paper of 1944.
    Mrs. Eirene White: Having moved the original Amendment, to which this Amendment is in a sense a reply, I was a little surprised to find this one on the Order Paper. When one recalls the tenor of the debate on the last occasion, one had no indication then that the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to put down any such Amendment.
    I do not wish to strain such classical knowledge as the right hon. Gentleman may have brought with him from Eton, but he may remember a passage in Virgil where it was suggested that when the Trojan Horse is offered by the Greeks, one should be on one's guard against this bringing of gifts to one's hands. The Minister has been extremely accommodating—it may be his Parliamentary technique, as was suggested—and perhaps one should be on one's guard when he has been so extremely pleasant in meeting the suggestions of the Opposition. We hope that the country will not have any false impression from the relatively friendly manner in which our debates on this Bill are being conducted.
    I should like to turn for a moment to the Amendment as proposed. I must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) that it is a most inelegant Amendment. I am certain that the drafting of it could be improved, perhaps in another place. On a point of substance, I cannot feel that the first phrase of the Amendment is really one which can be upheld in logic. To say:
    "without prejudice to the promotion of the efficiency, economic and adequate supply of iron steel products, the Board shall … have regard to any considerations …"
    really does not make sense, because the whole argument we have been putting forward is that, while the Board should have regard to the efficiency of the industry, they should also have regard to other matters.
    It may be that the other matters, when taken into account, will be to some extent—and are very likely to be to some

    1173
    extent—prejudicial to the absolute efficiency of the industry. Therefore, I would suggest that this Amendment would be very much more effective if that first phrase were omitted and the Amendment then stated that the board "shall in their consultations," etc. It has been suggested, for example, in the "Economist," which I think had a very tendentious paragraph on our last debate, that those of us on this side of the House who proposed and supported the original Amendment were suggesting that full employment should be the only consideration in the mind of the Board.
    None of us had any such idea. All that we suggested was that it should be one of the considerations. Naturally, efficiency is also a major consideration. We are very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to meet us so far as he has done. We shall never agree on whether "full employment" or "a high and stable level of employment" is the proper phraseology, but, so far as it goes, the Amendment on the Order Paper does refute the suggestion made in our previous debate that any reference to employment in a Bill of this kind would be out of place.
    Mr. George Chetwynd: I do not wish to throw any cold water on this Amendment, which I welcome, nor do I wish to go into the motives which led the Government to put it down. I rather suspect that they were political more than anything else, to forestall any attack made upon them in the country on this matter. I want to warn the Government against too easy an acceptance of that position, because the implications of the Amendment at a time like the present, of full employment and of large-scale investment, are very different from the implications of such an Amendment in a different climate of opinion, when a slump is already coming about, and when it is not so easy for the industry to be a profitable one.
    It seems to me that this Amendment may at the moment be meaningless, and that the Government may be concerned to put it in as a nice piece of window-dressing. When it comes to the time when it is necessary for the State to intervene actively in giving an investment lead in order to maintain full employment, this Amendment may be very dangerous to
    1174
    the party opposite, although we shall welcome it. The steel industry, and the national investment involved in it, will be a most effective national instrument for the planning of full employment, but it may have to take on the use of controls and the things which go with them.
    Therefore, I would say that, when the time comes, there will be all kinds of reasons put forward to prove that this Amendment really does not mean what we think it means now, and I should like the Amendment to be strengthened by having some sort of safeguard in it to make the Minister come along and say what directions, advice or instructions he has given which the Board should bear in mind with regard to employment. On the other hand, the Board should be made to state in their annual report, or in some other way, what advice they have given to the Minister, how they have followed out his instructions and what kind of response there has been to the suggestions by the industries concerned. I think that we need more than the words of this Amendment to make it a full force in the planning of the full employment which we all desire.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: I beg to move, in page 6, line 8, at the end, to insert:
    Provided that under this subsection the Minister may compulsorily acquire or compulsorily take or lease facilities and in such a case the compensation or rent to be paid by the Minister shall in default of agreement be determined by arbitration.
    I think that the purpose of this Amendment is very clear. It echoes very closely a similar Amendment which was moved during the Committee stage of the Bill. The Minister of Supply has already this afternoon drawn attention to the fact that he has—and he stresses them very strongly—at least some powers under this Bill.
    Our general impression was that he had not enough powers, and our general demand has been to increase his powers, but he has this afternoon decided that he has at least some powers—over price determination and over development. Included in his power over development is his power to acquire plant which might otherwise go out of production, but which in the national interest it is essential should remain in production. Our only

    1175
    difficulty about this power, of which he is so proud, is that, as provided at the moment, it is entirely clouded in dubiety and difficulty, because he can make such an acquisition only if there is a volun-agreement between himself and the owners of the plant. In this Amendment we seek to strengthen that power by giving him the power compulsorily to acquire the plant concerned.
    6.0 p.m.
    I am delighted to see here the Solicitor-General, who replied to our Amendment on the Committee stage. I am always glad to see him. One is not so certain when he comes to the Dispatch Box whether the Government Front Bench are equally glad to see him; there is then a certain frisson, a certain tension in their attitude, for they are wondering whether he will put his foot in it again, and they are hoping desperately that on that occasion he will not.
    In his reply to our Amendment during the Committee stage, the Solicitor-General treated us to some three columns of speech, of which some two and a half columns were entirely irrelevant to the main substance of our argument. He indulged in some legalistic hair-splitting about whether the powers should reside with the Board or the Minister, forgetting that the issue arose owing to the unwisdom of the House in rejecting Amendments which we had moved previously. However, within his three columns he presented us with eight lines of argument related to the subject under discussion. As they are so important and as they are embedded in the irrelevancy, it is worth while extracting them so that we may proceed to deal with them. He said:
    "I should have thought that it was extremely improbable, and so improbable as to render it unnecessary to take compulsory powers, that any company would act like a dog in the manger and not realise some cash value for the premises or the production facilities which they were going to put out of use."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 517.]
    We can imagine several circumstances in which they may adopt this dog-in-the-manger attitude. Therefore, if we can impress upon the Solicitor-General that such occasions may arise, no doubt he will be prepared to eat the words he then uttered and accept this Amendment.
    1176
    Here is the situation which will face the Minister of Supply when he comes to use one of the rare powers which he has given himself. He may only use the power of acquisition when it is in the national interest that he should so do. So, first of all, the company which he seeks voluntarily to acquire, or whose plant he seeks to acquire, will know straight away that he has some compelling reason for his approach. It will not be that he merely wants to add another series of production facilities to an already overburdened responsibility. We do not envisage that the present Minister of Supply, or any Minister of Supply in the present Government, will dash willy-nilly into the acquisition of private companies; he will only do it when compelled to do so by the most cogent reasons in the national interest, or when he is subjected locally to some heavy degree of political pressure to keep in operation some plant which might otherwise go out of operation.
    This will not be undertaken lightly. That would be quite clear to the people owning the assets. If he refuses our Amendment, the hon. and learned Gentleman will, in effect, have created a seller's market against himself. If the reasons for acquisition are so compelling that even an apathetic Conservative Government is provoked into the breaking of all it tenets of private ownership, that will not escape the knowledge of those who own the assets, and it is quite likely that they will stand out for a higher price than they could otherwise get.
    It may well be that no price which the Minister is prepared to offer will tempt a concern to part with its plant. There can be two reasons for this. First, the concern may have an alternative and more profitable use for the site. We have to remember that many of the older steelworks sited in towns which have subsequently grown have a considerable site value, particularly now that the Government have taken away the development charges under the Town and Country Planning Act. I do not stress the point too strongly, but it is well within the bounds of possibility that a firm may choose to use the site for other purposes than the production of iron and steel and that offers made to them for such a purpose may be much more tempting than any the Minister of Supply could

    1177
    make. It may be that in those circumstances no price will persuade them to relinquish their concern so that it could continue, in the national interest, to function producing steel.
    Secondly, it may be that they will refuse any offer because, owing to some internal arrangement within the steel industry, they have decided that the plant shall go out of production anyway. It may be that through reorganisation within the steel industry they have decided to restrict production or to concentrate production elsewhere and no offer which the Minister can make will outweigh the financial advantage to be gained by losing the production of that plant altogether. Unless the Minister accepts the Amendment, he is without power compulsorily to acquire such plants in the national interest.
    We ought to pay more attention to precedent, especially when the precedent is bolstered by the fact that it was introduced by a Conservative, or predominantly Conservative, Administration. The Defence Regulations during the war entrenched the power to acquire firms in the national interest, and the power so entrenched was compulsory. There was no talk about a voluntary relinquishment. Indeed, the one concern which was taken over, and it stands out in all our minds—Short Brothers—was certainly not handed over voluntarily. The litigation arising from that transaction is probably still going on, or, if it is not, it has only just stopped after all these years.
    If it was right then for a predominantly Conservative House of Commons to decide that the powers of acquisition should be compulsory in the national interest, surely it is right now. However, Conservatives are not noticeably attached to precedent when the precedent argues against the expediency which they are advocating at any one point in time. Nevertheless, we must remember that in this we are the custodians of public money, and if we are seeking to acquire plant in the national interest, it is right that we should seek the best possible circumstances in which to make the bargain.
    I urge the Government to apply to this matter the standards which, as individual businessmen, they would apply to the acquisition of any firm which they sought to take over. It is not unknown in
    1178
    private competitive capitalism for one firm to seek to take over another firm. But it does not create a seller's market against itself as its first instance of approach. Instead, it evinces an ostentatious unconcern about the firm which it wishes to take over so that the price may be better than if it came forward and said, "We must, in our own pecuniary interest, acquire your firm. Give us a price and an offer." If those standards are proper to the conduct of private business, we contend that they are proper to the conduct of public business.
    If the Government seek to make an acquisition only in extreme national interest, that will be well known to those whose property the Government seek to acquire, and that concern will, fairly naturally, hold out for the highest possible price. We contend that the Minister should arm himself with the power of compulsory acquisition, so that if no agreed price is reached, a price is then adjudicated by arbitration. We find nothing strange in this; we find precedent for it; above all, we ask that the standards applicable to the conduct of private business by private businessmen should in this case be applied to the conduct of public business by what will, after all, be public businessmen in the industry.
    Mr. G. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) began his speech by saying that this Amendment echoed a similar Amendment we discussed in Committee. I entirely agree with him and, of the two speeches made in moving these Amendments, I must confess that I thought the speech of the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) by far the more persuasive, convincing and, indeed, eloquent. The hon. Member for Islington, North commenced as though to be offensive was a satisfactory substitute for argument. He went on to make a few arguments with which I shall endeavour to deal, but I feel that I shall not satisfy him. I am not sufficiently optimistic for that, and I cannot do much more than echo the arguments that were advanced on the previous occasion.
    The hon. Member complained that, in dealing with this point in Committee, my

    1179
    arguments occupied only eight lines in HANSARD. He will realise we were then considering an Amendment somewhat different in form, and I think I did, quite properly, draw attention to the fact that there was apparently a defect in form on that occasion. I will not go into that now, but I will come to the substance of the case that he endeavoured to put forward. The House will realise that my right hon. Friend, or any Minister of Supply, before he can exercise the power given by this subsection to acquire or take or lease or otherwise secure the use of existing production facilities has got to satisfy himself that those production facilities ought to be kept in use in the national interest, and also that they will not be kept in use unless he exercises those powers.
    Production facilities are defined in the Bill as plant, premises and machinery. We have to consider this very carefully. In our view, if those production facilities are not going to be kept in use—and it is upon that that the operation of this subsection depends—then it is highly improbable that the owner of those facilities, which he does not intend to use, will not be willing either to sell or at any rate, to lease them for a period of time. We regard that as so improbable as to show that there is no need for the powers of compulsory acquisition such as the hon. Member suggests.
    We take the view that powers of compulsory acquisition should not be conferred on the Minister unless the need for them is clearly established. The hon. Member has made it quite clear by his speech that he does not agree. Hon. Members opposite seem to take the view that compulsory powers of acquisition should be given to meet the slightest possibility arising for their need in the future. The hon. Member, in moving this Amendment, said that he could imagine many circumstances in which the need for those powers would arise. I confess that my imagination cannot be as good as his. He has talked of cases of the Minister wanting to acquire. That may well be, but I am sure he does not think it really likely that persons who are not intending to use their production facilities will want to go on hanging on to them and not derive some capital by selling them or some income by leasing them.
    1180
    6.15 p.m.
    The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), speaking on the previous occasion in support of this Amendment, advanced as an argument what he himself said was an extreme situation. I quote from HANSARD:
    "To take an extreme situation as an illustration, there may be works which are doing well, but in which the facilities are being only half-used; they may not be very efficient or may be badly run."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 518.]
    I should have thought it was rather surprising to find works in those circumstances doing well, but if they are only using half of their works when doing that, I should have thought it was extremely likely that the other half would be brought into use fairly speedily, in which case there would be no need for the Minister to seek to exercise these powers.
    This argument is advanced that we must have compulsory powers of acquisition in case we come up against a person who is not prepared to sell at the price that we are prepared to offer. It may be that his view of the proper price is the right one and that ours is the wrong one, and it by no means follows that, if we have the power of compulsory acquisition, we will be able in the long run to acquire the lot cheaper than the price at which we originally offered. That may or may not turn out to be the case, but what is quite obvious from the hon. Member's speech is that he wants the Government to be supported by the power of compulsory acquisition so that that power can be used as a lever to apply pressure upon the person who has the production facilities, which are not going to be kept in use, to make that person agree to accept the offer made to him.
    Views may differ as to whether that is the right use of compulsory acquisition. All I can say in answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North and to his hon. Friends is that the Defence Regulations in wartime do not constitute any precedent whatever. We are not at war now, and so far as this Bill is concerned, in our view, the need for compulsory powers in this subsection does not exist and the case for them has not been established. Therefore, we can adopt no different attitude to the attitude we adopted when this was last before the Committee.
    Mr. Fienburgh: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, perhaps I could ask for clarification on this one point. We have certainly not suggested that the power of compulsory acquisition should stand as a lever whereby the Minister can secure at his own takeover price. He has ignored the last phrase of the Amendment, which says:
    "… in such a case the compensation or rent to be paid by the Minister shall in default of agreement be determined by arbitration."
    Arbitration, if it means anything, will not be effected in any way by any lever which may reside in the Minister's hands. In fact, the only use to which a lever and the power of acquisition can be put is largely that of seeing that too high a price is not paid—higher than that which subsequently may emerge from arbitration. Surely the insertion of the word "arbitration" protects the seller completely.
    The Solicitor-General: The short answer to that is the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, North in moving this Amendment. He indicated, as I think HANSARD will reveal, that the power of compulsory acquisition could be of use as a threat, in the first place against the person who was going to be asked to sell, and was to be held over him. I fully appreciate that there is a provision for arbitration. And it was in that connection that I made my remarks that, when you have had arbitration, it may be found that the price which is to be paid is a price at which the vendor was willing originally to sell.
    Mr. Willey: The Solicitor-General's case, as I understand, is that the circumstances in which such a Clause as this might be useful are so rare as to make the legislaton not worth while. I wonder whether he has forgotten what happened to the major industry in my constituency. I refer to the shipbuilding industry. We had premises which were left unused for years. They were sterilised, and they remain sterilised today. One of them was the most up-to-date and modern shipyard on the Wear. It is still not a shipyard, and it could not return to shipbuilding. Another yard which was used during the war and which had a tremendous amount of capital put into it also once again became sterilised. That is an example of a great industry where premises remain unused, and it is conceiv-
    1182
    able that similar circumstances might arise—I hope not—in the great iron and steel industry.
    The Solicitor-General: I can only speak again with the leave of the House, to say that it is only in circumstances where production facilities are not used that the powers of the subsection will arise at all.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: We are not satisfied with the reply given by the Solicitor-General. I do not think he is surprised, because he realises the force of the arguments that were put forward in the moving of the Amendment. We are not dividing the House on it, but I want to make it clear that our decision has nothing to do with any willingness to accept the Government's answer, which we think was not an answer at all. It is merely because we are worried about the passage of time.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 5.—(PROVISION OF PRODUCTION FACILITIES TO BE SUBJECT TO BOARD'S CONSENT IN CERTAIN CASES.)
    Mr. D. L. Mort: I beg to move, in page 6, line 23, after "Britain," to insert:
    "or to cease or substantially to diminish the use of any production facilities in Great Britain."
    Mr. Speaker: If it is agreeable to the House, I would permit discussion on this Amendment to range over the Amendments on the Paper to page 6, line 36, page 7, line 13 and the Minister's Amendment to Clause 14, page 14, line 27, because they all cover the same subject matter.
    Mr. Mort: We are obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for that arrangement, which is very convenient and we are quite prepared for the subject to be covered in the way you suggest.
    The reason I was chosen to move the Amendment is that we want to pinpoint the powers which the Minister has in a certain direction. In moving an earlier Amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary said that it was possible for the Board to deal with great human problems. I want to draw attention to a serious and grave human problem and to suggest that the Minister has power invested in him to deal with it. I refer to the problem of the tinplate trade, which has been mentioned before in these debates. I want to convey

    1183
    to the House the anguish and mental disturbance that now exists over a large area from Port Talbot to Kidwelly.
    I speak with all sincerity, and I wish I had the eloquence and the ability to convey the feelings of the men among whom I move and know. I want to express their fears, and to say how delighted we should be if, in the reply to this Amendment, the iron curtain could be drawn aside a little to give them a little hope. When people lose hope, they lose everything. We want the Minister to use his powers to insulate the workers in this district from the worst blast of the economic storm which affects not only men in South Wales, but throughout the country. It is like a mammoth, treading the earth and seeking whom it might devour. We are entitled to ask the Minister to exercise the powers with which he is invested in the Bill and to make a public declaration that he is ready to do so.
    Mr. Spencer Summers: The hon. Member is making his speech with considerable understanding, but would he say what he means by "insulating" the workers from the economic blizzard?
    Mr. Mort: I will refer to some of the insulations that I suggest. One is that the Minister should use his powers to keep intact the areas that have grown around a few small works. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) is aware how these industries have grown up in South Wales. I have seen them grow. Now we have communities with four tinplate works, two steel works and an iron works. They all started in a small way. Who were the shareholders? The local butcher and grocer, yes, and the Baptist minister. A number of these areas are facing absolute poverty because their only industries are closing down.
    The insulation I want is for the Minister to exercise his powers to save some of those industries in order to maintain the life of the small communities. One illustration is that of the tinplate hand mill, which is going. There is no salvation for it, but we must remember that many steel works catered for the tinplate mills in the manufacture of tin bars. It is possible at a very low capital expenditure for those steel mills to turn out rods, sections and billets. That will insulate the people in those Welsh valleys.
    1184
    6.30 p.m.
    Then we have the factories themselves. Nothing gives me a greater heartache than to see the old works in which I served my apprenticeship 30 years ago now being dismantled, some of them with good suitable buildings. For instance, the Elba Tinplate Works, in Swansea, has a modern building with every facility, it has its own electricity and is near the docks. Why cannot that be converted into a small engineering shop to produce deep stamping and drop forgings?
    There is a committee sitting now of which Lord Lloyd is the chairman. It is an influential committee on which are a number of important industrialists who are there to try to solve this problem. As reported in the Press, Lord Lloyd said the other day that no Government pressure would be brought to bear on industrialists to open up in South Wales, but a certain amount of persuasion would be used. I did not like reading that. I am not suggesting that the Government can act as dictators in that respect, but the Government and the House must take note of the evil sociological effects of the development of industrialisation.
    I have used the following illustration before, but it illustrates what people are thinking. When I once asked an old tinplate philosopher, "What do you think of the Abbey Works, Tom?" he turned to me and said, "David, if the scaffold is made of gold and studded with diamonds, it is not much consolation if its object is to cut your head off." That is how they are thinking, because they can see there is nothing there for them. The tinplate industry is doing as much as it can under the redundancy scheme. The men who own and run the industries in South Wales are good, noble people, but it is not their job to deal absolutely with this problem and they should not be expected to do so. It is a problem for the Minister and I hope, as the result of moving this Amendment, that certain recommendations will be made and a message of hope given to what I consider to be some of the finest people in the world.
    Mr. George Chetwynd: I beg to second the Amendment.
    It is a great privilege to support the Amendment which has been so eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort). I am sure

    1185
    that his words have touched the hearts and minds of all of us in this House, and I hope they will spread far wider, throughout his own area and throughout the industry. I am sure that the Minister must respond to them in the spirit with which my hon. Friend moved the Amendment.
    The Board, as well as having to supervise the industry, will have to pay some regard to the national interest and, whether it is specifically stated or not, will not be able to avoid some responsibility for protecting the national interest in such cases as my hon. Friend mentioned. Under this Clause the Board can refuse consent where the proposals for development will prejudice seriously the efficient development of production facilities. Our main contention, both in Committee and at present, is that a closing down of part of a works or of a whole works is just as much a deterrent to efficient production as are schemes to promote new works or to extend existing works.
    None of us wishes to stand in the way of progress and I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the last person to do that. Obviously, there are cases where, through obsolescence, and so on, works must at some time or other face the prospect of having to close down. None of us would justify a works, whether nationalised or in private hands, being carried on beyond a certain period through obsolescence. Yet we all know of cases in the past where works were closed and production was shut down for reasons other than obsolescence, and we are afraid that those conditions may easily be repeated in the not-too-distant future.
    Already, we are hearing murmurings about fears of over-production. I welcomed the latest news this morning about the 18 million ingot tons of iron and steel production. I think it is a magnificent achievement, but some people may not feel quite so happy about it. I am thinking particularly of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) because he has been talking already about the dangers of over-production and of the fact that people are having to go round—"touting for orders" was his elegant phrase. We are facing the danger of a contraction of this industry not based on grounds of efficiency, but on grounds of maintaining profits at the highest possible level.
    Mr. Nabarro: I have a real constituency interest in watching the production of tinplate rise as rapidly as possible. Tens of thousands of tons of good Worcestershire fruit have been wasted every year in the last few years simply because growers and processors could not get enough tinplate. I am delighted that the output is going up so fast.
    Mr. Chetwynd: If that is so, I am amazed at the earlier interventions of the hon. Gentleman and I hope that at a later stage he will withdraw them.
    In considering the efficient development of the industry, it seems only common sense to us that the Board should have all this information at their finger-tips at the earliest possible moment. I want to give one illustration from an incident which took place in my own constituency in the summer of 1951.
    We have there an old established iron and steel works mainly working on scrap iron. The company concerned, and the Iron and Steel Corporation, made great endeavours to maintain the firm in production as long as possible, and even at the risk of starving some of the South Wales industries of scrap, it maintained its production as long as was absolutely necessary. In the end the day had to come when we could no longer expect that works to keep in production, using in an inefficient way scrap which could be better used in other parts of the industry and, indeed, in other parts of the firm's own plant about 12 miles away. I know that the closing of that works was not carried out in the best manner possible. In fact, the management gave notice to the men going on their summer holidays that they were to have a fortnight's notice and that was the end of that.
    Naturally, I raised this matter with the Iron and Steel Corporation, not that we could do anything about the works in question, but to make sure that this sort of thing should not happen again. I received specific assurances from the Chairman of the Corporation that there had been an unfortunate slip and that the Corporation had been taking the most energetic measures to see that the works should be kept open as long as possible and to see that the skilled men should find alternative employment in other parts of the industry. He also gave me an assurance that this could not

    1187
    happen again under a nationalised undertaking.
    I took that as it came, but I want to Make sure that even under a private undertaking this kind of thing will not happen and, added to the sociological demands of my hon. Friend for the acceptance of this Amendment, that should carry some weight.
    The Minister has put down an Amendment which goes some of the way to meet our points on notification. If I remember aright the Committee stage debate, the question is divided into two parts. One is whether the Board should have the right to veto a closing down, and the other concerns notification. I realise that it is almost impossible for the Government or the Board to tell a private industry to carry on when it no longer wishes to do so. With a nationalised undertaking, however, the problem is solved, because uneconomic plants can be maintained in existence if there are other good reasons for doing so, and their losses can be met from the profits of another part of the industry. Obviously, we cannot expect a private industry to operate in this way and one of the faults of denationalisation is that it makes this sort of thing impossible.
    I am concerned now with notification. Although the Minister's Amendment says that firms which contemplate a closure in whole or in substantial part should give notification as early as is practicable, I do not think that it goes far enough to meet our point of view. When it has said that, that is all it says and nothing else follows. We do not know what action will follow notification. We assume that firms will give notice as early as they can, and that is the end of it. Our suggestion is that there should be a period of at least three months before a closure in whole or in part is possible, and we think that that is the least for which we can ask in these circumstances.
    It is difficult to compel a firm to carry on at a loss, but every effort must be made to continue the works in being as long as possible so that other arrangements can be made under the terms of the Bill; in order that other firms which may be interested in expansion may have a chance of taking over the existing works, so that the Government themselves can carry on if they think fit or some
    1188
    alternative industry may be brought in to take the place of the declining old one. We feel strongly on this matter, because we wish to protect the workers in the industry and, through them, the people who are dependent upon it for a livelihood.
    Mr. Gower: I should like to add a brief comment to what has been so ably said by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort). Hon. Members on this side as well as on his own side of the House will endorse much of what he said in very graphic terms of the plight of those who are, in a way, the victims of progress.
    It is not always a pleasant thing to see the results of progress. In America and in the Soviet Union there are whole areas of the countryside where the remains of obsolescent plant and the relics of out-of-date industries are a rather unfortunate sign of progress. We do not, of course, want that progress to have unhappy repercussions on the lives of human beings when those repercussions can possibly be avoided. That, I think, is the case which the hon. Member for Swansea, East and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) sought to establish.
    The Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend seems to go a considerable way to meet the wishes of the sponsors of the Amendment from the Opposition. I cannot see that the actual terms of the first two Opposition Amendments are objectionable and I should be interested to know whether my right hon. Friend has any strong objection to them. The Ministerial Amendment, as so often happens in matters of this kind, uses the expression "works of substantial size." I appreciate that this term is frequently interpreted in courts of law, but it might be wise, possibly at a later stage, to incorporate either an interpretation Clause to give an idea of what "substantial" may mean, or to incorporate an adjective which might define the term. I do not think it would be wise to leave this matter to a possible examination of its meaning in court.
    6.45 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Swansea, East spoke of a part of the world which I know extremely well, and what he sought to establish was something with which we

    1189
    can all sympathise. He would, no doubt, agree that, on the other hand, there must perhaps be some unfortunate results of industrial progress. We cannot always prevent those results, because we should be putting too heavy a burden on our productive industry, but we must do what lies within our power to minimise them.
    Mr. Mitchison: I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) give even qualified support to the Amendments of my hon. Friends. I point out to the hon. Member and to the House that there is a substantial difference between the effect of those Amendments and the Minister's Amendment.
    The Minister's Amendment does two things. First, as the hon. Member for Barry has pointed out, it defines very roughly indeed—and I entirely agree with the hon. Member, in a very unsatisfactory way—the kind of works the closure of which will entail any obligation. The Amendment simply refers to "works of substantial size." The Government ought to be a little more careful in the use of the word "substantial." We had it on an earlier occasion from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and now we have it again.
    What is a "substantial size"? Whatever it is, it will differ if steel works continue to get larger and larger, and what is substantial from the viewpoint of, say, 50 or 60 men working in an undertaking may not look as large when regarded from the centre of administration. It simply will not do to have a vague definition of that sort. We, on the contrary, by linking up the matter with the other proposals with regard to the Board's consent in Clause 5, give the Board power to determine, on the lines and subject to the provisions there laid down, the cases in which action is required. Our suggestion is more definite and, I suggest, much more sensible than the very vague language of the Minister's Amendment.
    The second point is that as far as the obligation is concerned—and this, too, the hon. Member for Barry pointed out—the only obligation is that the Board shall be informed of the proposals as early as possible. These are proposals to close down large works—"works of substantial size"—proposals upon the social and economic effect of which my hon. Friends have dwelt and the seriousness of which
    1190
    is emphasised by the long history of the industry and its repeated trouble in connection with the closing down of works because of what seemed to be at the time, and might well have been, sound technical reasons.
    There is no industry in the country in which closures of works have led to more disastrous social consequences, whatever the economic advantages in some quarters may have been. I will not dwell on it as the House knows perfectly well the history of this matter. We know that these closings, often for perfectly good technical reasons, have been paid for, quite literally so far as the workers are concerned, by tears and suffering and, as far as the country is concerned, by unemployment, of which I believe we are all heartily ashamed. It is, therefore, no light matter that the only obligation in connection with it is to be to
    "inform the Board of the proposals as early as practicable."
    I want to be quite fair to the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members opposite in this matter. I quite see that if we denationalise an industry and return it to private competition, by so doing we largely deprive ourselves of the power of obviating this kind of misery and unemployment. That is one of our fundamental objections to the Bill, but accepting the principles of the Bill, difficulty is found in saying to a private owner, particularly a very large private owner whom one finds principally in this industry, "You must go on running your works at a loss."
    I can quite see that, and when Amendments were moved in Committee that was part of the answer given to us by the right hon. Gentleman. The rest of the answer was, "After all, there is some provision because, in Clause 4 (3), the Minister, if he thinks that existing production facilities ought to be kept in use in the national interest, may take them over or make arrangements about them." That was the main argument put up in connection with the proposal that there ought to be some power to keep work going.
    Mr. Gower: Does the hon. and learned Member suggest that in a State-owned industry obsolescent plants could be kept in operation indefinitely?
    Mr. Mitchison: I did not suggest that. I think I would be out of order, and

    1191
    certainly would be wasting the time of the House, if I went into a long discussion, but I should have thought it obvious to hon. Members on both sides of the House that the larger the unit of control the better the chances of keeping steady employment in it. I am not going further on that now and I do not ask hon. Members opposite to agree or disagree with me at this point about it, because I want to come back to the point I was making.
    It was said to us, "There is power already, just for this reason and just in this kind of case, to keep a plant in operation and that power is given to the Minister in the national interest, and the national interest will, of course, include the provision of employment." But the answer to that and the answer which the Amendment in the name of the Minister is intended to meet, but does not meet, is that if we are to put the machinery into operation we must at least give the Minister time to do it.
    Under the Bill as drafted one of the numerous signs of haste and uncertainty in the preparation of it was that there was no provision whatever to give the Minister even any notice of what was to happen. We were told that it would come to his notice in the ordinary course of events and so on. Now we have a provision that he is simply to have information "as early as practicable."
    I suggest to the House that no one really knows what that means. In what circumstances would an owner, proposing to close down his works and put 2,000 out of work, consider it practicable to let the Minister know? Would it be when he finally made up his mind, or a little earlier? Supposing a calamity happened and the market broke, or the floods came. In those circumstances "as early as practicable" may be on the actual eve of the day.
    I dare say the right hon. Gentleman will recall that in Committee I pointed out what shocks he was subject to and, while we did not propose to provide him with smelling salts, we did what we could to save him from those shocks. We are proposing that for three months—only for three months and not necessarily for three months—the works should continue in operation. I should like hon. Members opposite to consider this. Supposing
    1192
    they were going to sack a responsible officer in a large steel works. Would they really consider it decent to do so—apart from the law of the matter—with under three months' notice? I am certain they would not. The same, of course, would apply in the case of old employees.
    But what we are considering is not the sacking of one employee, but whether we are to put perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 out of work. I suggest to the Minister that it is only right and equitable, in a case like that, that we should impose on the owner of that works the obligation of going on for three months, even if he does lose something by it. We have left a way out by allowing the Board to consent earlier if the Minister approves. On the other hand, we have allowed the Minister to enlarge the time in proper cases.
    But the fundamental point is whether it is really right and fair that people should be allowed to close down works and throw thousands out of a job without giving three months' notice? If we are to weigh the matter in the scales of justice, is it right that we should allow the possibility of three months' loss when, in fact, the far weightier consideration in the balance is the displacement from employment and the human effects which may result and the larger effect on the national interest?
    All we are asking is for three months for the Minister to make up his mind, and to make preparation for that will take time, as to exercising his powers in a proper case. All we are asking the House to do is to allow their hearts to get the better of them for a moment and to allow the weight of social considerations to balance the risk that a person or a company may have to keep on a works at a loss for three months. That would not do nearly as much harm as the alternative.
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that the issue on this Amendment was whether it is right that a firm should be allowed to throw two or three thousand people out of work without three months' notice. He hoped that we would allow our hearts to guide us in this matter. I am sure that all our hearts were touched by the deeply sincere opening speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort). We know the

    1193
    background against which he was making that speech.
    The hon. Member referred to the anxiety that is felt in South Wales today, and he referred in particular—I thought it was a most helpful and constructive suggestion—to the necessity for examining the possibility of converting some of the hand mills that were being closed to other purposes, for example engineering. Of course that is outside the scope of the iron and steel industry, and would be outside the scope of an Iron and Steel Board. The Government are concerned that all means of ensuring alternative employment shall be examined. That is a task for the new and representative committee set up under the chairmanship of Lord Lloyd. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) also spoke about the distress caused by the closing of works. He said it was difficult, under free enterprise, to prevent rapid closures but that, under nationalisation, this problem was solved. I shall say a word about that in a moment.
    7.0 p.m.
    This Amendment is similar to that moved by hon. Members opposite during Committee stage. It contains two proposals. The first relates to the duty of notification. The second obliges the producer not to close down his works or reduce his capacity without the consent of the Board and the Minister. I explained earlier why the Government could not accept the second proposal.
    Mr. Mitchison: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find this Amendment differs from the other in that consent is deemed to be given at the end of three months. It therefore amounts to three months' notice and does not depend on the consent of the Board.
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct to some extent, but this Amendment does provide for the Minister or the Board requiring the works to be maintained in production even beyond the period of three months.
    Mr. Mitchison: It so provides, but I suggest it is obvious that would not be done except in exceptional cases. Three months is clearly indicated as the normal time.
    Mr. Sandys: I will say something about the three months' notice in a moment, but it is the same proposal with the exception referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    I said during the Committee stage that it was impracticable to tell a firm to remain in production even though they were making a heavy loss, and that the effect of a veto by the Board might be to drive them into bankruptcy. This might result not only in financial difficulties for the firm, but in a heavy loss to the creditors. Who would be responsible for that? Would it be the firm, although they were maintaining production against their will? Or would the Government have to accept responsibility for discharging the debts which the company incurred when being forced to continue production while running at a loss? Those are questions which are not easy to answer.
    We are all agreed on the desirability of a firm notifying the Board and the Government as quickly as possible if they intend to close down their works, or any substantial unit of production. There are two reasons for this; first that the Board and the Minister may know of the supply and unemployment problems which may arise, and secondly that the Minister may be given an opportunity to consider whether he should use his power under Clause 4 (3) to acquire the works and keep them in production. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering said that the Minister must be given reasonable time to make such a decision; I agree. The decision cannot be taken at a few hours' notice.
    We have considered the proposal of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Bill should provide for a minimum period of notice. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees stressed the importance of that period being at least three months. I agree that is a reasonable and satisfactory time. But, in many cases, it is not practicable to insist on three months' notice. The hon. Member for Swansea, East referred to the cloud of anxiety which at present overhangs the tinplate industry in South Wales. My recent experience of that industry has strengthened my view that such a proposal is not practicable. It has long been realised that when the new continuous strip mills were set up at Trostre and Velindre, most of the old hand mills would sooner or later have

    1195
    to close down. But it was not expected that these closures in the tinplate industry in that area would begin on the present scale so soon.
    Only last May the Corporation assured me that the need for closing down these hand tinplate mills might not have to be faced for some years. The industry expected that the demand for tinplate of all kinds would be sufficient not only to maintain Trostre in full production but also to provide adequate employment for most of the old hand mills. It was expected last May that there would be no serious problem of redundancy until Velindre came into production in about five years' time. I am glad to see that two hon. Gentlemen opposite, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Barry) and the right hon. Gentleman, who know this area well, agree with those facts.
    This is the background against which we have to consider the Amendment. Contrary to these reasonable expectations, there has been a sudden contraction of demand for tinplate. I am not speaking of all kinds of tinplate but of the lower grades—what they call wasters—made by the hand mills in South Wales. As a result, the companies concerned, with the approval of the Corporation, decided to close permanently 39 hand mills in 10 works, seven of which were closed completely.
    I look at this Amendment in the light of this recent experience. I was informed in general terms of this problem on 11th December but it was not until 12th January that I received a complete list of the works which were to be closed. Notices were given to the work-people concerned on 23rd January. They took effect on 2nd February. I wish that there could have been longer notice. I said so to the Corporation and to the companies. I am not trying to make a party political point, but even under a regime of nationalisation with all the powers referred to I was not successful in doing more than obtaining some slight delay. This is not the occasion to discuss whether or not longer notice could have been given. It is certainly not my wish to criticise the action taken by the Corporation or by the companies. There were substantial reasons for their action. But it is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees
    1196
    who said that nationalisation provided the complete solution to the problem of sudden closure.
    The fact is that, under nationalisation, works employing about 2,300 men in one of the most difficult employment areas closed at less than one month's notice. These are the facts against which I judge the practicability of this proposal. I do not mention this in order to criticise the Corporation or the companies, but merely to explain why it is unrealistic for an Act of Parliament to provide that there must be a period of three months' notice.
    7.15 p.m.
    It might be said that we could substitute a shorter period, say one month. I have considered that. One month would be so much less than is desirable that, on balance, it would do more harm than good. That is why, although I am far from satisfied with it, I have been forced to fall back on this rather vague phrase, "as early as practicable." It is better to say that than to provide for an inadequate period of notice which would make everybody feel that they had done all that was necessary if they complied with it. Although it does not go as far as I should like, the Amendment in page 14, line 27, goes as far as is feasible in an Act of Parliament.
    The hon. and learned Member for Kettering said that not only did he not like the phrase "as early as practicable" but he did not like the word "substantial."
    Mr. Mitchison: Not in this connection.
    Mr. Sandys: I am not a lawyer, but I should like to quote to the hon. and learned Gentleman an authority which perhaps will carry weight with him. I refer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) who, during one of our debates on this subject, when addressing himself to the Solicitor-General, said:
    "The hon. and learned Gentleman cavils at the expression 'substantial' …"
    the position was reversed then—
    "… and I agree that it might, perhaps, be improved upon."
    This word, "substantial" occurred in an Amendment put forward by the party opposite.
    Mr. Mitchison: It was about substantial interest, I think.
    Mr. Sandys: The same argument applies. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
    "It is one which, as he knows, is used in the Rent Restrictions Acts. It has given rise to a certain amount of difficulty, but nevertheless it has been, broadly, an expression which the courts have found no excessive difficulty in interpreting. At any rate, we adopted it and it implies a clear conception of what we have in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1133.]
    With that explanation from a former Attorney-General, I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will withdraw this Amendment and that, later, they will accept the alternative Amendment to which I have referred.
    Mr. Jack Jones: We realise that the right hon. Gentleman has been dealing with a sociological problem. It is difficult to find an answer which can be put into words and inserted in the Bill. I do not want to go into detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort) did that sufficiently in his eloquent speech. Our main objective is to ensure that in future the fullest possible amount of planning shall be done by the Board in an effort to obviate the evils which arise when any works are closed.
    The word "substantial" does not appeal to me. If I were Bill Jones who was getting the sack next Saturday, that would be 100 per cent. substantial so far as I was concerned. If I am one of 2,000 concerned, it is just as substantial. Do not let us quibble about what it means in toto; what matters is what it means in detail to the individuals concerned.
    We can sympathise to some extent with the Minister over what is happening in South Wales. We all knew for a long time that the new works at Trostre would come into operation, and we all knew that one day some men would become redundant. But it came extremely suddenly; those men felt the hammer falling when they least expected it. I accept the argument about the technical difficulties of giving three months' notice. If I were in South Wales and got three months' notice that my services would be no longer required—that is, the Parliamentary way in which they put it in any industry—I should not wait three months to find another job; I should be off.
    1198
    I know that some of the companies look at the problem in that way, and say. "If we gave three months' notice we would not be able to operate the works." I recognise that that is one of the technical difficulties that arise from giving long notice. It has been argued that nationalisation does not completely obviate this difficulty, but it can go a long way towards doing so. I heard one hon. Member talking about the fat pheasants and the crows. I feel that we should take some of the fat off the pheasants, and that is the sort of thing we can do under nationalisation. The rich companies could be soaked if necessary to help obviate these difficulties. However, I do not propose to discuss that point any further.
    We believe that on sociological matters—we would not agree with him so much on political matters—the Minister's interests lie with the people. It is only right to say that. I believe that as an individual—I stress the word "individual"—the interests of the workmen are very close to his heart. We do not propose to divide the House on this Amendment, but we trust that the Minister will continue to be guided by his humanitarian instincts in his relations with the Board, and that these instincts will guide the Board in their relations with the industry and the industry in its relations with the people engaged in it.
    Mr. Robson Brown: I feel very strongly about this question of giving an adequate fixed period of notice to the employees, and I have sought some way in which that might be done. I believe that the Minister has given sufficient arguments to make it evident that such cannot be done. Originally, I had some sympathy with the proposed new subsection (7) in page 7, line 13, which seeks to provide a specific three months' notice. The only thing I would say against it is this. A manager should be encouraged to work the plant under his control as long as it is possible to do so, and, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) has said, to give a statutory three months' notice might militate against that.
    The one deciding factor in the operation of any works is the state of the order book. If the orders are not there, then with the best will in the world, no matter

    1199
    what decisions are taken, the works cannot operate, and the situation might create a serious financial liability on the company. Generally speaking, I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister spoke as sympathetically as he did because I know that he echoes the feelings of every hon. Member on this side of the House.
    Mr. Fienburgh: We should not let such a solemn and sad occasion pass without uttering a requiem dirge for the Industrial Charter that the Conservative Party produced during their years of opposition. During those hectic years, when they sought enthusiastically with many committees, under the leadership of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, to find some formula which would attract public support, they produced an Industrial Charter.
    One of the most trenchant and interesting proposals in the Industrial Charter was, first of all, the suggestion that it was wicked that a man should be fired at very short notice. They went further and suggested that a man should be given the longest possible notice and that some form of Industrial Charter, like a highway code for industry, should embody this provision. This hon. Members will find embodied in that Charter. It is very sad indeed that we should be burying it so quietly, and I thought that I ought to make these few valedictory remarks on such a sad occasion.
    Amendment negatived.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 42, at the end, to insert:
    "they shall state in writing to the person making the proposal, but without giving information relating to any individual business, their reasons for that refusal, and."
    Perhaps it would be convenient if we discussed, at the same time, the two Amendments in line 45.
    These three Amendment are intended to alter subsection (4) of Clause 5, which came in for a rather powerful attack from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon). I told him of the extent to which I thought we should be able to meet the views he then put forward, and I think that these Amendments fulfil what I said on that occasion.
    1200
    The Amendment I have moved meets the point which was raised, that when the Board refuse their consent to any development proposals, before the person who has applied for that consent appeals he should be informed of the reasons for the Board's refusal. It seeks to provide for that, subject to the safeguard that it does not put upon the Board the duty of disclosing to the applicant confidential information which they have received from other persons in the industry and which it would not be right for them to disclose to the applicant.
    Mr. Mitchison: If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the Amendment, he will find that that is not what it says. It is far wider than that. It says that they are not to give information relating to any individual business. It does not say a word about confidential information. If the reasons for coming to a decision necessarily involve certain information about the business, what are they to do?
    The Solicitor-General: I was taking the matter shortly. Perhaps I should not have done. While I fully understand the intention of the Amendment, I was summarising it by saying that the Board should not be required to disclose information—I said "confidential"—relating to any other individual business. It may well be that that information which has come to the Board is one of the reasons for refusing an application. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that if that is the position the information could not rightly be disclosed to the unsuccessful applicant. That is the safeguard with which I was dealing, quite shortly. Subject to that exception, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will see, the Board have to state in writing to the person making the proposal their reasons for the refusal.
    7.30 p.m.
    The next point dealt with in Committee was that of the drafting of this subsection, which might make it appear that the Minister should consult the Board last and after he had heard anything that the applicant had to say. I think that the second Amendment, by altering that drafting, makes it quite clear that the Minister will consult the Board, but that he is by no means bound to consult either the Board or the applicant last; nor is

    1201
    he limited in the number of occasions on which he can consult either of them.
    The third Amendment is purely drafting, as, also, is the fourth. I hope I have explained satisfactorily what these Amendments do, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend who criticised this subsection will recognise that we have gone as far as is possible, and I think entirely, to fulfil the undertaking given on that occasion.
    Mr. Mitchison: We on this side would not wish to interfere in this friendly matter between the hon. and learned Gentleman and his supporters. Indeed, we see the purpose of the Amendments, and take no objection to them, but we do not altogether like the language, and I would humbly suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he might consider whether the first Amendment is not too widely drawn. Obviously, the intention is to prevent confidential information being passed, but, as it is, there appears to be no qualification, and it seems to me that it amounts to a prohibition to pass on any information relating to any individual business. That is a very sweeping prohibition, and I believe goes further than the hon. and learned Gentleman intends. However, we shall not oppose these Amendments; we agree with them in principle, and that is our only comment on them.
    Mr. J. E. S. Simon: When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) and I put down for the Committee stage the Amendments which have given rise to these Amendments, we did so because we felt that an important point of principle was at stake; namely, that where there is an appeal to a Minister by a private citizen whose ordinary civil rights have been invaded, natural justice should be done as far as he is concerned, and natural justice should also be seen to be done.
    What seemed to us to be objectionable in the Clause as drafted covered two points. The first was that the appellant, as be is called, was not made aware of the case which he had to meet, and the second was that the Board, who were invading his rights, were placed in a very favourable position—an unfairly favourable position—and one that could give rise to great misunderstanding, in that the
    1202
    Minister was obliged to consult the Board last before coming to his decision and always after hearing the appellant. There was a third point which we all desire to see put right, and that concerned the non-publication of the report of the civil servant whom the Minister appointed to hear the representations of the appellant.
    I recognise that my hon. and learned Friend gave strong reasons during the Committee stage why he should not meet that last point; I must confess that I am disappointed that he could not do so, but I see the force of the objections. On the other hand, it would be most ungenerous not to recognise that my hon. and learned Friend has gone every bit as far as he undertook to go in Committee, and has met what we regarded as the two main and very serious objections to the Clause as it was drafted. I should like to express my thanks and those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York for the way he has met us.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Will the Solicitor-General undertake to look at the language here, because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is convinced that this wording goes beyond the purpose which the learned Solicitor-General has in mind? If he will look at it again before the Bill goes to another place, we would be grateful.
    The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, may I say that I did nod when the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was speaking, because I did not know whether I should have another opportunity of speaking. Of course, we will look at the point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In line 45, after "writing," insert:
    "and shall consult with the Board."
    In line 45, leave out "him," and insert "the appellant."
    In page 7, line 2, leave out "after consultation with the Board."—[Mr. Sandys.]
    Mr. Frederick Lee: I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, to leave out subsection (6).
    The House will remember that, on the Committee stage, the Minister introduced an Amendment to add the subsection which I am now moving to delete, and

    1203
    the effect of the introduction of the new subsection was to remove iron foundries from the supervision of the Board. Our Amendment seeks to give back to the Board the powers which the Minister himself originally decided that they ought to have. I know that hon. Members often speculate as to the motives which drive Ministers and Governments to change their policies after the introduction of a Bill, but, in this particular instance, there is no need for any speculation, because I think the Minister and his hon. Friends agree that he has bowed to pressure from the foundry owners. The Minister's speech in introducing subsection (6) was just about the strangest commendation of a change in a major Measure, which I have ever heard in eight years' membership of this House. He said:
    "Personally, I remain satisfied that the Bill, as it is now drafted,"—
    that is, before the Amendment was accepted—
    "makes it clear that the Board is not intended to concern itself with minor schemes of this kind; … Nevertheless, there is no harm in making quite sure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 694.]
    For my part, I thought that sounded like a final and very feeble rebuke to the torturers before murmuring the fatal words, "I beg to move."
    My hon. Friends on this side feel some sympathy with the Minister in having to re-awaken in his breast the horrors of his extremely painful interviews with the chief inquisitor, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who, on the Committee stage, informed the world of his instruction to the Minister to cut out this nonsense about supervision over foundries. I should have thought that the hon. Member himself could have been satisfied with the great extent of his triumph which had taken place in private without publicly flaunting it in the Minister's face and subjecting him to such obvious embarrassment.
    The right hon. Gentleman is indeed unfortunate in his power behind the throne. My reading of history leads me to understand that in these matters there is generally at least some compensation for the occupant of the throne. But, so far as the Minister is concerned, I find no compensation whatever. Certainly not for him the cooing blandishments of a Pompadour or a Dubarry. Fate, it
    1204
    appears, has decreed that, in his case, the dulcet whisperings must give way to something which sounds more like the roar of a wild bull of the pampass than the cooing and so on which we generally associate with these delicate associations between the power behind the throne and the occupant thereof.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no harm in making quite sure, but great harm has already been done by his introduction of subsection (6). The T.U.C. is extremely alarmed about this matter, and is very much up in arms against it. It will not escape the notice of the right hon. Gentleman that the T.U.C. took such a dim view of his change of heart in the matter that they actually issued a statement on it which reads as follows:
    "The T.U.C. General Council express their opposition to the Amendment made by the Government to the Iron and Steel Bill to relieve foundries of the duty to submit their development schemes to the Iron and Steel Board for approval. They are opposed to this unjustifiable concession to pressure from foundry owners, and, as they have made clear to the Minister of Supply, are convinced that it is essential to give the Iron and Steel Board adequate powers to supervise foundry development. Working conditions in many foundries have for long been unsatisfactory. The General Council therefore welcomed the Government's original decision to include foundries within the supervision of the Iron and Steel Board, as this would enable the Board to exercise a general influence towards raising health, safety and welfare standards in foundries. The amendment of the Bill in this way will, in fact, leave the new Board with less power to exercise control over foundry developments than the former Board—a non-statutory body—possessed."
    The right hon. Gentleman knows that the members of the T.U.C. General Council are not quick to rush into print on these matters. They are men who take a sober view of these things, and I hope that when, after careful deliberation, the full weight of the General Council comes down in uncompromising opposition to his weakness in giving way to the foundry owners led, or at least spoken for, by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, the right hon. Gentleman will see that he has made a cardinal mistake and one which will rankle for long in the minds not only of the members of the General Council, but in the minds of many trade unionists associated with them and for whom they speak.
    The Minister argued in that same speech that development schemes in

    1205
    foundries had been small. He seemed to deduce from that fact that they were unimportant. But the smallness of a scheme is no criterion of its importance. Indeed, those of us who have had some dealings with industry generally and with foundries in particular know perfectly well that there is no single grandiose scheme which can ameliorate all the difficulties which one seeks to get rid of. It is only by a sequence of relatively small schemes that one gets results. Indeed, one could instance many small development schemes which have yielded very beneficial results.
    7.45 p.m.
    The fact that only minor schemes have as yet been undertaken in an industry which is notoriously the Cinderella of the metal industries denotes the large amount of development which still has to be done, and I would have thought that was the attitude which the Minister should have adopted before introducing the Amendment on the Committee stage. For many years both the Labour Government and the present Government have been spending considerable sums of money on research in order, among other things, to rid the foundries of dust which is responsible for silicosis and other diseases from which foundrymen suffer.
    The results of that research have not yet been applied. I remember when I was at the Ministry of Labour that one of the things we were trying to do was to implement the results of that research, to bring them to fruition and to get them to floor level in the foundries in order that the toll of silicosis and other diseases could rapidly be diminished. But as yet those responsible for this research have not been able to bring their work forward sufficiently quickly to allow the improvements in health in foundries to take place. Yet, despite that fact, the Minister now tells us that the Board are not intended to concern themselves with minor schemes of this kind.
    Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Lee: Those were his words, and I hear confirmation of them coming from the hon. Member for Kidderminster. The sheer heartlessness of this attitude is most appalling. I am trying to address myself to a serious issue, and I would advise the hon. Member for Kidderminster to keep away from the annual
    1206
    conferences of foundry workers because the ridicule which he is pouring on their efforts to eliminate disease from the foundries may bring him into actual physical contact with a few particularly hard and gnarled fists.
    Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman must not make these wild statements. The Iron Foundry Workers' Union in my constituency are on the closest and most amicable terms with their Member of Parliament, for they realise, of course, that they have no stronger supporter for improving working conditions in factories than their local Member.
    Mr. Lee: It is most peculiar that the hon. Gentleman who has boasted of his supremacy over the Minister and who has done everything he possibly can to get iron foundries out of the control of a responsible Board should now hope to convince this House that he is doing so because of his love for the foundry workers and because he desires to press ahead with better conditions in foundries. I should think better of him if he would be honest enough to tell us that his sole interest is that of the foundry owners, and at that, may be, not the most reputable section of foundry owners.
    As I was saying, it is essential that we should go ahead and get results from the research for which this Government and the last Labour Government have been paying so dearly, and it is at this very time that the Minister has decided to remove this industry from the supervision of the Board. Quite apart from welfare, there is great need to supervise the expansion and development of the foundry industry.
    Welfare and efficiency must go hand in hand. Large sections of the engineering industry depend for their raw material on the supply of castings from the foundries. We all agree on the necessity for a great expansion of engineering production, but it is quite impossible for that to happen if in many sections of the industry the pace has to be measured by a shortage of castings coming from the foundry industry.
    I hope that even at this stage the Minister will go back to his previous ideas and realise that it is quite essential that we should have supervision of the foundry industries by the Board. As foundries develop and begin to expand

    1207
    their products, they will draw off supplies of iron and steel products which in present conditions go to other manufacturing sections of the engineering industry. In a brief intervention during the Committee stage of this Bill, I tried to point to the changed nature of the foundry industry. I referred to the introduction of prefabrication which is, as yet, in its infancy and is a feature of which we must take note in the context of this Bill. Even moulding, which has survived as a handcraft to this day, is beginning to enter a stage of mechanisation.
    In these days when developments are being made at an increasing tempo, how can the Minister pin his arguments on the basis that only small developments have taken place? It is the excuse of the servant girl that, after all, the baby was only a little one. It has no basis in logic. The Minister must know that he was perfectly right in the first instance to have insisted on the iron foundries remaining under the supervision of the Board. I hope that even now, having seen the reaction in most responsible quarters to his surrender on that issue, he will decide that, rather than bow either to the ogling or the braying of some of his hon. Friends, he will stand on his principles and turn down Kidderminster and other interested quarters. I hope that he will tell us that, on consideration of the arguments which have been adduced in this House and of the reaction of the trade union movement, he will agree to accept the Amendment and to delete this subsection (6).
    Miss Margaret Herbison: I beg to second the Amendment.
    This is my maiden speech on this miserable, partisan Measure. When the Minister introduced subsection (6) on Committee stage, he made a very short speech. I do not blame him for that. I have seen many Ministers of this Government trying to defend a weak case, but never has a Minister had such a weak case to defend as when the right hon. Gentleman moved the Amendment to introduce this subsection (6). He told us:
    "The purpose of this Amendment is to exempt the foundries from the application of the Board's power of veto in respect of development schemes under Clause 5."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 693.]
    1208
    The remainder of the speech was an explanation, not of the necessity for the Amendment, but of the lack of need for it.
    If I were to accept the Minister's explanation—and of course I do not—even then, as a former teacher of English who dislikes redundant phrases, I would oppose this subsection. But I do not accept the Minister's explanation on Committee stage. There is much more to it than what the Minister said at that time. His simple explanation by no means covers the case. The Board have what I would term very limited powers of vetoing development in the iron and steel industry under this Bill. This subsection has taken from them any power of vetoing development of iron foundries, no matter how extensive that development might be. I hope that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has realised that the power of veto has been taken completely out of the hands of the Board, not only in the case of minor developments, but of major developments in the industry.
    Mr. Nabarro: Quite right.
    Miss Herbison: It is quite clear to us that this subsection is not an example of redundancy, as the Minister tried to make it out to be, but is a subsection that will do harm to industrial efficiency. Quite clearly, this is another example of this Government's shocking lack of interest in the national well-being. We remember this Government, or leaders of this Government, telling the country during the Election that what was needed was strong, wise, decisive leadership. They said, "Only return the Tory Party to Government and you will get that wonderful leadership." What a farce their Ministers have made of that claim.
    I do not think that this country has ever had a Government who have shilly-shallied so much over important things as have the members of this Government, from the Prime Minister right down to the merest junior Minister. The Government have yielded to every act of pressure that has been brought upon them by their wealthy supporters, and it is yielding to acts of pressure that has led to shilly-shallying and not the decisive leadership that the nation was promised and perhaps had a right to expect.

    1209
    This subsection is another example of the Government's protecting the interests of the few. At one time it was the brewers; this time it is the foundry owners. The Government can only provide this type of protection at the expense of the interests of the majority of the people of this country. For that reason again, I oppose this subsection and hope that the Minister will withdraw it.
    It seems to me, from my little knowledge of them, that foundries are an important and integral part of the iron and steel and engineering industries. If the Minister is convinced that in the interest of efficient production it is necessary to give the Board certain powers of veto on development in iron and steel, he has no case whatever for not extending that power to development in foundries.
    It is true that the right hon. Gentleman said on Committee stage that in the majority of cases foundry development was a small development; but it is no use his saying that no foundry scheme in the future would be large enough to come within the scope of the Board's veto powers. I am sure that he does not want to add one other claim to the already extravagant claims of this Government by suggesting that he or any other member of this Government is a prophet or a seer.
    8.0 p.m.
    If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in industrial efficiency and in the maximum output of our industry, he ought to realise—as my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment proved—that although in the past developments in foundries have been mainly small ones, that is no reason to think that they will continue to be so in future. From my study of this question, I would say that if we are to pay our way in the world—as we can do only if we get a higher degree of efficiency in all our industries—and if the foundries are to play their part both in the iron and steel industry and in future engineering developments, there must be what I term major developments in the foundry industry. If we are to have those major developments the Minister should be ready to accept this Amendment, because what he thinks is necessary for iron and steel must also be necessary for any major developments in foundries.
    1210
    Most people would agree that, in assessing the factors which lead to industrial efficiency and higher production, the health and safety conditions of the workers must not be ignored. It is of the greatest importance to safeguard and improve those conditions. The hon. Member for Kidderminster seems to think that subsection (6) has no effect on this question, but if he has read the Garrett Report he will realise that the elimination of this subsection would make it possible for the Board to do something to bring about the fulfilment of the recommendations made in that report.
    I hope to convince the hon. Member that that is so. I was fortunate to be able to present a Private Member's Bill in this House, and I chose one dealing with health and safety conditions in foundries. That Bill got its Second Reading, and we meant to take it to the Committee stage. Here I should like to praise one of Her Majesty's Ministers—the Minister of Labour—who co-operated to a very great extent on this Measure and who, in, the shortest possible time, published draft Regulations. I thank him for the very great help he gave us.
    But a Private Member could never be ambitious enough to try to incorporate in a Private Member's Bill all the recommendations of the Garrett Report. Many of those recommendations are still not contained in Regulations and they may not be for some time. If the Minister had not inserted this subsection (6) the Board would have had limited powers of veto, and if they had wanted to make this Cinderella of the engineering industry more attractive to our ambitious young men—and I use the word "ambitious" in its very best sense—they could have said, as far as any major development was concerned, "We will give our permission to carry on with that major development so long as we are assured that every recommendation of the Garrett Report is carried out." That would have been one of the biggest improvements in the foundry industry. It would have led to better conditions, happier workers and much greater production.
    I hope the Minister will take these facts into account and forget the small pressure group of foundry owners who have been at him since this Bill was suggested. He should put their interests completely behind him and keep in mind the real

    1211
    interests and the future industrial efficiency of this nation.
    Mr. Nabarro: It would be ungracious of me not to acknowledge a maiden speech on this Bill. I shall therefore be very restrained in my comments on the speech delivered by the hon. Lady. I am sure she does not mind; she is a tough customer and she can take criticism in good heart. Her speech was in marked contrast to that of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). At least the hon. Lady was tolerably accurate, whereas the hon. Gentleman was wildly inaccurate.
    What has this Clause, and the inclusion in it of subsection (6), to do with health, safety and welfare? If the hon. Gentleman had read the Bill in any great detail he would have observed that in Clause 3 (1) there appear these words, as being a direct responsibility of the Board:
    "… the arrangements for the promotion of the safety, health and welfare of persons employed in the iron and steel industry. …"
    In so far as the Board are not able to make the necessary provisions, the requirements of the Factories Acts will look after any deficiencies there may be.
    Miss Herbison: We realise that that provision is contained in Clause 3 and also that there are certain provisions in the Factories Acts; but even those provisions are not sufficient to bring about what the supporters of the Foundry Workers Bill were asking for. That is why I stressed the fact that one way of getting all those provisions in any new major development was by giving the Board this power. By quoting Clause 3 the hon. Member does not do away with the case that has been made from this side of the House.
    Mr. Nabarro: I shall answer the hon. Lady so long as I can remain in order. Early in her speech she confessed that she had only little knowledge of iron foundries. I must therefore sympathise with her. The problem with regard to health, safety and welfare in iron foundries is not that of new developments and new foundries, but of raising the standards in the old foundries. I should be out of order if I pursued health, safety and welfare. The hon. Member for Newton placed himself grossly out of order in doing so,
    1212
    for there is no mention of those matters in this Clause.
    Mr. Lee: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for an hon. Gentleman to tell you that you were completely out of order in allowing me to continue a certain line of argument?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I did not think the hon. Gentleman intended his remark to be understood in that way.
    Mr. Nabarro: I intended no disrespect to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am complaining that the hon. Member's speech was wildly irrelevant. I wrote down a few words from one of the early sentences of his speech. He said, "The effect of the deletion of subsection (6) would be to remove iron foundries from the control of the Board." In fact, nothing of that sort would occur. All that would happen is that the Board—as the hon. Lady recognises, in complete contradistinction to her hon. Friend—will not have control over the development of iron foundries.
    The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) interpolated the word "nonsense" in a speech I made on the Committee stage. I am sure he will remember the incident. I said how difficult it would be for the Board to exercise any close degree of supervision over development plans for iron foundries due to the fact that there are more than 2,000 foundries in this country and the overwhelming majority of them are small ones. I said that, as the Bill is drafted, if a foundry wished to double its plant and add one sandbox to an existing sandbox, involving the employment of four men instead of two, they would have had to apply to the Board for permission.
    A controversy developed about what is a minor scheme. Both the hon. Member for Newton and the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North fastened on the point that minor schemes would be excluded, but my right hon. Friend's difficulty in a matter of this sort is obviously that of defining what is a minor scheme. A foundry which had one sandbox and wished to add one more would regard that as a major addition, whereas a foundry with 100 sandboxes which wished to add one more would be adding only 1 per cent. If we endeavoured to apply the terms of Clause 5 (2) to iron foundries

    1213
    there would be very great difficulties indeed. I have been completely consistent throughout this Bill——
    Mr. Percy Shurmer: You always are.
    Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman has just walked in. He knows nothing of the argument.
    Mr. Shurmer Mr. Shurmer rose——
    Mr. Nabarro: I will not give way. The hon. Member is a notorious nuisance in the House. Perhaps I may come back to what I said on Second Reading. These were the words I used, as reported in column 703:
    "Secondly, the Board should have no restrictive powers affecting the development of iron foundries except in cases where such development is called for in an amount of more than £250,000 as an aggregate of plant and buildings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 703.]
    In other words, I was pleading that only large foundry development schemes should come within the scrutiny and under the jurisdiction of the development powers of the Board.
    My right hon. Friend decided to go rather further. He said he could well afford to exclude altogether the large schemes from the Board's development plans because there were so very few of them. I think that, on balance, my right hon. Friend's decision is wise. In the last few years there have been only a handful of schemes involving a capital expenditure of more than £250,000, and whether they should come under the development control of the Board seems to be largely academic. No engineering undertaking will spend £250,000 or more on a new foundry unless the demand for its products, its castings and its associated products exists and is likely to continue.
    The hon. Member for Newton referred to alarm in the Trades Union Congress about this subsection. I have not had the privilege of seeing that expression of alarm.
    Mr. Lee: I read it to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman produced a foolscap sheet, but he did not read the whole of it. I think he read one sentence.
    Mr. Lee: Does the hon. Member dispute the statement made by the T.U.C., because it appeared in all the Press?
    Mr. Nabarro: I should be interested to know whether the T.U.C. expressed alarm about the whole question of the iron foundries in this proposed set-up or only about the removal of development control—because it is only the latter which we are discussing here. We are not discussing health, safety, and welfare. What the T.U.C. expressed alarm about was the prospect that health and safety and the general interests of the workers in the industry would not be fully safeguarded. The hon. Member for Newton should be a little more precise in his argument.
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The T.U.C. are alarmed about the effects of the action of the Government in introducing Clause 5 (6) into the Bill at all because of its effects on the supervision of development. They believe it will have detrimental effects upon development which could, in turn, affect the health of the workers.
    Mr. Nabarro: I find it difficult to believe that the T.U.C. would feel any alarm at all about the removal of control over large development schemes. But to return to what I said earlier, the T.U.C. expressed alarm about the interests of the workers and about health, safety and welfare; and those points are fully covered in Clause 3, augmented and supplemented by the requirements of the Factories Acts.
    Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady made reference to the foundry owners. I do not represent the foundry owners. I have spoken on foundry matters throughout the Bill from a long experience of that branch of the engineering industry, but I do not represent the foundry owners. The Council of Iron-foundry Associations, if this is any news to the hon. Member for Newton, made no mention whatever in their representation to my right hon. Friend of the removal of these powers in relation to development.
    Mr. Lee: How do you know?
    Mr. Nabarro: I saw the confidential memorandum——
    Mr. Lee: Oh.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member should let me complete my sentence. I saw the confidential memorandum which the Council of Ironfoundry Associations distributed to their 2,000 members. They had the courtesy to send me a copy. [Laughter.] There is no cause for amusement. They made certain recommendations for the improvement of the Bill, and they were fully justified in doing so.
    May I make one or two observations about my right hon. Friend's very wise decision to remove development control over iron foundries from the Board? It would have been impossible to operate such control efficiently in view of the very large number of small foundries in this country and of the problem of defining what was a minor development. That was the first reason. The second reason, which no one has yet mentioned, was the special position of tied foundries in engineering works. This Bill is not intended to exercise control over the general engineering industry or supervision over any part of that industry, but had iron foundries been brought, in toto, under the control of the Iron and Steel Board, it would have been necessary for an engineering works with a tied foundry—a foundry devoting its entire output to the finished products of that engineering concern—to make application to the Board in order to extend the production facilities of the foundry.
    That would have led to an intolerable situation, with the Iron and Steel Board having a measure of control over an engineering undertaking or enterprise. Surely that would have been wholly wrong. Also, it would have been impossible to operate it efficiently. In removing iron foundries from the control of the Board my right hon. Friend gave effect to the representations which had been made to him by the iron foundry industry and, I readily confess, by myself. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Newton need not cackle like a broody hen.
    Mr. Lee: Why should not I? You roar like a bull.
    Mr. Nabarro: I said what I had to say publicly on Second Reading. There was no subterfuge or concealment about it. I said it in good humour and with a sincerity based on quite a long experience in these matters.
    1216
    I hope my right hon. Friend will reject this misconceived Amendment, which is based on erroneous statements and has been moved by an hon. Member who has not yet taken the trouble to read the Bill although it has been in the hands of hon. Members for several months. I trust that if a Division is forced on this Amendment, a decisive majority will be recorded against the machinations of hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Lady for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said that on a previous occasion I made a short speech. I hope to make a short speech again now. The hon. Lady said that she was making, so to speak, a maiden speech on the Iron and Steel Bill this evening. Perhaps it was not quite as maidenly as most of the speeches which had been made on this Bill. The hon. Lady is a newcomer to our debates, and is perhaps a little out of touch with the constructive and amicable atmosphere which prevailed until her entry.
    The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) based himself, as did the hon. Lady, largely on the necessity to remove this subsection in order to ensure better working conditions in the iron and steel foundries. This Clause is concerned with the veto power of the Board over development. It was never intended that it should be used as a means of examining detailed plans—washing arrangements, canteens, dust conditions and things of that kind—which are essential for the well-being of a factory or a foundry.
    This Clause is concerned with the broad pattern of the development plans of the industry. As the hon. Lady herself pointed out, conditions in the foundries were examined by the Garrett Committee in 1947. On the basis of the recommendations of that Committee, and stimulated, no doubt, by the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends in bringing in her Bill the other day, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour produced, as the hon. Lady said—she made a gracious reference to him and singled him out from the rest of this "miserable" Government—these Regulations, which I have here and with which the hon. Lady is familiar: the Iron and Steel Foundries Regulations, 1953. These, I think, as the hon. Lady will agree, go a long way in the right direction. It is in that way, I believe, that we shall make

    1217
    more progress towards improvement of conditions than by any veto Clause, such as is now proposed on foundry developments.
    The other argument advanced by the hon. Member for Newton was that the rest of the industry—no doubt he had in mind the engineering industry—was dependent upon an adequate supply of castings and that some expansion of casting capacity might well be necessary to meet the needs of the whole industry. But again, I think, the hon. Member overlooks the fact that this Clause is not concerned with expansion but is concerned with vetoing a development scheme. This would, therefore, be quite an inappropriate place in the Bill to provide for the kind of expansion which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    These expansions are dealt with under a different Clause, as well as the efforts which the Board should make to promote and encourage these expansions. The hon. Gentleman quoted me as having said on an earlier occasion that I was introducing this subsection to make sure, although, in my opinion, it was not entirely necessary to insert it, and would probably not have a very great effect upon the action of the Board in this connection.
    The hon. Gentleman took some exception to that. I would point out to him and his hon. Friends that I have accepted a number of Amendments from hon. Members opposite, the sole purpose of which was to make sure that we were quite clear what the Board would do on certain matters. On a number of occasions, I have said that I do not consider an Amendment is necessary, but if there is any doubt as to the meaning of the Bill, let us by all means cross the t's and dot the i's and make sure that there is no possible uncertainty.
    Mr. Lee: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is one thing to agree to put in an Amendment after considerable discussion in the House of Commons in which a number of hon. Members showed concern about the issue, and quite another thing for him to come along to the House and say, in effect, "Because of the arguments I have heard behind closed doors, I now propose to do this in spite of the fact that I think these arguments are wrong"?
    Mr. Sandys: That is not what I said. I said on Second Reading, and previously in the debate on the White Paper, that, in my opinion, this veto Clause would not affect foundry development, because the Bill says that these schemes are not to come within the scope of the Board's veto without the insertion of subsection (6) unless they would, in the opinion of the Board,
    "seriously prejudice the efficient and economic development of production facilities in Great Britain."
    It has to be a fairly substantial scheme seriously to prejudice the efficient and economic development of production facilities in Great Britain.
    8.30 p.m.
    Even if the subsection had not been inserted, very rarely, if ever, would a foundry scheme have come within the scope of the veto Clause as it is drafted, but since there was anxiety in the industry about the possible application of the Clause in a way which was not intended, I thought it right to make the position perfectly clear. After all, the Bill is not purely a Parliamentary instrument. It is to some extent a charter, an experiment in a new relationship between the Government, a public body and a privately owned industry. If the scheme is to be a success, it is important that we should as far as possible carry with us in spirit, and not only by legislation, all the essential elements in industry who will have to play their part.
    I turn now to the subject of working conditions, which has been stressed more than any other and which was, I believe, in the mind of the T.U.C. in making its statement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) correctly pointed out, the supervision of the safety, health and welfare of employees in the foundry industry, as in all other parts of the iron and steel industry, is provided for under not Clause 5, but Clause 3. Clause 3 applies to all the activities set out in the Third Schedule and this includes foundries as well as other iron and steel activities.
    Some foundries have excellent conditions; I have been very much impressed by some that I have visited, but others leave much to be desired. There is a wide gap between the best and the worst

    1219
    in the foundry industry, and I am sure that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North is keenly aware of that. I sincerely hope that the Bill will, among other things, have the effect of improving the general level of foundry

    Division No. 119.]

    AYES

    [8.31 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

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

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

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Godber, J. B.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

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

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Gower, H. R.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Markham, Major S. F.

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

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Baker, P. A. D.

    Grimond, J.

    Marples, A. E.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

    Barber, Anthony

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Maude, Angus

    Barlow, Sir John

    Harden, J. R. E.

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

    Baxter, A. B.

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Mellor, Sir John

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Molson, A. H. E.

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

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

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

    Birch, Nigel

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Black, C. W.

    Hay, John

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Heath, Edward

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Brains, B. R.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hill, Mrs. E. ((Wythenshawe)

    Nutting, Anthony

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

    Hirst, Geoffrey

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

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

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

    Bullard, D. G.

    Horobin, I. M.

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

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Osborne, C.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O

    Campbell, Sir David

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Carr, Robert

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Cary, Sir Robert

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

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Channon, H.

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

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

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

    Cole, Norman

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Colegate, W. A.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Raynor, Brig. R.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Jennings, R.

    Redmayne, M.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

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

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Crouch, R. F.

    Kaberry, D.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Crowder, Peter (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Robson Brown, W.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Law, Rt. Hon R. K.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Ropers, Sir Harold

    Deedes, W. F.

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

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Russell, R. S.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Drewe, C.

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Dugdale, Rt.Hn. Sir Thomas(Richmond)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

    Low, A. R. W.

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

    Fell, A.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Finlay, Græme

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Fisher, Nigel

    McCallum, Major D.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Speir, R. M.

    Fort, R.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Foster, John

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Stevens, G. P.

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    conditions throughout the country; if it does I shall be well pleased.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 247; Nose, 231.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Tilney, John

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Storey, S.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Turton, R. H.

    Wellwood, W.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Summers, G. S.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Teeling, W.

    Wade, D. W.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

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

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Turo)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    York, C.

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

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Wills.

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mort, D. L

    Adams, Richard

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Moyle, A.

    Albu, A. H.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D R

    Mulley, F. W.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Grey, C. F.

    Murray, J. D.

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Noel-Baker Rt. Hon. P. J

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Orbach, M.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Oswald, T.

    Balfour, A.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Padley, W. E

    Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.

    Hannan, W.

    Paget, R. T.

    Bartley, P.

    Hardy, E. A.

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

    Bence, C. R.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Hastings, S.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Benson, G.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pannell, Charles

    Beswick, F.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Parker, J.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Paton, J.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Peart, T. F.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Holman, P.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Blyton, W. R.

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Poole, C. C.

    Boardman, H.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Popplewell, E.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Porter, G.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Price, Joseph T (Westhoughton)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Rankin, John

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Rhodes, H.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Janner, B.

    Richards, R.

    Carmichael, J.

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

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)

    Roberts, Coronwy (Caernarvon)

    Champion, A. J.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Ross, William

    Coldrick, W.

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Royle, C.

    Collick, P. H.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Cove, W. G

    Keenan, W.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Kenyon, C.

    Short, E. W

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Kinley, J.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Deer, G.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Logan, D. G

    Sparks, J. A.

    Dodds, N. N.

    McGhee, H. G

    Steele, T.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    McGovern, J.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

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

    McLeavy, F.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Edelman, M.

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Fienburgh, W.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Thomas, Iorwerth(Rhondda, W.)

    Finch, H. J.

    Messer, F.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Follick, M.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Forman, J. C.

    Monslow, W.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Moody, A. S.

    Thornton, E.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Timmons, J.

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

    Morley, R.

    Tomney, F.

    Gibson C. W.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Gooch, E. G.

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

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    1222

    1223

    Viant, S. P.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Watkins, T. E.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

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

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Weitzman, D.

    Wigg, George

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Yates, V. F.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    West, D. G.

    Willey, F. T.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. A. Allen.

    Clause 7.—(DUTY OF PRODUCERS TO COMPLY WITH BOARD'S DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM PRICES.)
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 8, line 20, after "any," to insert "class of."
    This very small Amendment arises out of a question put to me by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo). I am sorry that he is not here. He is on the other side of the Atlantic. During the Committee stage he said he was not clear whether the words "any … products" covered the point which worried him, that if a producer had 10 products and a number of different selling agents and the Board were determining whether these were agents within the subsection, the Board would have regard to each of the products separately or to all 10 products. The Amendment is designed to make it clear that they would have regard to each one of the products separately.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, to leave out "the next following section," and to insert, "section nine of this Act." The reference is obvious—to Section 9. I would only say that as Homer sometimes nods and has an occasional somnolence, so duller poets often seem given to a nap.
    Mr. J. Hynd: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Gentleman will not expect me to wax poetic, but none the less I would congratulate him on finding a small technical flaw in the Bill and on having drawn our attention to it so that it could be put right. I am sure that he would be the last person to consider that the presence of a flaw shows any lack of skill on the part of the very experienced draftsmen who have prepared the Bill. It is a great achievement that there should be so few. One more is coming before us in a moment and with it I think we shall have covered all the shortcomings of the draftsmanship of this long and complicated
    1224
    Bill. We are grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for pointing this one out.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10.—(IMPORTATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF RAW MATERIALS AND FINISHED PRODUCTS.)
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 11, line 20, to leave out "that," and to insert "any such."
    This is a small drafting Amendment necessitated after the Amendment made in Committee in the previous line to change "and" into "or." Now the word "or" appears, the word "that" does not make much sense and we therefore propose to substitute these words.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, in line 24, to leave out "and," and to insert "or, as the case may be."
    This Amendment follows the advice given at the end of a short debate on this subsection by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). We were advised that the words were all right, but we were rather inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the meaning of the words if they include "or, as the case may be" is slightly clearer. We therefore recommend to the House that they accept this alteration and we wish to express our gratitude to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, in line 26, after "secured," to insert "within a reasonable time."
    This is an addition to an Amendment that was made in Committee and during that debate, when we were discussing the Amendment moved by one of my hon. Friends, I think it was the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey), the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) pointed out that there seemed to be a loophole in the words and that it might be possible

    1225
    for the Board to be prevented from doing what they ought to do under this subsection by the feeling that at some time, perhaps after a long time, the industry could put matters right. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend promised, we have considered the matter carefully and we have come to the conclusion that to make clear what was our meaning and the meaning of the Committee in that discussion, we should insert these words.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, in line 37, to leave out "distribution," and to insert "sale."
    I need not explain this to the House, because my right hon. Friend explained this fully during the Committee stage and in an earlier debate this afternoon we covered the point. Shortly, it is that the Board are not concerned with the allocation of finished steel and in so far as the word "distribution" includes both the meaning of sale and marketing and of positive allocation, we want to make it clear here that we are referring to the sale side only.
    Mr. Mitchison: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not consider me captious and will acquit me of any desire to overwork another place. I notice, however, that "distribution" occurs throughout subsection (1), and if some alteration is being made in subsection (2) perhaps it would be advisable to do the same in subsection (1).
    Mr. Low: The point was covered earlier. Subsection (1) deals with raw materials, and subsection (2) with finished products. There is, therefore, a difference in the Board's attitude to these two matters. The raw materials are used by the steel industry, and the iron and steel products are to be used by people outside the industry.
    Mr. Mitchison: This is a wholly exceptional case on the misguided view that the Government take of the Bill. I believe that for once the Parliamentary Secretary is absolutely right.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, in line 45, after "is," to insert "or will shortly become."
    It is not necessary to explain the the Amendment very fully because the
    1226
    whole question was discussed during the Committee stage. After considering various alternative forms of words, we think that "or will shortly become" meet the views which I expressed and the point which I put to the Committee. The Amendment is intended to qualify the wards,
    "unless it appears to the Board or, as the case may be, to the Minister. …"
    in lines 41 and 42.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 12.—(PROVISION OF FUNDS FOR BOARD.)
    Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in page 13, line 27, to leave out "the said scheme," and to insert:
    "a scheme made under this section."
    This is a small drafting Amendment. The Clause provides for funds for the Board to be got from the industry by means of a levy. Subsection (6) provides the machinery for collecting those funds by providing that
    "The amount of any contribution payable by any person under the said scheme shall be a debt due by him to the Board."
    Subsection (7) provides for extension, confirmation or modification of any such scheme.
    As the Clause is drafted, however, there is no machinery for collecting the contribution under an extended or modified scheme. The "said scheme" only refers to what has been foregoing and not to what comes after. The Amendment is designed to ensure that any contribution under an original scheme or a modified scheme shall be a debt to the Board.
    Mr. Robson Brown: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Sandys: As I said, two flaws have been discovered. As we hoped that this would be an agreed all-party Measure, it is right, proper and fitting that two hon. and learned Gentlemen from either side of the House should have contributed in this way to put matters right. We are very glad to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    >Clause 14.—(FURNISHING OF INFORMATION TO BOARD AND MINISTER.)
    Mr. Chetwynd: I beg to move, in page 14, line 23, to leave out "but not relating directly to," and to insert "including."

    1227
    I had a very powerful speech ready for this Amendment, but then I noticed the Amendment in the name of the Minister to line 30, to leave out "such," and to insert:
    "(a) such information relating to the costs of production of any products to which section seven of this Act applies as may reasonably be required by the Board for the purposes of their functions under this Act or by the Minister for the purposes of his functions under this Act, or
    (b) such other."
    I wish to ask why the Minister has agreed to do something he was so adamant that he could not do when we were in Committee. In view of that Amendment, I wish to ask why the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to give way on subsection (2) but not on subsection (1)? It seems to me that the Amendment I have moved is a much clearer way of getting to the same end in subsection (1) than the Amendment to be moved by the Minister, but I moved my Amendment in order to safeguard his Amendment to subsection (2). If we have the right to get information, I do not see how we can get that information without including information on costs of production.
    Mr. G. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Sandys: I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the House if we were also to discuss my Amendment to page 14, line 30. If so, I should answer the hon. Member and at the same time explain the reason for my Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that meets with the wishes of the House.
    Mr. Sandys: As I understand it, the Opposition are anxious that the Board should have all necessary information relating to costs of production. I do not accept that I was opposed to the provision so adamantly as the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) suggested. I made clear on an earlier occasion that to a large extent the information could be obtained under the Clause as it stands, but, in order to make sure, I have tabled this Amendment.
    As it stands, the Bill empowers the Board to obtain all the information it might require for fixing prices. That is the most likely purpose for which the
    1228
    Board may require information about costs. However, as was pointed out by several hon. Members in Committee, the Board might in certain circumstances require information about costs for other purposes than price-fixing; for example, under Clause 3. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
    In this Amendment I have tried to meet the precise criticism which was made. The Amendment will enable the Board to obtain information about costs not only for price-fixing, but for all purposes under the Bill. There are two differences between my Amendment and the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees. Under the hon. Member's Amendment all iron and steel products would be brought within the scope of this Clause. The Board would be able to obtain information about costs of all iron and steel products for any purpose.
    My Amendment excludes foundry and forge products for reasons which I explained earlier. We wish to avoid as far as possible placing an undue burden of paper work upon small foundry firms, some of which employ only a few men in a back yard and have no clerical organisation to deal with inquiries which might arise in this connection. These foundry and forge products are excluded so long as they are not brought within the scope of Clause 7, when they would be treated in the same way as any other iron and steel product in the Third Schedule.
    9.0 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees asked why this was put into subsection (2) and not in subsection (1). By inserting this reference to cost in the second subsection instead of the first we have met a point to which we attach importance. Had we done what the hon. Member suggested, we should have deprived the Board of the right to require that this information be certified by auditors.
    Mr. Chetwynd: I am satisfied with the explanation of the Minister, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In page 14, line 27, at end, insert:
    (2) The Board shall so exercise their powers under the preceding subsection as to secure that, in such cases as may be defined by notice in writing, if any iron and steel producer, one of whose main activities forms part of the iron and steel industry, proposes to close down any works of substantial size used by him for the purpose of any activity forming part of the iron and steel industry, or any substantial group of production facilities in any such works as aforesaid, he shall inform the Board of the proposals as early as practicable.
    In page 14, line 30, leave out "such," and insert:

    (a) such information relating to the costs of production of any products to which section seven of this Act applies as may reasonably be required by the Board for the purposes of their functions under this Act or by the Minister for the purposes of his functions under this Act, or

    (b) such other.—[Mr. Sandys.]

    Mr. G. Darling: I beg to move, in page 14, line 36, at the end, to insert:
    (3) The Board or the Minister may by notice in writing require any organisation representative of iron and steel producers to furnish to the Board or, as the case may be, to the Minister, such information as may reasonably be required by the Board for the purposes of their functions under this Act or by the Minister for the purpose of his functions under this Act; and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing such information may consist of or include information as to the amount, incidence, purpose and expenditure of any levy or other contribution imposed, collected or received by or through the organisation on or from iron and steel producers or any group of iron and steel producers.
    We have had a number of discussions about the powers granted to the Board to obtain information and about the limits to be set to the scope of that information. I do not wish to go over the ground again. What we are asking in this Amendment is that the powers of the Board to obtain information be extended to trade associations, as well as to companies engaged in iron and steel production, so that the Board shall be able to carry out their duties effectively. In particular, we think it important that information should be obtained from the Iron and Steel Federation.
    This is a reasonable request, because most of the information the Board will need will be obtained in the normal course of the Federation's activities. Research and the collection of information is one of the Federation's main tasks. I am sure that the House would agree that
    1230
    it would be wrong for the Board to set up another fact-finding agency. The only point which we wish to cover is the unlikely event in which the Federation refuses to divulge to the Board the facts which it collects from the industry when the Board makes a normal request.
    In those circumstances, we think it would be quite wrong if, in the case of the Federation withholding information which was wanted by the Board, the Board should have to do the job themselves, thereby duplicating all the services and wasting a lot of time and money. We therefore suggest that it is reasonable to ask that the Board should have the right to use the Federation's fact-finding services in just the same way as the Board have the right to collect information from the companies engaged in the industry.
    We also suggest in this Amendment that, in particular, the Board ought to have the right to obtain information about the levies which the Federation imposes on the industry. This opens a wider subject, which we have discussed before in Committee, and I must say that I have been rather surprised and somewhat shocked by the views expressed by the Minister and some of his hon. Friends in these Committee discussions. Their view has been that trade associations can do what they like; they can raise money how they like and spend the money which they raise how they choose; if they choose, they can keep the accounts secret, and there is no reason why they should publish the accounts. The Minister himself said in Committee, and I quote him:
    "I really do not see why either the Board or Parliament should require to know how money raised by a trade association is spent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 1281.]
    The right hon. Gentleman was referring to employers' trade associations. If he had been referring to workers' trade associations, he would have been inviting those associations to break the law, because the law as it affects workers' trade associations is very strict. The workers' trade associations have to render public account of the levies which they make and the contributions which they receive, and show how their income is spent. We are not complaining about the strict legal provisions as far as they affect workers' trade associations. We accept them, and we do not want to alter them, because we

    1231
    think that these trade union laws are very satisfactory.
    We do say, however, that the same laws ought to apply to employers' associations. I know that I would be out of order if I pursued that matter much further, because it is outside the scope of this Bill, but, with permission, perhaps I may add one sentence to express the hope that the matter will be dealt with by the next Labour Government.
    The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown), in the course of the discussion in Committee, appreciated this point, because he said, and I quote him:
    "… 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 conduct of the association or federation."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 18th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 1275.]
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we cannot be satisfied that all levies are reasonable and well spent unless the particular associations concerned publish their accounts. We cannot ask for that in this Bill, but we can give the Board the right to find out how the Federations levies are raised and how they are spent.
    Mr. Gower: Has it occurred to the hon. Member that as a trade association is a voluntary body the constituent companies could choose not to have such an association at all?
    Mr. Darling: That is a far-fetched view to put forward about the iron and steel industry, because the services rendered to the industry by the Federation are such that none of the companies within the industry would like to be without its services.
    We suggest that the Federation should be treated as the trade unions are treated, although, as I have said, I should be out of order in developing that point. We are asking that the information about the Federation's funds and its levies should be made known to the Board. I am not discussing the industrial fund in particular. In Committee, the Minister suggested that the Board would be able to get information about the balancing fund in so far as it affected the fixing of prices. We think that the information should go
    1232
    much further than that, particularly with regard to the special levies about which no information, so far as I know, has ever been given by the Federation.
    We must bear in mind that the Federation collects something like £800,000 a year by these levies, which is a considerable sum. I think the Board ought to know just what the Federation does with that money. Some very vague statements have been made about it in the course of our discussions. It has been suggested that it is used for research and training, and the hon. Member for Esher even mentioned pensions. But so far as I know there is no evidence that the £800,000 a year is used for the provision of pensions generally in the industry. Neither is there any evidence that the money is spent on education and training. We appreciate how it is spent on statistical research, but I am sure that expenditure does not account for the whole £800,000.
    It has been suggested that part of the levies is used for political purposes, and that has not been denied. I do not wish to argue whether it is right or wrong for this or any other trade association to use its income for political purposes, but I do say that if the political activities of workers' associations are restricted by law, it is wrong that employers' associations should not also be so restricted.
    It is not only a matter of the trade unions. During the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) quite rightly pointed out that Co-operative societies spend money for political purposes. But under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, the Co-operative societies have to render a full account in public of all their income and expenditure, and I think that the same kind of laws ought to apply to all trade associations.
    We do not think that the Iron and Steel Federation ought to be in a privileged position in the matter. If, under this Bill, we cannot ask for the income and expenditure of the Federation to be made public in detail in the same way as trade unions and Co-operative societies funds are made public, we say that its income and expenditure should at least be known to the Board. If the right hon. Gentleman and his party wish to avoid trouble in this issue they will accept this Amendment. It would be easy for the right hon.

    1233
    Gentleman to do so because I believe the Federation gave an undertaking to the Iron and Steel Corporation that they would produce information about their levies and about the expenditure of the income from those levies every six months.
    9.15 p.m.
    I hope that the undertaking has not been scrapped under the new set-up. If it has been scrapped, it will look very sinister. It will look as though the Federation, having been requested by the nationalised industry to divulge information, will now revert to their status as a secret society under this Bill, which is supposed to provide for public supervision of the industry. It will look doubly sinister if the right hon. Gentleman defends this objectionable secrecy while insisting that trade unions and cooperative societies must render to the public a full account of their affairs.
    Mr. Chetwynd: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I only want to add a few words to the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) raised at the end of his speech concerning the agreement between the Iron and Steel Corporation and the Federation. It was a kind of working agreement covering a large number of points, one of which was that the Federation would divulge to the Corporation every six months the income and expenditure of the special fund. I tried to put a Question on the Order Paper to find out what happened to that fund, but the matter was not within the Minister's responsibility and I was unsuccessful. But I should think that the Minister has that information at his disposal. It would help us in discussing this Amendment if he could give some details of income and expenditure so that the answer to our worst fears may be brought out into the open.
    Mr. H. A. Marquand: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak before the Minister replies, because I want to make some remarks to which the Minister may be willing to refer when he addresses the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) has explained with admirable clarity and, indeed, restraint the purpose for which we put this Amendment on the Order Paper. In
    1234
    doing so, my hon. Friend referred only incidentally to possible expenditure for political purposes, to which we devoted a good deal of time in Committee. I do not want to refer again to that subject, since we discussed it at some length last time and my hon. Friend has again asked pertinent questions about it.
    I would remind the Minister that during the Committee stage I suggested that, for all we know, it may be that some of the money raised by the Federation by this levy may be expended on the furtherance of monopolistic practices. So intense was the interest in the question of political expenditure that when the Minister replied to the debate he did not refer at all to what I said on that occasion. Perhaps he will do so this time.
    After all, right hon. Gentleman opposite admit definitely and clearly the possibility of monopolistic practice in the iron and steel industry. It would be very surprising if they did not in view of the long history of that industry with which we are all familiar. They have recognised the possibility to some slight degree in their Bill. They have put into one Clause a reference to the Monopolies Commission. It is a very brief and fleeting reference of a rather negative character, but during speeches on Second Reading and other stages of the Bill the Minister frequently claimed that he can safeguard the consumer from the possibilities of monopolistic practice in this industry because he has at his call the Monopolies Commission.
    We are not satisfied that that is an adequate safeguard to the consumer in view of the curious procedure which obtains with regard to references to the Monopolies Commission. One has to be aware of a good deal of restrictive practice before one can ask the Commission to look into the matter, and experience has shown that the investigation by that Commission takes a great deal of time.
    If the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are to extend the purview of the Commission to the whole of the nationalised industries they may take even longer over any one investigation. Yet apparently that is all the Minister intends to do, because when we suggested that some provision might be necessary to require some safeguard for the equitable

    1235
    distribution of the products of the industry he was not willing to consider it.
    I suggest that long before he refers anything to the Monopolies Commission he should satisfy himself whether something about which he ought to know is not going on under his own nose. He should not wait until the results have come to pass and then refer the matter to the Commission. Would it not be better if he were to find out, by the process suggested in my hon. Friend's Amendment, whether the Federation spend some of their money on the furtherance of monopolistic practices?
    The Federation are a remarkable and most efficient body and they can produce very effective results. When I was Paymaster-General and had some responsibility in regard to the distribution of iron and steel I found that provided the Federation were given about six months' notice they could ensure, in the iron and steel products at the end of that period, exactly the range which was required. If one told them that six months hence one required rather more building steel and rather less railway steel, or rather more shipbuilding steel and rather less of some other kind of steel—down to details of types and kinds of steel—the Federation would produce it.
    They have very great powers over the detailed workings of the industry and they have ways and means of doing these things, and we should like to be sure that when the industry is returned to private ownership these undoubtedly efficient ways and means are not used in any way against the public interest. I ask the Minister to address himself to the question whether or not the funds raised by the Federation through their levy might be used to further monopolistic practices and, if the answer is in the affirmative, whether—apart from any other consideration—he should not ensure that his Board can inform themselves in detail how the money is raised and spent.
    Mr. Sandys: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not follow him in all the points he has raised, some of which are outside the scope of this Amendment, but I hope to give him some of the information for which he asks.
    This Amendment divides itself into two parts. The first provides that the Board
    1236
    shall be able to require trade associations to supply them with information which they obtain from their members. Whilst I do not imagine there is anything very secret or embarrassing about that type of information, the Board could obtain it from precisely the same sources as those from which the trade associations obtain it. It would constitute a complete duplication of functions.
    Personally, I am inclined to think that the Board would do well to establish fairly direct contacts with iron and steel producers themselves, and not to rely upon getting information secondhand from trade associations. However, that will be for the Board to decide. I do not think we ought to encourage the Board to regard trade associations, important and useful as they are, as being an absolutely vital element in the organisation upon which they rely. However, I have no doubt that there will be not the slightest difficulty in the Board's obtaining information of this kind from associations, if it is more convenient to obtain it in that way. There can be no possible objection, because this is information which the Board are entitled to obtain directly from the firms which provide that information to the trade associations.
    The second part of the Amendment concerns information about contributions to or levies raised by the trade associations. I believe that this is what interests hon. Members opposite most. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) used the expression "sinister." Other expressions have been used—"mystery," and so on—to describe this particular expenditure. When we talk about organisations representing the iron and steel producers, there is, as far as I can understand from listening to our debates on the subject, only one organisation in the minds of hon. Members opposite, and that is the one they describe as "Steel House." They talk of it almost as though it were the Brown House at Munich.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Very appropriate, particularly for the right hon. Gentleman to say that.
    Mr. Sandys: What I would ask them to remember is that there are many other trade associations which come within this sphere, but for the moment, since, as I say, that is the matter that most whets the appetite of hon. Members opposite, I

    1237
    shall confine myself to the question of contributions raised by the British Iron and Steel Federation from its members. Now, the levies which are raised by the Federation are of two kinds. The first is concerned with equalising prices. That is known as the Industry Fund and is used to equalise prices of imported materials and the costs of using scrap and pig iron in the production of steel. The Industry Fund is regulated on a basis which was the subject of an agreement between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and the Federation, and its accounts are readily available to the Government at all times. Full information is available. There is no mystery whatsoever about that.
    The other part of the levy—and here we come to the part which really does excite hon. Members opposite—is known as the special levy, and has been referred to on previous occasions as the Is. a ton levy or the political levy. The special 1s. a ton levy covers a number of things. I have taken the trouble to obtain information from the Federation since our last debate, or, to be more accurate, the Federation have taken the trouble to approach me and have said that they would like me to be better informed about their levy than I was previously.
    9.30 p.m.
    As I have said, this levy covers a number of things—general administrative expenses, the compilation of statistics, expenditure in connection with scrap-collection, training schemes, certain capital expenditure and also public relations. I am going to be very forthcoming in regard to this information. The Board have no power to obtain any information about any of these things; nor have the Government at the present time. That does not mean to say that it is not possible to get this information or that it is not freely given.
    This information—let me be clear about this—in regard to the special levy or in regard to any other levy for that matter, as I explained in the earlier debate, is really not, in my view, the direct concern of the Board. It does not affect the functions of the Board and, therefore, would not come under the provisions of this Amendment unless it related to
    1238
    information which the Board required for the discharge of their duty.
    In my belief it will be primarily, if not exclusively, in relation to price fixing that the Board will need to obtain information about the expenditure of the Federation or of any other trade association. As I explained earlier, if producers wish expenditure which they have incurred by way of a contribution to a trade association, to be taken into account in fixing prices, then, it will be up to them to satisfy the Board that the expenditure should rightly be included in the assessment of their costs of production.
    Therefore, there will in fact be no difficulty, in my view, in obtaining all the information which will be needed by the Board to fix prices. It is in the interests of the iron and steel producers to provide that information, otherwise the Board will not allow for that in assessing the cost of production. But we have to keep a sense of proportion in the whole matter. A shilling a ton, when steel costs an average of £30 a ton, obviously is not going to make a very big difference to the price of steel or to the profits or the financial position of the iron and steel companies.
    It has been alleged, not today but on an earlier occasion when we discussed this matter, that we were resisting this Amendment because we were under such heavy pressure from our masters in Steel House. I have on more than one occasion firmly denied that any pressure has been put upon me in regard to this Bill by the Iron and Steel Federation at Steel House. I have now to make a confession to the House.
    Some pressure is being put upon me, and it is being put upon me by Steel House. Hon. Members may be surprised to know that the pressure being put upon me is that I should accept an Amendment somewhat in the sense proposed by the Opposition.
    The Federation have sent me full particulars of the expenditure of the special levy. They undoubtedly feel that what has been said in the House about the levy has given a distorted impression of their activities and that it is in the general interest for the matter to be clarified. In view of the wild rumours and unfair allegations which have been made, I

    1239
    propose to give this information to the House.
    I have before me the details—I hope this will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand)—of the way in which the Federation has spent the 1s. per ton levy in 1952. It covers what I should describe as external relations. This totals £19,000, the equivalent of about a farthing per ton on steel, and it is made up as follows: works visits by representatives of the technical Press and other similar activities, £3,500; preparation and publication of the Federation's quarterly reports and annual reports, £2,000; subscriptions to other bodies—the British Employers Confederation, the Federation of British Industries, the Council of Building Material Producers and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a very respectable body£7,300; and general publicity, mainly in connection with training, research and recruitment, £6,200. That adds up to £19,000. Thus, in 1952 nothing, or an entirely negligible sum, could in any way be regarded as being spent on political purposes.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Which year was it?
    Mr. Sandys: It was the calendar year 1952. However, in order to be absolutely fair, I must tell the House that the Federation have pointed out to me that, since the beginning of 1953, they have produced a pamphlet entitled "Policy for Steel," which they claim—I have not examined the document—is almost entirely an answer to attacks which have been made upon either themselves or the record of the steel industry. They have spent a few hundred pounds on the preparation, publication and circulation of the pamphlet.
    Mr. G. Darling: The figures given by the right hon. Gentleman total less than £20,000. What has the Federation done with the remaining £780,000?
    Mr. Chetwynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time give the figures for the previous year when the General Election took place, because a contribution to "Aims of Industry" was alleged?
    Mr. Sandys: I was dealing with public relations. Someone asked what that was
    1240
    all about, and I thought I had better give the details. If hon. Members are interested, I will give details of the remainder.
    It might be for the convenience of the House if I were to give the details of how the 1s. is made up. Salaries, rents and administrative expenses represent 3½d.; statistical compilation and publication, 1½d.; scrap drive publicity, Id.; training scheme organisation, ¾d.; reserve for capital expenditure, which includes the construction of ships for carrying ore and so on, 2½d.; external relations—that is the point I have just examined in detail—¼d.; and the remaining 2½d. which goes to make up the 1s. is for taxation. I hope that in giving those figures it will disperse the cloud of mystery which has appeared to surround this Fund.
    Mr. Chetwynd: What about 1951?
    Mr. Sandys: I have not got the figures for 1951, but I have given hon. Members details for a complete calendar year. Since then, as I pointed out, there was an expenditure of a few hundred pounds on the pamphlet I mentioned. No apologies are needed by any organisation for activities of this kind. I am merely stating facts. One of the objects in the articles of association of the Iron and Steel Federation, like most trade associations, is to promote, support or oppose legislation and, therefore, it is perfectly proper for them, as a trade association, to express their views on such matters.
    In so far as there is political expenditure, it would not come within the scope of the Amendment moved by hon. Members opposite, which refers to information reasonably required for the Board in the discharge of their duties. Clearly the Board would not require to know about expenditure of a political character in order to carry out their duties, but the fact that the Federation have expressed a desire to see a provision of this kind introduced into the Bill is sufficient evidence that they intend and wish to provide the Board with any information that they may require.
    The only reason why I hesitate to give effect to the wishes of hon. Members opposite is that they talk about Steel House and the Iron and Steel Federation as though they were the only body concerned. There are many other trade

    1241
    associations which would be affected if the Amendment were adopted. I have a list of some of them here, but there are quite a number of others. I should like to read to hon. Members a few examples of the associations which would come within the scope of the Amendment if adopted in this form.
    Apart from the Federation and the Council of Iron Producers, the Council of Ironfounders Associations and others would be brought in because foundries and forges are within the scope of the Bill. The other associations would include such organisations as the Cast Iron Axlebox Association, the Cast Iron Chair Association, the British Internal Combustion Engine Manufacturers' Association, the British Engineers' Association, the Locomotive Manufacturers' Associations of Great Britain, the Railway Carriage and Wagon Building Association, the Machine Tool Trades Association, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the British Pump Manufacturers' Association, the Agricultural Engineers' Association, the British Compressed Air Society, the Association of Crane Makers, the Society of British Aircraft Constructors, and the Metallic Bedstead Manufacturers' Association.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Darling: The Clause, as we propose it, would be permissive. Obviously, the Board would not write round to all those people about iron and steel production. They would go to the Federation which deals with the iron and steel producers.
    Mr. Sandys: It might be permissive, but it might be very alarming for the bedstead manufacturers to see themselves brought into the Bill without their knowledge.
    Mr. Mitchison: I was fascinated by that list. I do not think that making iron and steel is quite as easy as one sometimes thinks. Does that mean that the iron and steel producers contribute to all those bodies and that they all raise a levy for the bedstead manufacturers?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not suppose that the bedstead manufacturers would take that lying down. The Amendment as it is drafted, includes much more than information about levies, as the hon. and
    1242
    learned Gentleman will see if he looks at it. The Iron and Steel Federation have said that they would be very happy to see a Clause of this kind in the Bill, but the Amendment would cover a much wider field and I would not feel disposed without going into the matter much more closely, to accept it hastily. I am in sympathy with the proposal, because the fewer mysteries there are in these matters the better it is for all concerned.
    I have given the House a good deal of information about this vexed question. I will try to go further. If hon. Gentlemen opposite can see their way to withdraw the Amendment, I, on my side, but without making a firm promise, because this is not so simple as it appears, will undertake to look into this problem closely in the spirit in which I have spoken this evening and to see whether it is possible to introduce a satisfactory Amendment. If it is, I will try to make arrangements for that to be done in another place.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman has been particularly forthcoming this evening. His speech was really an argument in favour of our Amendment. He showed us that it was very easy to produce these figures. There is no secrecy about them—anyhow, there is no secrecy about them in a year when there is no election. It is easy to show how much money was spent by the Iron and Steel Federation for political purposes. The right hon. Gentleman says that the wording of our Amendment is awkward because it would cover a large number of organisations, which might be alarmed at having to give a great deal of information. That is not a valid argument. I do not think there are many organisations or associations which impose a levy on the production of iron and steel. If there is more than one, I am certain that the Board would not want to make many inquiries from them.
    What we have in mind is clear. I must repeat the reasons for which we are asking for this information. We say that the industrial fund is of the greatest importance in the iron and steel industry. Through the industrial fund just on £100 million was re-distributed among various producers in the industry last year. Nearly £100 million, and a quarter of the cost of the basic product, the steel ingot, is levy.

    1243
    It is possible to alter the incidence of the levy without affecting final prices. For example, it would be possible to make those producers who use scrap pay 10s. or £1 more a ton and reduce the amount paid by those who use pig iron by a corresponding amount with no effect on the final prices. Therefore, we say that apart from price-fixing it is essential that the Board should be given full information about the levies by the iron and steel industry so that they can use their influence, if necessary, to get the levy varied. How the levy falls has a life and death effect on the individual units and plants in the industry.
    Secondly, in regard to the special levy of 1s., about which the right hon. Gentleman has given us much valuable information, there is a lot of suspicion about it. It is a huge sum of money. Nearly £1 million a year goes to Steel House and up till now we have not known how and on what it has gone. In view of the political arena in which the Iron and Steel Federation has existed for a long time, there is a great deal of suspicion, whether justified or not we do not know, about the amount of money used by Steel House for political purposes, particularly at Election time, out of the fund raised by the 1s. a ton levy on all steel products. We still do not know the answer.
    The right hon. Gentleman says that he will endeavour to meet our request and will see whether it is possible, between now and the time the Bill goes to another place, to carry out by an Amendment there what we have in mind. Before I can say that such a proposal is acceptable to us, I must ask one or two questions. Obviously, I have not had time to consult my colleagues since the proposal has only just been put to us by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Is the Minister trying to meet our proposal, first, that the Federation—isolated for this purpose from other trade associations—shall disclose to the Board whenever called upon to do so, twice a year or whenever there is a change in the industrial levy, all the information which it may have about that levy and its incidence; and that that information shall be given to the Board by the Federation before any change takes place, so that the Board will always know what is proposed and will then be able to use
    1244
    their influence if they think necessary in preventing or modifying such a proposal?
    Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman further prepared, by the Amendment which he has in mind, to ensure that the Board or the Federation—we do not mind which—publishes annually a statement such as was given to us this evening by the Minister of Supply showing how the special levy of 1s. a ton is disposed of? He has told us the figures for the last year and I agree that they are perfectly innocent. However, I took grave exception to the document published by the Iron and Steel Federation early this year, a political document which seeks to ridicule statements which my colleagues on this side of the House have made from time to time about the steel industry. It sets out to ridicule the opposition to the Iron and Steel Bill and it is wrong that such a political document should be published by the Federation.
    In short, we want to know how much of this money is used yearly for political purposes. Is the industry spending in Election year, a quarter of a million or half a million pounds in support of the Conservative Party? It has been suggested that that sort of thing does happen. We do not know.
    If the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he will undertake to do his best—I cannot see what the difficulty would be—to ensure that there is published yearly, either by the Board, or by the Federation, an account of how that special levy is used, in as detailed a manner as the Minister has given us tonight—and if it can be published for 1952 there is no reason why it should not be published for any future year, or, for that matter, for any past year, which might prove very interesting—and also the industrial fund in ample time before it is varied, we would withdraw the Amendment because that would meet all that we ask.
    If the Minister seriously does his utmost to achieve that, there could be no difficulty about it. The only difficulty there might be is the opposition of his political colleagues in another place or from Steel House, but there could be no technical difficulty. If the right hon. Gentleman undertakes to try to do as I suggest, we will take it that he has accepted the arguments which have been put forward,

    1245
    and we would withdraw our Amendment and look forward to seeing the Amendment he proposes to introduce in another place.
    Mr. Sandys: Perhaps I can make the position absolutely clear. What I shall try to do is to find an appropriate form of words after examining the difficulties which I have explained: namely, the very wide range of associations which might be involved. I should not be prepared to put forward an Amendment which would bring in so many organisations, and I think the right hon. Gentleman recognises that that is reasonable. If some way can be found of including only the principal association concerned with the iron and steel industry, I propose to see whether an Amendment can be framed which will deal with expenditure roughly on the basis of the second half of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
    As I explained, I am not prepared to encourage the duplication of the collection of the general information referred to in the first part of the Amendment and which the Board can get from producers. The second part of the Amendment deals with the expenditure in which, I understand, hon. Gentlemen opposite are mainly interested, and I will try to do as I have said. I repeat again that this is without any firm promise but with every good intention.
    Mr. Gower: I think that after the statements my right hon. Friend the Minister has made tonight right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite owe him numerous apologies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They should formally recant——
    Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Member allow me——
    Mr. Gower: I am sorry, but I am speaking for no more than a minute. Those of us who were present during the Committee stage will recall the fantastic statements made on the other side. Hon.
    1246
    Members opposite created in their imagination a lion and they have found a lamb.
    As my right hon. Friend quite clearly stated, he has given a very clear description of the figures. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) asserted that this could be done in a non-election year but not in an election year, forgetting that the Minister has promised to study the possibilities of giving such figures in any year, either present or future. My right hon. Friend is to be commended for the action he has taken.
    Mr. G. Darling: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. John Hynd: I beg to move, in page 14, line 36, at the end, to insert:
    (3) For the purposes of verifying or amplifying any information or forecast furnished by an iron or steel producer to the Board or to the Minister under either of the preceding subsections of this section, the Board or, as the case may be, the Minister, may by notice in writing require that iron and steel producer to provide facilities for the inspection by any person authorised by the Board or, as the case may be, by the Minister, of any property of or under the control of that iron and steel producer, being property to which that information or forecast relates.
    In the state in which the Bill now finds itself, this is perhaps one of the most important Amendments that we will have to discuss. I remind the Minister that earlier Amendments from this side have suggested that some effective control of the industry should be operated by the Board. The Government, however, have effectively resisted these Amendments and have indicated that they have no intention of accepting any kind of effective control by the Board.
    It being Ten o'Clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
    Bill, as amended (in Committee and on re-committal), to be further considered Tomorrow.

  REMANUFACTURED WOOL
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House no now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. William Paling: A Question was asked in the House recently by the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) with reference to the quality of wool. The hon. Lady asked the President of the Board of Trade:
  "whether he is aware of the extent to which the structural strength of wool cloths is debased by the inclusion of large percentages of remanufactured shoddy; and whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that the presence of shoddy shall be made notifiable to the public, in view of the increasing use of re-manufactured fibres in the wool industry, to the detriment of the consumer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 580.]
  I represent an area where an abundance of shoddy is made, and I must take this opportunity to defend the industry against these charges. What is the shoddy industry? It is the reclaiming of woollen waste from rags and suits of clothing, Army, Air Force, Navy and police uniforms, ladies' woollens of various kinds and cast-offs of a great variety. These materials are processed in up-to-date mills. The point I wish to emphasise is that these rags are sorted quality by quality, which means much, not only to the shoddy industry, but to the woollen industry as well.
  The name "shoddy" sounds psychologically wrong. Shoddy was invented about 140 years ago when the name was always used as a noun. Today, we use the word as an adjective more than a noun and very often it is used in connection with the industry in that way. This industry deals with recovered and remanufactured wool fibres and there is nothing wrong with that.
  The recovery of wool in this way means a lot to this country. It is a valuable aid to the national economy because the large proportion of used wool which is recovered and remanufactured results in a great saving. The production and use of shoddy is equivalent to a great export trade, because we are saving the importation of wool and the currency which would be expended upon it. If this can
  1248
  be done and is done without detriment to the cloth, it would be folly to take any steps which might result in discrediting or discouraging this very useful section of the British industry.
  The world production of wool is far below the quantity required for the population of the world if we use nothing but virgin wool. Therefore, in this country and in other countries it is necessary to use these sources of supply given by the shoddy industry. If shoddy were not used, many people in this and other countries would be dressed in a far worse manner than at present, If we had to use virgin wool many thousands of families would be unable to afford a reasonable suit, coat, or dress.
  The use of recovered fibres enables us to conserve foreign currency, helps the employment of British workers and means a large range of goods at reasonable prices. Shoddy is to the wool industry what scrap is to the steel industry and I do not think anyone would say that the steel industry is debased by using scrap. If we took quality for quality and used virgin wool for the manufacture of articles as against virgin wool plus a certain amount of shoddy, prices would at least double on most commodities such as suitings and coatings. The very fact of using shoddy with wool enables us to maintain a reasonably priced range of the goods which people require every day.
  It is interesting to note the remarks of the President of the Shoddy and Mungo Manufacturers' Association at their annual meeting a fortnight ago. He considered that it was important to note that the productive capacity of the industry acted as a definite economic brake on the wool market, that the world could not he clothed without mungo and shoddy and that the skill of the users of these raw materials in the woollen trade conferred both a benefit and boon on the consuming public of the world.
  Those words are very true and very important. In this country there is tremendous value in the amount of rags collected each year. If it were not for the waste trades all that valuable material would be thrown away. If it were collected it would find a ready market overseas and we could have imports to this country of ranges of clothing with which we could not possibly compete in price if we had

  1249
  to rely solely on virgin wool for our manufacture. Collecting rags does not sound a very nice phrase, but if hon. Members went into one of the mills and saw the type of stuff collected and how it is graded from high-class down to the lowest, which is used for flocks, and so on, they would appreciate the value of this industry.
  We also get clippings from tailors and dressmakers and hosiery waste from hosiery manufacturers, and so on, which is almost the equivalent of virgin wool. The reclamation and reproduction of this wool is of the utmost importance to the industry from the point of view of an availability in quantity, of the variety of quality and last but not least of price.
  In fact, it is stated, and I think it can be proved beyond all doubt, that some shoddy products are better than some products manufactured from pure wool, because there is in shoddy a number of grades of quality just as there are qualities in the wool trade. Some of the better quality articles of shoddy manufacture are capable of much better wear and are also more attractive than many of the articles that can be produced from some qualities of pure wool.
  The question which was raised in this matter was the suggestion that anything that contained shoddy should be labelled. We have to remember, however, that if labelling were introduced, it would have to be enforced, and we must remember a very vital point in this connection. There are no means today of detecting recovered fibre in the mixture of virgin wool and recovered wool. Therefore, that point in itself cuts right across the argument about shoddy debasing wool, because there is no debasing of quality.
  For instance, let us take the Government contracts for clothing for the Army and the Air Force, the police and Civil Defence forces. In this clothing, shoddy plays a most important part, and one manufacturer has sent me samples of the quality goods he manufactures. One of these samples is for Civil Defence clothing according to Government standards—waterproofed, strong, useful and warm—and it would make an overcoat that almost anyone would be proud to wear in a sort of winter we have been having. Yet, there is over 80 per cent. shoddy in that particular cloth, which is a really beautiful piece of stuff. There
  1250
  are also the overcoats made for the Air Force and Army, as well as the suitings for these Forces.
  It is just as well to know that these cloths have to be supplied to a standard specification, but yet the Government do not ask for labels on the rolls of cloth indicating that they contain a proportion of shoddy. Are these cloths debased by the use of shoddy? Are their wearing qualities impaired in that way? I venture to say that, if there were any debasing of these cloths, or if they were of poor quality, the Army and Air Force authorities would immediately cease to have that type of stuff made up for their requirements. Today, we find that there are great orders for it, and the Royal Navy, Army and the Royal Air Force are better dressed today than they have ever been, thanks very much to the shoddy industry and the contribution which it has made.
  Therefore, I say that this whole argument about debasing cloth and the necessity for labelling is sheer nonsense. Cloths with well-known names that are known throughout the country contain shoddy. We have also to think of public demand. First of all, the public want durability, then good appearance, and, last but not least, something easy on the pocket. Manufacturers today have to meet that kind of public demand and make clothes in the ranges which the public want. The British housewife is very difficult to satisfy, in that she does not want something that is to last for years, but something that is attractive and suitable for the time, but, as fashion changes, she wants to be able to change both in style and material.
  The shoddy industry plays an important part and is the mainspring in helping to meet the demand in shade values, style, design and appearance. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry. South is not present because I am sure that she would be attracted by some of the coatings I have in my hand, which contain quite a large proportion of shoddy. I have a number of samples from the trade which I hope to have the opportunity of placing in the Library for the benefit of Members.
  The public demands attractive clothes of good quality, and it gets them. The manufacturer who tried to cut out something that was not in conformity with the

  1251
  general standards of the trade would be sunk, because the retailer, the costumier and the tailor would not go to him again for goods. Whoever says that the use of shoddy has a debasing effect and that, by its use, the consumer is being "twisted," shows a lamentable ignorance of the relation of remanufactured wool to the wool and textile industry.
  10.16 p.m.
  Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling), first, on his success in being able to raise this important subject in the House, and, secondly, on his interesting and erudite speech to which we have just listened. I wish also to thank him for his generous consideration in allowing me an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  The five towns of England where fluorishes the important industry of turning old woollen cloth into new are, in order of size, Dewsbury, Batley, Morley, Ossett and Heckmondwike. Three towns, including Dewsbury, which is the largest, lie within the constituency of my hon. Friend. The boroughs of Batley and Morley form the constituency which I have the honour to represent.
  The staple trade of this thickly populated area of the West Riding of Yorkshire is of vital importance to my constituents and, indeed, to the nation. The annual raw wool clip of the world is not nearly sufficient to meet the annual demand for woollen cloth, and if wool were not recovered from old cloth there would be a serious shortage of warm garments. We should be cold and shabby.
  It was in 1815, the year in which we defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, that the problem of providing enough woollen cloth for human needs was solved. Benjamin Law of Batley invented a most ingenious process whereby wool was reclaimed from old cloth to be used again in the manufacture of new material. Since then thousands of tons of old suits and other woollen garments have provided wool for mixing with the new clip to produce millions of yards of excellent cloth.
  These discarded garments, some of which have been little worn, are carefully
  1252
  sorted; buttons and the like are removed, and the cloth is then disintegrated into its component fibres. The resultant material is called shoddy. In the process of remanufacture—which is very complicated and includes spinning, weaving, scouring and pressing—shoddy is usually mixed with new wool, and all traces of grit, dust and grease are removed.
  The cloth thus made is perfectly clean, very serviceable, good in appearance and reasonable in price. Taking those four considerations into account, namely, cleanliness, durability, appearance and price, much of the best English cloth contains recovered wool. The hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), in her Question to the President of the Board of Trade on 12th February last, asked:
  "whether he is aware of the extent to which the structural strength of wool cloths is debased by the inclusion of large percentages of remanufactured shoddy."
  "Structural strength debased" were her words, and they are resented in my constituency where it is well recognised that in some cases good shoddy strengthens poor wool.
  The hon. Lady asked for legislation
  "in view of the increasing use of remanufactured fibres in the wool industry, to the detriment of the consumer."
  "Detriment" was another unfortunate word that she chose to use. If evidence is required of the hard-wearing quality of cloth containing shoddy, many examples can be given, such as Army overcoats, Post Office and British Railways uniforms.
  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for the reply he gave to the hon. Lady. Correctly he stated:
  "Both recovered and virgin wools vary greatly in quality."
  He went on to say:
  "I cannot accept the implication in the Question that the inclusion of the former"—
  that is shoddy—
  "in wool cloth necessarily debases its structural strength."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 580.]
  Some of the most durable English cloth is woven with a worsted warp and a weft containing shoddy. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not fail to reaffirm the opinion of his right hon. Friend

  1253
  and will not miss this opportunity of paying a tribute to the work of thousands of people in those five towns which I mentioned. Their work is of tremendous importance to the nation. It is they who rescue scarce, valuable wool from destruction and waste and re-convert it into much needed, excellent English cloth.
  10.22 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I have not much time in which to reply, but I make no complaint whatever of that because the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling) and the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) have very excellently said most of the things which I wished to say. The hon. Member for Dewsbury quite rightly said that some of this confusion has arisen perhaps because of the dual use of this word "shoddy."
  In the Oxford English Dictionary the primary use given to this word is the technical meaning in the wool trade, which has been used by the two hon. Members. It is only in its transferred and figurative sense that it is used as "a worthless material made to look like what is of superior quality." I noticed an interesting quotation from the Encyclopaedia Britannica of as long ago as 1911, which stated:
  "Upon the whole the 'cheap and nasty' idea usually associated with the term 'shoddy' is quite a mistake. Some most excellent cloths are produced."
  As has been said, this is, of course, a perfectly legitimate and useful industry, recovered wool being a traditional raw material of the textile industry. The shoddy manufacturing community of the West Riding is the most maligned section of the wool textile industry. I shall use the term "recovered wool" instead of "shoddy" in the remainder of my few remarks.
  The hon. Members who have spoken are quite right in saying that the addition of recovered wool confers desirable qualities. Felting properties might be mentioned. It is quite true that contracts for the supply of greatcoats, for example, may specify that a definite proportion of recovered wool shall be employed. It is true also that some recovered wool, for example clippings obtained in the making up of knitted garments, may command
  1254
  higher prices than the coarser qualities of virgin wool. A distinction between virgin and recovered wool affords no guide to the quality of the cloth. But I want to confirm and underline a point which was very effectively made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury—because this very much concerns the Board of Trade and the national interest—namely, the amount of imports saved by the use of recovered wool. From a waste material we get a valuable raw material for a great industry.
  I am glad the hon. Member mentioned Ossett. Perhaps I may remind the House of the Latin motto in the Ossett coat of arms—"Inutile utile ex arte"—the useless made useful by skill. What does this mean in terms of money? One million lb. of recovered wool saves 1.6 million lb. of imported raw wool. This, in 1952, would have cost on an average £400,000. Since 73 million lb. of recovered wool were consumed in the United Kingdom in 1952, the amount saved on the imports of raw wool was no less than £29 million. That shows the very significant contribution which is made by this industry.
  Mr. H. Rhodes: There is another factor to be considered. If this recovered wool were not used the impact on the price of raw wool to take its place would be terrific.
  Mr. Strauss: I quite agree with that point, on which the hon. Member speaks with the authority of experience.
  The amount of recovered wool used has varied at different times in accordance with some of the considerations that will occur to everyone, but at the present moment the proportion of recovered wool to total consumption is probably about 15 per cent., which is roughly the same proportion as in the United States, though in France it is, I believe, a good deal higher.
  Those who have heard the contributions to this short debate can have no doubt that this is a useful industry. The attacks—if I may so call them—on the use of recovered wool are based on a complete misunderstanding of the facts. Those who make these mistaken statements may have been led away by the other uses of the word "shoddy," but I hope that this debate may at least help to ensure that in future this industry will not be maligned in this way.
  Mr. John Edwards: I rise only to thank the Parliamentary Secretary not only for the way in which he has confirmed the statements made by my hon. Friends, but also for his own contribution to the defence of a very important industry. It is most satisfactory to find ourselves in agreement on this matter, and I am sure that the people in the constituencies of my
  1256
  two hon. Friends—and, if I may say so with all due modesty, in my own constituency—will be immensely heartened by this discussion.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.

  ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL CO. SUBSIDIARIES (DIRECTORS)
  ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL CO. SUBSIDIARIES (DIRECTORS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  North-East Development Area (Loans to Companies)
  North-East Development Area (Loans to Companies)
  "Travellers' Currency Guide"
  "Travellers' Currency Guide"
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  East Coast Flood Losses (Compensation)
  East Coast Flood Losses (Compensation)
  WHIT MONDAY BANK HOLIDAY
  WHIT MONDAY BANK HOLIDAY
  CORONATION EXPENDITURE
  CORONATION EXPENDITURE
  N.A.T.O. STATES (EXCHANGE OF CIVIL SERVANTS)
  N.A.T.O. STATES (EXCHANGE OF CIVIL SERVANTS)
HOUSING
  Building Programmes (Scottish Timber)
  Building Programmes (Scottish Timber)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Flood Victims, Canvey Island (Rehousing)
  Flood Victims, Canvey Island (Rehousing)
  New Houses (Space Heating and Insulation)
  New Houses (Space Heating and Insulation)
  People's House, Wales (Minister's Speech)
  People's House, Wales (Minister's Speech)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Town and Country Planning Act (Claims)
  Town and Country Planning Act (Claims)
  Exchequer Equalisation Grant
  Exchequer Equalisation Grant
  Distribution of Industry Act, 1945 (Schemes)
  Distribution of Industry Act, 1945 (Schemes)
  Water Supply and Sewerage Schemes (Grants)
  Water Supply and Sewerage Schemes (Grants)
  Disused Burial Grounds and Burial Acts
  Disused Burial Grounds and Burial Acts
  Circular 54/52
  Circular 54/52
  Industrial De-Rating Act
  Industrial De-Rating Act
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Office Rebuilding, Central London
  Office Rebuilding, Central London
  War Memorial Window, Westminster Hall
  War Memorial Window, Westminster Hall
  Increased Coal Price (Departmental Cost)
  Increased Coal Price (Departmental Cost)
  Coronation Route (Materials)
  Coronation Route (Materials)
  INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
  INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
SCOTLAND
  Highlands Timber (Local Use)
  Highlands Timber (Local Use)
  Electricity
  Electricity
  Golspie Harbour
  Golspie Harbour
  Unoccupied Property (Owners' Rates)
  Unoccupied Property (Owners' Rates)
  University Students (Bursaries)
  University Students (Bursaries)
  Hill Sheep Industry
  Hill Sheep Industry
  Duke Street Prison, Glasgow
  Duke Street Prison, Glasgow
  Penninghame House, Newton Stewart (Open Prison Project)
  Penninghame House, Newton Stewart (Open Prison Project)
  New School Construction, Edinburgh (Increased Interest Charges)
  New School Construction, Edinburgh (Increased Interest Charges)
  A.C. TRICYCLES
  A.C. TRICYCLES
BRITISH ARMY
  1st Battalion, Lancashire Fusiliers (Overseas Service)
  1st Battalion, Lancashire Fusiliers (Overseas Service)
  National Service Men and Recruits
  National Service Men and Recruits
  Militia (Disbandment)
  Militia (Disbandment)
  Welbeck College (Consultations)
  Welbeck College (Consultations)
HOSPITALS
  Peppard Chest Hospital (Chimney Discharge)
  Peppard Chest Hospital (Chimney Discharge)
  Farms Investigation
  Farms Investigation
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Flood Relief (British Columbia Contribution)
  Flood Relief (British Columbia Contribution)
  Metropolitan Police (Traffic Work)
  Metropolitan Police (Traffic Work)
  A.F.S. and C.D. (Insurance Benefits)
  A.F.S. and C.D. (Insurance Benefits)
  Motor Vehicles (C.D. Plates)
  Motor Vehicles (C.D. Plates)
  COMMODITY MARKETS
  COMMODITY MARKETS
AGRICULTURE
  Gypsum, Immingham
  Gypsum, Immingham
  Land, Swaffham Prior and Burwell Fens (Purchase)
  Land, Swaffham Prior and Burwell Fens (Purchase)
FUEL AND POWER
  Hydrocarbon Oils (Dollar Imports)
  Hydrocarbon Oils (Dollar Imports)
  Electric Power Stations, Scotland (Capacity)
  Electric Power Stations, Scotland (Capacity)
  WOUNDED TROOPS, KOREA (HELICOPTER TRANSPORT)
  WOUNDED TROOPS, KOREA (HELICOPTER TRANSPORT)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Sugar (Allocation)
  Sugar (Allocation)
  Fruit Pulp Imports
  Fruit Pulp Imports
  JAMAICA (COMMITMENT WARRANTS, ST. MARY)
  JAMAICA (COMMITMENT WARRANTS, ST. MARY)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

CITY OF LONDON (CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT) BILL [H.L.]
2.36 p.m.
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House a Question. In view of the slight discussion which we had last night, I should like to know how far he would like the House to proceed to-day with the Committee stage of the Transport Bill.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, by this evening we shall have got to "half term," so to speak, and the reasonable thing, I suppose, having regard to the agreed term, would be that we should try to complete half the Amendments. That would take us to the end of Clause 15. I think that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could guide me a little in this matter. I should like to apportion the time in the way which is most convenient. If he thinks we should take less time over what I may call the second half of the Amendments, that is, from number 65 to the end—that is to number 122 (though there are, in fact, more than that because there are some sub-Amendments)—I should be content with getting to the end of, say, Clause 14. But I am not quite sure how much time the Opposition would wish to occupy over how much of the Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful to the Deputy Leader for his statement. I would point out, however, that the most contentious parts of this Bill are in the earlier clauses, and it was almost certain that we should spend more time upon those than upon the Amendments that come later in the Bill. I think,
1140
therefore, that when we have passed Clauses 14, 15 and 16, it ought to be well within our capacity to complete the Committee stage of the Bill by the end of the agreed period. But, of course,
"The best-laid schemes o' mice and men
"Gang aft a-gley."
However, we will do our best. On the other hand, the Opposition are very keen that proper attention should be given to Clauses 14 and 15, because they deal with the railway issues. They also deal with issues which relate to Scotland, and it is probable that we shall spend a good deal of time in discussing them. Therefore, what I have said about the remaining Amendments to the Bill stands—subject to the qualification that we may spend a good deal of time on the railway clauses. I therefore suggest, for the consideration of the Deputy Leader of the House, that we go to the end of Clause 13 to-day and we start to-morrow completely afresh with the railway clauses. That, I think, would meet our convenience and, from the public point of view, might be admirable.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, were here, he would raise this point. I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that the railway clauses of this Bill ought to be started afresh and taken separately. In Clause 15 there is a vital Amendment affecting Scotland down in the name of my noble friends Lord Bilsland and Lord Fairfax of Cameron. The noble Lord said just now that the earlier clauses which are to be discussed are the contentious ones but whether or not this Amendment proves to be contentious, it is certainly one which Scotland hopes will be given great consideration. Therefore, I hope the noble Viscount will agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said and will stop to-day at Clause 13.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, what the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has just said makes me a little anxious, because he apparently wishes to be lengthy and contentious over the second half of the Bill, whereas the Leader of the Opposition was hoping that we could be relatively short over the second half of the Bill. I agree that Clauses 14 and 15 are important clauses and on the general understanding that we get on as far as we can to-day and take Clauses 14 and 15

1141
to-morrow, so that we may get far enough on to make it quite sure that we can complete the Bill in decent time on Thursday. I should be quite ready to fall in with the general view of the House—if it is the general wish all round—that we should finish Clause 13 to-day and start Clause 14 to-morrow. We must remember that we have to pass the Royal Titles Bill, which is more than a formality. I do not propose to make a very long speech on it, but I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will speak, and also, presumably the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party. At any rate, it will take a little time and we must take that into account. But I think the general feeling of the House is that it would be a good thing to make up our minds to adjourn to-night when we get to the end of Clause 13.

RADIO SETS FOR TROOPS IN KOREA
2.44 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: 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 they are aware that forty radio sets were bought for the 1st Battalion Durham Light Infantry, now serving in Korea, for which £800 was paid from the Mayor of Durham's Fund; that twenty-five of these radio sets are now held by the Korean Customs in Pusan who refuse to let them through the Customs; and that the men of the Battalion are disturbed as the result of this action; and whether they will make representations to the Korean authorities with a view to the release of these wireless sets, so much needed by the men, which have been paid for by the people of Durham.]
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Minister in Korea has raised this matter with the Korean authorities and I am hopeful, from what I have heard of it, that a satisfactory settlement will shortly be reached. I should like to add that the fault does not appear to lie with the authorities of the Republic of Korea who are being helpful in this matter. I should also like to add that Her Majesty's Government deeply regret that the men concerned have not
1142
been able to enjoy the gift which was made to them very generously by the people of Durham, but I understand that the difficulties which have arisen are connected with the method of shipment. The House and the noble Lord can be assured that Her Majesty's Minister in Korea is aware of this position and will, if necessary, apply pressure. I should prefer to say no more at the moment pending further information.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his answer and say that the people of the County of Durham will be pleased to hear that there is some prospect of these radios being delivered. I am glad to know that the Government have some understanding of the invidious position in which the men of the Durham Light Infantry have been placed as compared with troops in other parts of the same area. We look forward to a satisfactory conclusion to this regrettable matter.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I appreciate the noble Lord's answer. I can assure him I will keep him closely in touch with future developments, and I hope that a satisfactory solution will be quickly arrived at.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.46 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order), the Earl of Drogheda in the Chair.
Clause 4:
Transfer of transport units to companies under control of Commission

(2) Where either—

(a) an invitation to tender for the purchase of specified property has been issued under the last preceding section; or

(b) the Board have approved the issue by the Commission of such an invitation; or

(c) the Board have informed the Commission that they would be prepared to approve the issue of such an invitation,

the Commission may, if the Minister gives his consent, make over to any company under their direct or indirect control (whether incorporated under subsection (1) of this section or not) all the property and connected rights and obligations, if any, which the purchaser would have obtained under a purchase resulting from the invitation, and in that event subsections (4) and (5) of the last preceding section, the next following section and the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect as

1143
if the transaction had been a purchase in pursuance of the invitation and as if all such things had been done as would have fallen to be done if the transaction had been such a purchase, and, without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection, references in the said provisions of this Act to transport units, to purchasers of transport units and to additional vehicles shall be construed accordingly:

Provided that, without prejudice to the power of the Minister to give or refuse his consent under this subsection in any case and on any ground, the Minister shall so exercise his powers under this subsection as to secure that—

(i) the total weight unladen of the motor vehicles made over to companies there under does not exceed six-fifths of the total weight unladen of the motor vehicles owned on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, by the bodies corporate which, on that day, came, by virtue of Part II of the Transport Act, 1947, under the direct or indirect control of the Commission; and

(ii) the vehicles so made over make up, or would, if all were made over to the same company, make up, a fleet of vehicles comparable, as respects the size, nature and quality of the vehicles comprised therein, to a fleet made up of the vehicles so owned.

(3) The annual statement to be prepared by the Commission under section ninety-four of the Transport Act. 1947, shall, as respects any period during which any company to which property has been made over under this section remains under the direct or indirect control of the Commission, include information as to the principal activities of the company and be so framed as to show, as far as may be, the financial and operating results of each such activity, and the Minister and the Treasury shall exercise their powers under the said section ninety-four accordingly.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), to leave out all words beginning "without prejudice" down to and including "ground." The noble Lord said: In moving the first Amendment standing in my name, may I open with the comment that it does not yet seem to have dawned upon Her Majesty's Government that by far the quickest method of getting this Bill through your Lordships' House is for them to accept some of the Amendments of Her Majesty's Opposition. That would curtail the discussion considerably.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It would be quicker if we withdrew the Bill altogether, would it not?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That would suit us admirably. If the noble Viscount is prepared to move that, I will resume my seat. However, I now
1144
provide Her Majesty's Government with the opportunity of showing an example by accepting this Amendment. We have arrived at Clause 4 which, in the view of some of us, is at least not the most unimportant clause in this Bill. This is the clause which sets out the transfer of transport units to companies which shall remain under the control of the Commission. The Bill attempts to state in precise terms, with mathematical accuracy, to decimal figures, just how many units and how many vehicles the British Transport Commission shall have to carry on road haulage. That is a part of the principle of the Bill because, although the Bill seeks to denationalise long-distance road haulage for hire and reward, it retains the principle that the British Transport Commission, limited to some extent by the number of vehicles at its disposal, can engage in and carry on road haulage of all descriptions. After the careful consideration which another place has given to this Bill and the careful consideration which I know your Lordships will give to this Bill and to this clause, when Parliament has expressed its wish and put it in an Act of Parliament, there appears right in the middle of this clause, in subsection (2), the most—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I ask the noble Lord a question? Actually, the first Amendment standing in his name is a very narrow one. We shall then deal with Amendments Nos. 16–22 on the Marshalled List which go into the whole question of how many vehicles there ought to be. I was rather hoping that the noble Lord would confine the discussion on this particular Amendment to what is the only thing that is in order on the limited point. I was going to suggest to the Committee that, if it is convenient to the Committee, we should then have a general discussion on Amendments Nos. 16–22. There are also some counter-proposals on these matters by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and others which can be deployed. When these have been explained, I should be in a position, subject to what I heard in the debate, to state the view of the Government. But it would be convenient if we could dispose of this very limited Amendment first and then get on to the major points.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am glad to hear the noble Viscount say that. That helps me. I was just coming to that point, but my preamble was necessary because we on this side of the House view this Amendment very seriously. If I may carry on with what I was saying, in the middle of this clause one finds these words:
"Provided that, without prejudice to the power of the Minister to give or refuse his consent under this subsection in any case and on any ground, the Minister shall so exercise his, powers under this subsection to secure that…"—
and so on. If I read this aright (I am tempted now to think that I may be wrong it means that after Parliament has expressed its desire, the Minister "in any case and on any ground" can say to the Commission, "You are not going to have any vehicles at all." That is the simple point. I cannot read these words in any other way. May I ask the Committee to follow them again? At line 21 these words appear:
"Provided that, without prejudice to the power of the Minister to give or refuse his consent under this subsection in any case and on any ground.…"
So the Minister, after Parliament has expressed its wish, "in any case and on any ground" can say to the British Transport Commission, "I now veto the whole lot. You cannot engage in road haulage at all." is that what this means? If it does not mean that, what does it mean? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, leave out from ("that") to ("ground") in line 23.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has emphasised that the Government should concede points where we can; but we have a duty to try and present to the country a Statute which is a workable proposition. That is our task, and I hope we shall have the noble Lord's assistance in that matter. We read the Bill in this way: that in regard to any property which the Commission wish to retain, they have to get the Minister's consent. The noble Lord has not commented on that. The application comes from the Commission. They say, "We want to retain this transport unit," and the Minister gives his consent. These words are included to avoid any question that the Minister's consent is limited
1146
simply to provisos (i) and (ii), and that he can refuse it on other grounds—we discussed this point yesterday. There may be special grounds: for instance, if the Commission wanted to create a monopoly in one part of the country, the Minister might say, "That is the wrong sort of structure." That is the sort of thing we have in mind. Accordingly, to make it abundantly clear these words have been put in. If we took them out we should not in any way alter the meaning or the power of the consent which the Minister has. All that they do is to make abundantly clear the fact that the Minister has freedom to give his consent on any ground which he thinks right.
The noble Lord has asked whether the Minister could so exercise his powers that the Commission might have no road haulage business at all. I will not be dogmatic about it, but I am inclined to the view that he has not that power. If the noble Lord puts that forward seriously as a possible consideration, we will look at the words again to see whether they do bear that interpretation. That is certainly not the intention. Provisos (i) and (ii) would hardly have been included if there had been any intention that they should not be put into operation. For that reason, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment. These words are intended to be no more than a clarification of the power of consent which the Minister is given at the beginning of the clause.
LORD SILKIN: If that is the intention of this proviso, then it could have been expressed in a more simple way, so that there need be no ambiguity at all. We do not for a moment suggest that it is the intention of this Minister to flout the Act, and that a certain number of vehicles, having been decided upon, he should immediately say, "Oh no, we will use this proviso to give them nothing." What my noble friend intended to convey was that it was possible for a Minister to do that if he was so minded. One always says that one trusts implicitly the present Minister, but that it is his successors that one fears. I have no doubt at all that the present Minister would not deam of departing from the spirit of this Bill. But this proviso really does bear the construction that my noble friend fears. We think it is possible for a Minister, not necessarily to say, "You will get no vehicles at all," but, without giving

1147
any reasons why, to say, "We do not think you ought to have the number stipulated in the Act." If, therefore, the noble Earl is willing to look at this matter again, and, while giving the Minister every freedom to do what he says he ought to be able to do, will introduce wording which will not go beyond that, I think my noble friend will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD WINSTER: This passage confirms my belief that this is an extraordinarily clumsy Bill. I am sure a Bill is bad if, at every turn, one has to introduce clauses and phrases which are a clarification of the Bill. Surely the Bill should be so worded that no clarification of its provisions is necessary. In this case I should have thought that the particular words which are the subject of the Amendment are completely unnecessary and that the Minister should be given a blanket power, such as it seems to me he is really given in Clause 3, subsection (8), to approve or disapprove of any of the proceedings of the Commission or of the Disposal Board. I am quite sure that the sort of words which are introduced in this proviso, and which are the subject of the Amendment, are proof of the clumsiness of the Bill, because at every turn it needs clarification. Surely it would be simpler to give an absolutely clear definition of what are and what are not the Minister's powers, and to leave it at that.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: With great respect, in many ways if I had to do the drafting I would adopt the view of the noble Lord; but if I have to have a Bill so drafted that the lawyers can construe it in the way in which Parliament intends it to be construed, I would rather have it drawn by the Parliamentary draftsmen than by the noble Lord below the gangway.
LORD WINSTER: It is a very profitable way for the lawyers.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It would be if the noble Lord's drafting were used. Here the intention is quite clear. We do not in the least intend that the Minister should have power to override whatever Parliament is going to lay down—six-fifths, or whatever it may be. The proviso says that he can "refuse his consent under this subsection," but I suppose he could
1148
not refuse consent under the subsection if the subsection provides that something is to happen. I will ask the lawyers to have a look at this proviso, to make sure that it is drafted in the form which they think is right for the purposes of the Bill. If they think it ought to be amended, I will put down something on Report; otherwise I would ask the Committee to leave it as it stands. I think we should be right to leave the matter to our experienced draftsmen.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Viscount and to the noble Earl for what they have said. Perhaps the noble Viscount will inform us of the result of his deliberations with the draftsmen. In view of the undertaking which has been given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.0 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice of three further Amendments in subsection (2), the first of which was, in the proviso, to leave out "(i)". The noble Lord said: If I may have the permission of the Lord Chairman, and the consent of your Lordships, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 21; they all hang together.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: And Amendment No. 22?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I was going to speak about Amendment 22 separately. But if the noble Viscount would like me to do so, I will deal with it now. I think, however, that perhaps it would be better if I speak about it later, and confine myself now to Amendments 16, 17 and 21. In the debate on Second Reading, I rather humorously said that we should enter into this game of thinking of numbers in which the Government have indulged. I said that in considering the number of vehicles with which the Commission shall be allowed to start off their life in this fiercely competitive field of road haulage which this Bill defines, we should think of a number that had more regard to what, in our opinion, is the national interest. We say that it is in the national interest that the basic services at present being provided should be maintained. We say that adequate provision must be made to enable the Commission to fulfil what is their duty, and what they have been told in this

1149
Bill they must carry out—that is, to sell their undertaking; and to do so with as little disturbance as possible to the transport system of the country. If that is the sincere wish of the Government—and I do not doubt it for one moment, for it would be calamitous for the transport system of this country in this year of Grace to be torn asunder—we maintain that the Transport Commission must be given sufficient tools with which to do the job.
I would reiterate what has already been said by a number of my noble friends and by myself, that we do not challenge the principle of this Bill at all. But the principle of this Bill contains, if I may use the expression, a "sub-principle": that the road haulage side of the British Transport Commission shall engage in all forms of road haulage. The quarrel between us is not on that. The issue is as to how many vehicles the Commission shall be allowed to do it with. I would also say this. One of the principles of the Bill, which I am not going to contest, is that it shall break the monopoly of the Commission, held since January 1, 1948, of long-distance road haulage for hire or reward. They have had no monopoly of long-distance road haulage, because we have "C" licence holders, but for long-distance road haulage for hire or reward, there is that monopoly. It is the intention of the Government to break it, and the Government can do it very easily—I understand they intend to do it on January 1, 1955—by doing away with the twenty-five mile radius. Incidentally, the Government could do it on the day the Bill becomes law, if they wished to. They could—if I may use the expression—"bust" the monopoly over-night and open the floodgates, allowing all "A" licence holders full freedom. That is a way they could act, but this Bill does not do that. Eventually, as I say, the monopoly will be broken.
In these Amendments there are two figures. First, there is the figure of the number of vehicles owned by the transport companies, the road haulage companies whose share capital was wholly owned by the railways before January 1, 1948—the acquisition of these was contained in Part II of the Act of 1947. In round figures, the number amounts to about 4,000 vehicles. Actually, I believe it is 3,900 and some odd ones, but 4,000
1150
is good enough as a round figure. It is the proposal of the Government, in this Bill, to take that 4,000 and increase it by, I think, six-fifths,
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord goes further, may I interrupt him in the interests of elucidation? We are dealing in weights here; the noble Lord, I think, is dealing in numbers of vehicles. We shall get into a most appalling muddle if we start talking about vehicles and weights, because they do not correspond. Let us stick to one measure.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: While that may be convenient for the noble Lord, it will not be convenient for noble Lords in other parts of the House. If we go into the unladen weights of vehicles, we shall get into a mass of technicalities, which I suggest, with the greatest possible respect, it would be beyond even the capacity of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, to digest. I am sure that they would be beyond me, and I have been mixed up with this business all my life. It is far easier to talk to your Lordships about numbers of vehicles, than to deal with weights. You do not transport weights about the country, and weights do not do anything; it is the number of vehicles that matters—I am talking about the number of vehicles belonging to the road haulage companies that were wholly owned by the railways. That is what is dealt with in Clause 4 of this Bill at the present time.
LORD SANDHURST: Would the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting him, but I must admit that I am completely at sea? I cannot see a relationship between weights and numbers, and I believe that I was in this business before ever the noble Lord was.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sorry but I do not know the weights. I do not know the weights of the 4,000 vehicles belonging to the companies which used to be wholly owned by the railways. I do not know what they add up to and I do not think anyone else does. I do not think that that figure has ever been arrived at.
LORD SANDHURST: May I suggest that we should legislate on something which we know—and that is the unladen weights?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord. I am afraid, will have to criticise my presentation of this case after I have presented it, as will be his right. But I am dealing with the number of vehicles. That is what the country understands, and it is on that that the whole of the criticism by the critics of this Bill—at least by all of the critics of this Clause of the Bill—has been based. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce have based their criticism upon it. Even the Daily Telegraph, of which, I expect, the noble Lord is a most ardent reader, has dealt with the matter on that basis.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: There is precious little difference in the weights, in any event.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I proceed, and leave weights to those noble Lords who wish to deal with them. These 4,000 vehicles were owned indirectly by the railway companies. We say that these numbers, even if multiplied by five-fourths or six-fifths, or any figure that has been mentioned, are insufficient. What we seek to do by this Amendment is to increase that number by adding the number of vehicles acquired under Part I of the 1947 Act. These are the vehicles of the road haulage companies voluntarily acquired by the Commission when we started nationalisation. These amount to 12,000, which were owned by 450–500 different companies, organised in groups such as Hay's Wharf, Carter Paterson and their subsidiary companies, Pickford's and their subsidiaries, under Part II of the Act; and Boots-Tillotson, Hanson and Houldsworth, the British Industries group, Macnamara's and many others whose names are familiar, under Part I. It was on the basis of these companies that the organisation of the Road Haulage Executive was built up. I wonder whether the noble Lords to whom I am addressing a serious argument would listen with at least a reasonable amount of courtesy.
LORD HAWKE: We are trying to reconcile the figures of the number and unladen weight.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps the noble Lord might do that when I have finished speaking. I am trying to address to your Lordships, who
1152
I know are interested, a serious argument. I have got to the point of saying that it was on the basis of these companies that the whole organisation of the British Load Services was built. It was by taking over these companies that practically the whole of the property which is in this Bill as "other property" was acquired by the British Transport Commission. On Second Reading I said that, roughly speaking, the total assets of the Commission were valued at about £100 million. There were 40,000 vehicles, valued at £40 million, and £60 million of other property which in the main came over with these vehicles.
What are these services which have been built up by the Commission? First of all, we have the organisation of parcels and smalls, built up out of Carter Paterson, Boots-Tillotson and Hanson and Houldsworth, and other groups which were amalgamated, until to-day this service operates 3,750 vehicles and carries a million consignments a week, of one package or half-a-dozen. This is one of the organisations which has been so much commended by all sections of industry, though it was the one organisation which was the subject of criticism by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, on Second Reading. The noble Viscount brought forward a fortuitous letter which the Minister had received about one firm whose parcels had gone astray—out of one million consignments a week. When my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Government to give the complaints about British Road Services, the noble Viscount happened to have a letter written to the Minister. Why the letter of complaint was not sent to the British Transport Commission is "wropt in mystery". I should have thought that the Commission would have been the proper people to whom to send it. But it was sent to the Minister, and on it the noble Viscount made his case of how inefficient this organisation is. I do not want to labour this point, because I see the noble Earl, Lord De la Warr, sitting there, and I remember about three years ago posting a letter which had only to go four miles.
EARL DE LA WARR: That had nothing to do with me three years ago. Would the noble Lord address his remarks to his noble friend Lord Listowel?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, I am addressing the noble Earl. This letter had to go only four miles and in six months it came back again—but I did not stand up in your Lordships' House and say that I had a good reason for denationalising the Post Office. I suppose the noble Earl will agree with me that even under his efficient organisation, letters and parcels do go astray, and that sometimes we do have to sit at the telephone for about five minutes to get a trunk call. These things are no condemnation of the Post Office. One little swallow fails to make the noble Viscount's summer.
The second service organised by the Commission is the specialised traffics division, which has 3,500 vehicles and carries meat, bulk liquids, and indivisible loads and was built up on the Pickford's organisation. This service has all the time been subject to the stress of competition, because these specialised traffics were exempt from nationalisation under the 1947 Act. Then there is the contract "A" service, which operates 3,000 vehicles, serving such organisations as Lyons, Cadbury, Rowntree, and I.C.I. and other big concerns. Last of all, there is the trunk haulage service, of about 6,500 vehicles, operating 750 trunk routes running with time-table regularity. We maintain that in the national interest we must keep these four services intact.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has just come into the Chamber. As Treasurer of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, he holds a responsible position in that organisation. I have here a statement of policy by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. This is what it says:
"The vital interests of users could be seriously impaired if the existing network of services, both local and national, were disbanded or disrupted; continuity of adequate service to industry and commerce was imperative."
Further on the statement says:
"Users maintain that under present political circumstances it would not be possible to make this important change and at the same time ensure any reasonable period of stable development for the road haulage industry. Moreover, the administrative difficulties involved and the functional defects likely to occur in such an upheaval are ill-suited to the economic needs of the hour,"
I quoted in your Lordships' House what the Central Transport Consultative
1154
Committee said of the dire effects of disrupting these basic services. The Times, in a leading article, said that this is going back into the past. The Daily Telegraph criticised the action of the Government with the words that it has neither sense nor logic—those are free quotations. This Amendment indicates what we consider necessary. The Government have a different idea: they say approximately 4,800 vehicles. What is the reason? I grant noble Lords opposite that they want to break this monopoly. When the monopoly is broken, when the 25-mile-radius is done away with, what will happen? There are at the present time 50,000 "A" licence vehicles being operated in this country. The Commission have 40,000, and if you take away my 16,000, that leaves 24,000. The 24,000, plus 50,000, makes 74,000. I should have thought that 74,000 "A" licence vehicles plying for hire and reward in this country, without any restriction whatever, would have been sufficient competition against the 16,000 of the British Transport Commission to satisfy even the most rapacious appetite for competition.
That is our case. What is there against it? There can be no argument in logic; there can be no argument in industrial common sense. If the British Transport Commission are so inept as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and other noble Lords would have us believe, what are they afraid of? With 16,000 vehicles, 74,000 vehicles will "eat" it in no time. What are the Government afraid of? Is not the real truth that the Commission's long-distance road haulage service, and all these basic services, that I have just enumerated, are far too efficient? Is it not the case that if you weaken them, write down and cripple them, and tie their hands behind their backs, they will be far easier prey for competition? Are the Government afraid of competition from the Commission? Are they afraid of the competition of 16,000 vehicles against74,000 vehicles? Or do they think that a fair ratio of competition is 4,300 vehicles against 80,000 vehicles? I think I have said enough to justify this Amendment. We regard it as very important. I should like to address a few words, quite sincerely, to the Deputy Leader of the House. I feel certain that here is a basis for discussion. After all views have been stated—including the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who will in a moment

1155
move a most interesting Amendment—if the Deputy Leader of the House in charge of the Bill will enter into discussions with us on this vital principle, I am perfectly willing not to move the other Amendments of a similar nature which I have down on the Marshalled List. That is our case, and we view it most seriously. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("(i)")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
3.24 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: I must confess that I have had some difficulty in following the noble Lord, because he seems to have covered such a wide field and said a great deal that has nothing to do with the Amendments on the Order Paper. This clause refers to the total unladen weight of motor vehicles which can be transferred to companies under the control of the Commission. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asks, I think, for one and a half times—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord has the wrong Amendment. It is a little confusing.
LORD TEYNHAM: No. 19 comes into this, does it not?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, it does not. I asked the permission of the Committee to discuss Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 21. No. 17 keeps in this Bill proviso (i) as it stands, which is the 4,000 vehicles. Then we seek to delete proviso (ii), and have there the words in Amendment No. 21. Is that clear to the noble Lord?
LORD TEYNHAM: Yes.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should like to make it clear to the Committee that when I come to speak I shall deal with the whole of these Amendments. It is quite impossible for the Committee to come to a conclusion unless they see what are the alternatives before them, and how much the Transport Commission would get if they took alternative "A," "B" or "C" or "A," "B" plus "C." We must take them all together.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of what has been said by the Deputy Leader of the House, perhaps the noble Lord will not object if I continue with this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No.
LORD TEYNHAM: The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asks that one and a half times the total unladen weight of motor vehicles owned on January 1, 1948, should be transferred. That is what the Amendment means, and to agree to it would, in fact, defeat the object of the Bill. I have set down a compromise Amendment which is that for six-fifths shall be substituted five-fourths. That will, of course, mean an increase. With regard to the next Amendment, which deals with the total number of vehicles that can be retained by the Commission, I have set down an Amendment which would allow them to retain thirteen-tenths of the total unladen weight of the vehicles mentioned in the Amendment. Of the increase of vehicles proposed in the Amendment, I will give a few more details. Paragraph (a) covers motor vehicles and trailers specially constructed for the carriage of abnormal indivisible loads—that is, loads such as big electricity transformers, ships' propellers, large boilers, large girders, and so on, things which are too big or too heavy to be carried on ordinary vehicles. Then we come to paragraph (b), which covers other special motor vehicles, but not trailers, constructed for special purposes such as tank wagons, insulated vans, timber wagons, et cetera. Then we come to the last one, paragraph (c), which deals with all other motor vehicles, mainly ordinary load carriers.
With regard to the question of unladen weight, about which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested we should not do anything, let me give the noble Lord some figures. The motor vehicles owned by the companies concerned as at January 1, 1948, were as follows: the total fleet, the number of vehicles, was 3,899; the unladen weight in tons was 13,723. I will now give the categories: Category "A," heavy haulage, 164 motor vehicles, of a total unladen weight of 1,884 tons; other specials, 1,257, with an unladen weight of 3,806 tons; ordinary load carriers, 2,478, with an unladen weight of 8,033 tons. The motor vehicles which could be retained by the Commission under the proposed Amendment are as follows: the total fleet, the number of vehicles, would be 4,875, and the maximum unladen weight would be 17,200 tons, which is a considerable

1157
increase. Then we go to the categories: heavy haulage, number of vehicles, 210, with a maximum unladen weight of 2,500 tons; other specials 1,630, with a maximum unladen weight of 5,000tons, and ordinary load carriers 3,320 with an unladen weight of 10,500 tons. I do not want to weary the House with these figures, and I do not propose to give any more. They show, however, that a considerable increase will be made if this Amendment is accepted. And we certainly know all about the question of unladen weight. I do not think I need say any more on this Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: In amplification of my noble friend's remarks, I should like to say that the second part of our Amendment, wherein we talk about thirteen-tenths, is to provide a latitude. In effect, it means that within the three categories, 5 per cent. up or down can be taken in any one category. The figures my noble friend just read out are in fact the maximum that could be contained in any one of those grades. The total would be, as he said, 17,200, against which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is asking for a figure which I calculate to be 20,500. That is one and a half times 13,723, and there does not appear to be a great deal of—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not asking for anything of the kind. It is not fair to say that. I have not mentioned Amendment No. 18. All I am asking for is 16,000 vehicles, and that number is contained in the original proviso (i) of the clause plus my new proviso (ii), the one providing for 4,000 and one other for 12,000. I am not asking for anything else. I have not moved the Amendment to which the noble Lord refers.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I shall not speak at quite such great length as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, yet I think I shall be able to cover all the issues which have been raised. This is an important clause and these are important Amendments because, under this clause in the form in which we have it, we shall decide the number of vehicles which the Transport Commission are to retain. Weight, of course, is taken into account in a way which is set out quite simply in the clause.
1158
I think we all want to arrive at a fair solution, but we must arrive at a solution which is consistent with the purpose of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, as he always says, "Little as we like this Bill, we accept its principle," but then he proceeds to move Amendment after Amendment which he says the Government are quite unreasonable in not accepting but which, while paying lip service to the principle of the Bill, would so alter it as entirely to change its purpose. Let us be clear what the purpose of the Bill is. The main purpose of this Bill is to denationalise road haulage. The noble Lord said that we ought to maintain basic services. Of course we mean to maintain basic services, and we hope, believe and are confident that when this Bill goes through, not only shall we maintain basic services—indeed, all transport services—but, by introducing a wholesome element of competition, we shall give the public a better service than they had before. But maintaining basic services, and indeed improving them, does not mean that you leave all those basic services in the hands of the Commission. What I think the majority of your Lordships would wish to do in this clause is to be consistent with the main principle and purpose of the Bill of denationalising road haulage and getting rid of the monopoly of the Road Haulage Executive, but, at the same time, giving the Transport Commission a fair chance to operate within the field of road transport as did the old railways.
I would ask your Lordships to remember this—because we shall come to a fair decision about the numbers only if we survey the whole field and see exactly what this Bill proposes to leave to the Commission. First of all, be it remembered that the Transport Commission is being left with all the railway collection and delivery vans which are operated by the Railway Executive. Now that is not just a few vehicles; that is no fewer than 14,000 vehicles. Therefore, observe that the Transport Commission start, as I may put it, 14,000 up. Then observe how we have progressed, and I think rightly progressed. I know that some of my noble friends think we have perhaps given away too much. I do not think so, but we certainly have given a great deal. The original White Paper, your Lordships will

1159
remember, left with the Transport Commission nothing except the railway collection and delivery vehicles. Then came the original Bill. That sought to give to the Transport Commission the exact number—calculated in relation to unladen weight—that the Railway Commission acquired when they took over the holdings of the old railway companies on nationalisation.
This Bill goes still further and it gives to the Transport Commission the 14,000 railway delivery vans, the 1948 number of vehicles—that is, the status quo at the time of nationalisation—plus one-fifth. We thought that one-fifth was a reasonable estimate of, if I may so put it, the way the Transport Commission would have bred if they had not been just a monopoly acquiring these things—a reasonable estimate of their own natural offspring. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, proposes increases which, quite frankly, would wreck the purpose of the Bill. I will leave out the horses for the moment, but, apart from that, he proposes a very large increase in the total—I think about 50 per cent.—which would leave all the specialised heavy services with the Commission and greatly increase the total.
I must take into account the horse business, because Lord Lucas has an Amendment on it, and presumably it is a proposal we are to take into account. The Amendment says that where you have a one-horse vehicle, you are to have a two-ton lorry. Actually, on the wording of the Amendment it would be three tons for every horse, because a certain number of these vehicles have been disposed of—some are still with them—and what we have to consider is the number which were disposed of and have since been replaced. I am bound to say that I am sure the noble Lord does not conduct his own exchange and mart in the motor business on that basis. One horse vehicle for a nice three-ton lorry!—I think it is very good business. I should have thought that if we were to take an equivalent of this kind. "One horse, one-horse power" would perhaps be a more reasonable basis to take. Then the noble Lord brings in the argument about the vehicles which the Transport Commission acquired "voluntarily" from companies. I remember a cartoon in Punch a long time ago about compelling a man to
1160
volunteer. These companies certainly would not have sold if they had not been under the shadow and the menace of compulsory purchase.
The noble Lords, Lord Teynham and Lord Hawke, have put forward a more modest idea. As I listened to it I found theirs a more convincing case. They proposed that—I am summing it up as briefly as possible—instead of giving one-fifth extra we should give one-fourth extra and that we should allow, which I think is a very reasonable proposition, a wider latitude as between the different classes of vehicles in the manner that Lord Hawke has explained. I do not think the Commission do too badly under the Bill as it stands. But I do think that the proposal about increased latitude in classes is reasonable. A tribute has been so often paid by both sides to this Government on its sweet reasonableness, for which it has now become notable, and for the liberal spirit which moves it, that I am willing, in that spirit, to concede one-fourth: to increase the one-fifth to one-fourth. That will more than meet this horse trade claim on any reasonable basis, and I must say I think it gives the Commission a pretty good deal and a very good start.
The position is not static. The Commission are not limited to the number of vehicles we give them under this clause. The Commission or their operating companies will be able to apply to the licensing authority for new or additional facilities. There will be no fear or favour. All will be equal before the law—and I am sure that that will appeal to the former Lord Chancellor. All will have equal chances, and whoever the licensing authority think can do the job best will get the licence. In fact, all will have an equal chance in the race and the Commission certainly will not start handicapped. On the other hand, if we were to take Lord Lucas's series of Amendments, so far from starting unhand capped and on equal terms with their competitors in the race, they would start more than halfway down the course—more than halfway to the winning post. That would really not be consistent with the Bill, or fair play, or common sense. Therefore, I would ask your Lordships, on full consideration, to accept the additions which are proposed in the Amendments standing in the name of Lord Teynham and

1161
others, and to modify the Bill in favour of the Commission to that extent.
LORD OGMORE: I think we are in some difficulty here. My noble friend Lord Lucas discussed his three Amendments, and the noble Viscount who has just replied has been dealing with a number of Amendments which have not been moved at all. In fact, some of them are alternative proposals to the Amendments that we have moved.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I want to do, and thought I was doing, what is convenient to the House.
LORD OGMORE: I do not know whether voices have been collected by anybody, but we on this side assumed that in fact the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, would move their Amendments and then they could be discussed when they were before the House; the House would then know exactly what it was doing.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: At the beginning of the debate I suggested to the House—and not a soul in the House dissented—that we should take separately Amendment No. 15, which deals with a small subsidiary point, and then have a general discussion on Amendments Nos. 16 to 21. Of course, every single Amendment can be moved and voted upon.
LORD OGMORE: That is exactly what I am pointing out. That is my point. I think what has just been happening is confusing to the House. The arguments which my noble friend was adducing on his three Amendments have not been controverted by the noble Viscount in form; he has been speaking on other Amendments which in fact had not been moved. I suggest it would be better to discuss them when they are moved. This is a very complicated matter, and it is confusing to noble Lords to have several Amendments discussed at the same time before one is out of the way. Furthermore, whatever may be said about Lord Teynham's Amendment, the fact remains that the noble Viscount in his remarks was dealing with Amendments which have not been moved by my noble friend, and which in a sense are alternative.
So far as my noble friend's Amendments are concerned, I should like briefly
1162
to sum up what I think is his position. Under the Act of 1947, Part II, the Commission took on all the railway-owned vehicles amounting in number to 4,000; and under Part I they took over vehicles owned by 450 to 500 companies in 200 groups, amounting to 12,000. My noble friend's three Amendments, which we hoped were going to be discussed, amount to this. We think that the companies to be formed under this clause should take over these 16,000 vehicles. We think they should be taken over because they are of such a nature that they can more easily be run in large units and by the sort of companies that will be formed under this clause. We feel that if they are split up into a large number of units, the work that they are intended to do will not be done properly and may not be done at all. In other words, it is a pity to break up the vehicles formerly owned by the railways and the vehicles which were taken over from the large companies in these 200 groups. The noble Viscount's argument is that, in fact, in addition to the 4,000 vehicles which the railways are to operate there are 10,000 others; and he makes the figure net 4,000 but 14,000.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No there are 14,000 vehicles which are in the railways collection and delivery van section. Those are entirely separate.
LORD OGMORE: That is my point. The 10,000 other vehicles making up the 14,000 vehicles have never been included in this Bill because they are used for local delivery—the sort of delivery that years ago used to be done with vans drawn by the huge railway horses that many of us remember. So the difference between our proposals—if we ignore the 10,000 vehicles which are used for local haulage by the railways—and the Government's proposals (I am ignoring Lord Teynham's proposals) is that we want the companies to have the opportunity to acquire 16,000 vehicles. The Government want them to have the opportunity to acquire 4,000. To use the expression invented by the Prime Minister, that is the "crunch" of this argument. That is why we say that our Amendment would improve the Bill and would enable the companies to operate transport of the type, and give the service, which the country has in the last few years learned to expect and the traders have enjoyed.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have only one more word to say before I ask your Lordships to pass an opinion on this matter. I must say that I think the noble Viscount has treated the House rather unfairly; he has certainly treated the Opposition very unfairly because, when I opened my remarks, I gave precise details; I asked the permission of the Lord Chairman and I outlined precisely the Amendment I was moving. I said that, if the noble Viscount would even meet us and consider this, I would not move the other Amendments. The noble Viscount then misleads your Lordships by adding all my Amendments together—some were alternatives, the last two were alternatives—and speaking against a case which I never said existed. I do not think that is the right way to treat the Opposition. My noble friend, Lord Ogmore, has put it in precise terms. The noble Viscount then seeks to cloud the issue by bringing in the local delivery vans that are owned by the Railway Executive. In this Bill we are dealing only with the vehicles that are owned by the Road Haulage Executive, not those that are owned by the Railway Executive. As my noble friend has said, they are the local deliveries. That is how the noble Viscount got his 14,000. These 10,000 have never come into the picture at all. Therefore, as the noble Viscount has not wished to meet us on this, as he shows no sign of any compromise as between our figure of 16,000—which is not an increase to 50 per cent., as the noble Viscount said—and the 74,000 which will be the number of the Commission's competitors, I must ask your Lordships to divide. We will take our protest into the Lobbies.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I should point out that Amendment No. 16 is not a very convenient one
upon which to divide, because it really concerns a matter of printing. As figures at the beginning of the subparagraph are not, technically, a part of the Bill, it would not be convenient to divide on this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then we will divide on Amendment No. 17.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: If Amendment No. 17 were carried, Amendment No. 16 would go in as a matter of printing. Perhaps the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment and have the Division on No. 17.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that is convenient. That would still preserve the Amendments standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Teynham and Lord Hawke?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It will preserve all the subsequent Amendments.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: With the permission of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 16.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I beg formally to move Amendment No. 17.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 26, after ("exceed") insert ("the sum of the following weights, that is to say—
(i)").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Whether the Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Morrison, L.

Jowitt, E.

Faringdon, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Greenhill, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hall, V.

Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

Pakenham, L.

Stansgate, V.

Hungarton, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L

Inman, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amwell, L.

Kenswood, L.

Silkin, L.

Archibald, L.

Kershaw, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

Lawson, L.

Winster, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

Chorley, L.

Mathers, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L.(L. Chancellor.)

Devonport, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Goschen, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Cholmondeley, M.

Long, V.

Freyberg, L.

Willingdon, M.

Monsell, V.

Gifford, L.

Ridley, V.

Hacking, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Swinton, V.

Hampton, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Templewood, V.

Hankey, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hawke, L.

De La Warr, E.

Annaly, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Baden-Powell, L.

Lloyd, L.

Howe, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Mancroft, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brand, L.

Monkswell, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Radnor, E.

Broughshane, L.

Palmer, L.

Rothes, E.

Burnham, L.

Rea, L.

Selborne, E.

Carrington, L.

Saltoun, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cherwell, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Cranworth, L.

Savile, L.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Teviot, L.

Allenby, V.

Dormer, L.

Teynham, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Webb-Johnson, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in proviso (i) of subsection (2), to leave out "six fifths of" and insert "one and a half times." The noble Lord said: I should not have moved this Amendment, had Her Majesty's Government been accommodating on the last Amendment; I made it perfectly clear that I would not move this Amendment had my last one received a better fate. This is only an alternative Amendment to the last, for which I did not have the good fortune to win the Government's support. The Amendment is another attempt to knock some sense of reality into this clause. Its effect is to increase

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Mathers, L.

Chorley, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Hall, V.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Ogmore, L.

Stansgate, V.

Greenhill, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Hungarton, L.

Silkin, L.

Archibald, L.

Kenswood, L.

Winster, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan)

Kershaw, L.

Wise, L.

[Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Linlithgow, M.

Allenby, V.

Carrington, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cranworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Devonport, V.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L

Bessborough, E.

Goschen, V.

Dormer, L.

De La Warr, E.

Long, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Fortescue, E [Teller.]

Ridley, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Howe, E.

Swinton, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Freyberg, L.

Rothes, E.

Annaly, L.

Gifford, L.

Selborne, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Hawke, L.

Selkirk, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Broughshane, L.

Llewellin, L.

to 5,848 the number of vehicles which the Road Haulage Executive or the British Transport Commission can run on general road haulage, not on delivering parcels for railway companies. That is a modest increase, and it is a better figure than the one in the Bill at the present time; it has already been half proposed and half discussed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 26, leave out ("six-fifths of") and insert ("one and a half times").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth).
On Question, Whether the Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20;
Not-Contents, 48.

Lloyd, L.

Rockley, L.

Teynham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Saltonun, L.

Turnour, L. (E. Winterton.)

Monkswell, L

Sandhurst, L.

Webb-Johnson, L.

Palmer, L.

Salvile, L.

Wolverton, L.

Remnant, L.

Teviot, L.

LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in proviso (i) of subsection (2), to leave out "six-fifths" and insert "five-fourths." The noble Lord said: In view of the intimation by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that the Government will accept my compromise Amendment, no further remarks are necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 26, leave out ("six-fifths") and insert ("five-fourths").—;Lord Teynham.
4.15 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (2) to delete proviso (ii) and to insert:
"(ii) without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this proviso, the total weight unladen of the vehicles so made over which belong to each of the three following categories, that is to say:—

(a) vehicles (whether motor vehicles or trailers) specially constructed to carry abnormal indivisible loads;

(b) motor vehicles (of whatever character) which in the opinion of the Minister ought to be regarded as special vehicles constructed for special purposes other than the carriage of abnormal indivisible loads;

(c) other motor vehicles,

does not exceed thirteen-tenths of the total weight unladen of the vehicles so owned belonging to those categories respectively."
The noble Lord said: The same remarks apply to his Amendment. No further discussion is necessary as I understand the Government is prepared to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, leave out lines 33 to 37, and insert the said new sub-paragraph.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We do not oppose this Amendment but I should like to ask a question upon it. It seems as if it puts us in rather a straitjacket. What it really says is that you cannot increase the number of vehicles in one of these categories unless you decrease the number of vehicles in another. That is going to be administratively almost impossible. From practical experience, I say it will not work. May
1168
I just put this case? Suppose you have a certain number of specialised tractors, and it is desired to increase the number of tractors—and at the present time this is open to the whole wide world. If you want to increase the tonnage in that particular division, is it necessary to decrease it in one of the others? That is as I understand it.
LORD HAWKE: Are you speaking of the present or the future?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Of the future. The words in the Amendment are:
"does not exceed thirteen-tenths of the total weight unladen of the vehicles so owned belonging to those categories respectively."
Does that mean that that proportion has to be maintained, or is that the proportion they start off with; and if they want it increased as a result of their business, can they apply to the licensing authorities for permission?
LORD TEYNHAM: That is in fact the case.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Before I accepted this Amendment I ascertained that it is not only administratively quite possible but extremely acceptable to the Transport Commission.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I say something with regard to the recent Division? A substantial number of Members of your Lordships' House were enjoying their afternoon cup of tea when the loudspeaker informed them that there was a Division. We thereupon, being devoted Members of your Lordships' House, rose and made our way here, only to find the doors closed. I understand that something had gone wrong with the arrangements. I do not want to put the House to the trouble of going through the Division again, but I hope that some means will be found whereby we shall not be placed in similar circumstances another time.
LORD STRABOLGI: I wish to support my noble friend's remarks.
VISCOUNT SWINTON:I am extremely sorry. I think there must have been a failure of the electricity system, but the failure was equally disadvantageous to both sides. The Party of the noble Lord opposite went down ten, but we went down twenty.
LORD SHEPHERD: The question I want to put is this. Is there any means by which we can make our presence in the House known through the OFFICIAL REPORT?
LORD STRABOLGI: May I support what my noble friend has said, and put it even more strongly? I was much closer to the Chamber than the tea room, and the bells did not ring. I made it my business to find out if that was the case, and it is confirmed that there were no Division bells. The loudspeaker does not give sufficient warning for noble Lords. There were some fifteen Peers in the Prince's Chamber, who could not get in here and who, in the ordinary course of events, would have voted.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am told that there is a Protest Book. I am bound to say this is "a new one on me," for I did not know of it before, but apparently there does exist such a volume somewhere. No doubt it can be produced in the appropriate place, and anyone desiring to register a protest can do so. Otherwise, I do not think there is anything that can be done. There is a procedure, I think, both here and in another place, whereby if a Member's vote or a noble Lord's vote has been wrongly recorded—that is to say if he has been recorded as voting one way whereas, in fact, he voted another—it can be set right. But failure through no fault of our own to record our votes can be dealt with only in the way I have suggested. All possible steps, I understand, are being taken to see that in future all bells ring in all places where they should.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would it not have been a terrible thing if the Government had been defeated on this?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I may add to what I have just said that Mere will be a messenger service which will go round to all the appropriate places to let noble Lords know that a Division is to take place.
LORD MATHERS: Is there not another way in which noble Lords can indicate how they would have voted? Would it not be appropriate for each one of us who has been cheated out of his vote by this unfortunate circumstance to rise in this Chamber and express his views? He certainly would be put on record then.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That would not expedite business.
4.23 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice that he would move in subsection (2) to delete proviso (ii) and to insert:
"(ii) the total weight unladen of the motor vehicles owned, immediately before the date of their acquisition by the Commission, by the road haulage undertakings acquired by the Commission by agreement under the powers conferred by Part I of the Transport Act, 1947."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is the one which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, wanted to discuss when it had not been moved, and in connection with which he added a number of horses and vehicles to my original Amendment. The only reason I propose to move this Amendment now is in order that I may ask the noble Viscount a question. As I understand it, the Government are increasing the number of vehicles from the number of vehicles belonging to the wholly-owned companies by five-fourths, to take care of two things. The first thing was the natural growth, and the other was the replacement of horse-drawn vehicles.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: On a point of Order: I think there is some misunderstanding here. Amendment 21 is an Amendment which I do not think it is intended to move. Amendment 22, I think, is the one to which the noble Lord is referring.
LORD LUCAS: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for pointing out the mistake. I must have misheard the noble Lord Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Then Amendment 21 is not moved. The next Amendment is Amendment 22.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to add to the proviso:
"For the purpose of this proviso, such horse-drawn vehicles owned on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, by the bodies corporate referred to therein as have since been replaced shall be deemed to have been motor vehicles each with an unladen weight of two tons."
The noble Lord said: Will your Lordships kindly take what I have already said as applying to this Amendment, as I do not wish to repeat it all? I understand that the Government are increasing the number of vehicles by five-fourths—which, of course, is a more reasonable figure—to take care of two things. The first is the natural growth in the number of vehicles, owing to the expansion of trade in the country, which would have taken place whether or not nationalisation had been introduced. In that course, what the Government wish to do is to put back the British Transport Commission to the position that they can own vehicles only for the purpose of general haulage, as opposed to parcel delivery by the railways—we are dealing now only with general haulage—so that they are put back to the pre-nationalisation position as at January 1, 1948. They then owned, to be precise, 3,899 vehicles. I have, as your Lordships know, been using the figure 4,000. This increase, as I say, is to take care of any natural increase due to the expansion of trade from 1948 to date. It is also made in order to take care of the conversion of horse-drawn vehicles of which, before nationalisation, the railway companies owned somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4,000. So this increase is partly to allow for the conversion to mechanical vehicles.
I am going to suggest to the noble Viscount that five-fourths is rather a low figure, when we take into consideration these two factors. I think that five-fourths would have been a fair increase if the natural expansion of trade had been the only factor which the Government had to take into consideration, but when you realise that the number of conversions from horse-drawn vehicles—and I am speaking now of vehicles—was close on 3,000, I think perhaps the Committee will agree that the increase should be more than to five-fourths. I do not mind if the noble Viscount deals in horses. I
1172
have never been in the horse-dealing business myself, and I do not know anything about it. I am therefore at some disadvantage as compared with the noble Viscount in this connection. I have been in the respectable trade of vehicles, and I always think in numbers of vehicles. My life's experience has taught me to have nothing to do with horses, and I think that anyone who follows that rule is better off in many ways. I wish to ask the noble Viscount whether he will reconsider this figure and discuss it with his advisers to see if it would not be fairer to alter this five-fourths to ensure that the question of horse-drawn vehicles which have been converted to mechanical transport is properly covered. That is the only point I wish to raise upon this Amendment, which I do not propose to press to a Division. I merely ask the noble Viscount for that explanation. I hope that he will be able to give it to me. As I say, this is one of the Amendments which I did not intend to move, but I now do so formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 37, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We thought that giving this extra difference was a pretty fair settlement. We had already allowed, of course, under the one-fifth, for what I might call the natural breeding of the Commission if it had remained a normal animal—or if the railways had. It is not easy to equate horses and motor cars: the horse has a very limited radius, whereas the motor car has a very large one. On the whole, we thought that the difference between one-fifth and one-quarter was a pretty fair equivalent, and the Committee have assented to that. I certainly cannot hold out any hope that we could go further than that. Of course, if I consulted the Commission, naturally the Commission would say: "Oh, yes, let us have some more." You might as well say to a dog, "Would you like another bun?"
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Another bone!
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Bone or bun, it does not matter; my dog eats both. But I do not think that would be a very good way of deciding it. I am prepared to consider this between now and the

1173
Report stage, and to see whether the Ministry, who really are the people to decide, consider that anything extra should be given. I do not hold out any hope that they would, because they have engaged in all the mathematical and hypothetical calculations which they think proper; and unless they tell me that on reconsideration they think an extra pourboire (if I may change the metaphor) may be given, I do not propose to put anything down.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It always seems to me a pity that when the noble Viscount gives a concession, he gives it almost grudgingly, with the proviso that nothing is likely to be done, although he does not mind taking it back for reconsideration.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have not given any concession.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Viscount said he was prepared to discuss this matter further with the Commission.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I did not say anything of the sort. I said I thought that would be a very foolish thing to do, because the Commission would naturally say, "Let us have as much as we can get." I said that I would discuss this with the Ministry.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Surely, if the Commission can make a case, the noble Viscount will listen to it. That is all I am asking. It does not appear to me to be an unreasonable request. In the hope—a faint one, but yet a hope—that something will be done, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.32 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This subsection deals with the companies which will be formed by the Commission for the purpose of running all their road haulage activities, as set out in subsection (1). The Commission are to launch separate companies into this competitive world—that is the object of the Bill. Monopoly goes and they are all in together: every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost! It will be competition, bitter competition as we knew it in the 'thirties. I would
1174
ask why, in this competitive world, the Government subject the companies to be set up by the Commission to provisions that cannot possibly affect any of their competitors? The Government say that the companies owned by the Commission have to disclose every scrap of information about their affairs, just as if they were still a State-owned monopoly. Why are the Government not satisfied with the provisions of the Companies Act, under which the competitors of these companies operate and which lay down the precise information that is to be provided by a limited company?
The provisions of the 1947 Act, from which this subsection has been borrowed, dealt with the British Transport Commission, a monopoly. Right through this Bill there is one law for the nationally owned company and another for their private enterprise competitors. I do not know why. In his speeches in another place, the Minister said that there would be "a fair field and no favour," and "Let the best man win!" Why do the Government want to hobble at the starting gate the publicly owned companies? Perhaps the noble Earl will have a satisfactory answer, but on every possible connotation in the Bill, the nationally owned concerns are placed at a disadvantage in this wonderful field of free enterprise into which they are to be thrown. This subsection uses the words:
"any company to which property has been made over under this section remains under the direct or indirect control of the Commission."
Would the noble Earl tell me what is meant by "indirect control of the Commission"? I can only assume that it means subsidiary companies. It cannot mean those companies in which at some future date, if the Government have their way, the British Transport Commission will have a minority shareholding, because that is no control at all, and this would be an impossible thing to impose upon a company in which the Commission had a minority shareholding. That is what I want to ask, and that is why I put down this Amendment. I may say that, from my experience up to date, I do not expect any concession from the Government on this point. We have long since abandoned hope of that. All I do is make it publicly known that this "free field and no favour" is a myth. The

1175
Government do not intend that the nationally owned companies shall have any kind of decent competitive start, and this is one of the many shackles placed upon them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 38, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): I am staggered because the noble Lord has moved this Amendment at all. Our approach to this question is totally different from that of the noble Lord. He used the phrase "subject these companies to this handicap." I should have thought that to place the obligation on these separate companies, although they may be working under the shelter of one Commission, of having separate accounts and of making separate reports on their activities was the first condition of efficiency. Any noble Lord who has his own business knows that the first thing a business man usually does is to divide up his concern into separate units and cost them separately, to see that every section is pulling its weight. The noble Lord complains of publication; but it is public money with which we are dealing here. Is it seriously suggested that these companies should not make their principal activities public? The Bill refers to:
"Principal activities…and…financial and operating results."
There is no reference there to particulars of individual contracts, or anything in the nature of a trade secret, or any advantage. There is nothing in this that goes further, or, indeed, in some ways, as far as, what is obligatory on all public companies under the Companies Act. I said that I was surprised that the noble Lord moved this Amendment, and I venture to hope that he may feel justified in withdrawing it. It is certainly not an Amendment that I should have thought noble Lords opposite who deal with large sums of public money would for a moment want to press.
LORD SILKIN: I cannot help feeling that the noble Earl has not really directed his mind to the case that has been made. Of course, we recognise that public money is involved, and therefore, the public are entitled to know how it is spent. There can be no possible objection to that—indeed, the Companies Act
1176
provides in the case of companies that a good deal of information—and particularly public companies—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Not private companies.
LORD SILKIN: No.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: These may be private companies.
LORD SILKIN: But in certain cases even private companies have to make their accounts public. However, I am not making that point. I am conceding that the public are entitled to know in the case of these companies, in a broad way, how they are getting on, what are the financial results, and so on. But this subsection goes much further than that. It is because it goes so much further, and requires these companies to give information which may be injurious to their business, and which may give an advantage to their competitors, that we should like the Government to look at it again. I am not quite so pessimistic as my noble friend Lord Lucas. I believe that if we can make a reasonable case, even noble Lords opposite will be prepared to listen and reconsider the matter.
I should like to draw the noble Earl's attention to what is required of these companies. I personally should take no objection to their publishing the general financial results of their operations. But what they are asked to do is to provide information
"as to the principal activities of the company."
That means, I take it, to provide them in some detail, about each of the activities. It is a flexible term, but at any rate it does break up the work of the company. The subsection goes on to say that the annual statement shall
"be so framed as to show, as far as may be, the financial and operating results of each such activity."
That is something that a public company would never be asked to do. It seems to me unreasonable that a company which is competing with others should be asked to give detailed accounts of each of its operations—the "financial and operating results." I am not quite sure what the operating results are, but if they are different from financial results then the meaning is much wider than I had imagined. At any rate, it is much more than a public company is required

1177
to do—the noble Earl shakes his head, but I can assure him that it is so; and, with great respect, I speak with some knowledge of these matters—and it is much more than the competitors of the various undertakings are required to do. It may be giving to these competitors information which will enable them to compete more favourably with the companies.
Let me give an example of what I have in mind—and I hope that it is a fair example. These companies may be undertaking operations along different routes, and it may suit their purpose deliberately not to make a profit on some routes, in order to attract traffic in the beginning, and to recoup themselves on other routes. That would not be an unheard of thing in the operations of a company of this kind, or indeed, of any other company. Under this subsection they would be required to give the operating results of each of these different types of activity. Surely, that would be putting them at a disadvantage as against their competitors. If that is not the intention, then this clause wants looking at again. If it is the intention, then it seems to me to be entirely wrong. I feel that this clause needs careful study, to make quite sure that, in the new circumstances in which the companies will now be operating, they are not required to give any information which would be of benefit to their competitors and disadvantageous to themselves. It is from that angle that I hope the Government will look at this matter again.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: What the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has just said has made the case of noble Lords opposite a good deal clearer than it was before he spoke. I do not think there can be any doubt that any company, whether controlled by public or by private enterprise, should publish their accounts, as indeed, they are required to do by the Companies Act. But what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is dealing with is much more in point—namely, the question of how far they should publish the results and the operating stastistics of their work, and in what detail. While the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was speaking I had a quick look at the section of the Transport Act, 1947, to which this clause refers. I notice there that the intention of that section, so far
1178
as I can understand it from a quick look, is that under the new arangements of the 1947 Act the same information shall be given to the public as the railways were required to give under the Railways Act. Unless I am wrong, it has always been the practice of the railways to give a considerable amount of information in regard to operating statistics. As I understand this clause of the Bill, it means that the same sort of information should be given as was envisaged under the Transport Act, 1947, should be laid before the Minister by the Corporation. I should like to come to another point made by the noble Lord, as to the undesirability of dealing with principal activities.
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Viscount leaves that point, I am sure he will bear in mind that it is one thing to give this information when you have a monopoly, but it is quite another thing when you are one of a large number of concerns, all competing for the same limited amount of trade.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I was hoping to come to that point in a few moments. As I was saying, we come to the question of dealing with the principal activities. I think the noble Lord will agree that this clause does not in terms specify the detail in which these principal activities are to be described—in fact, it uses the phrase "as far as may be." I understand that phrase to mean that the Minister or the Commission will use their discretion in exactly the sense that the noble Lord opposite meant. But, surely, in these days it is becoming more and more the habit in company practice for chairmen of important companies to go into considerable detail with their shareholders as to what the principal activities of the companies are. Anybody who picks up the annual report of an important company, issued, say, this year, and compares it with one issued ten or twelve years ago, as in fact I was doing a few days ago for another purpose, will notice how the practice has altered, to disclosing information of a company's activities as opposed to the bare bones of a statutory report. I suggest that that is the right policy to follow, and should be followed in this case.
Now we come to the question about which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is exercised, of how far we are going to

1179
jeopardise the fortunes of the Commission-controlled companies by requiring them to disclose over-much information of their operational statistics. I think that the wording of this clause is sufficient to prevent their having to disclose anything which, in ordinary business practice, would not be disclosed. I suggest that this transport, whether it is run by the Commission or whether it is run by privately-owned companies, is run in the interest of the public, and competition which is going to be caused by the publication of statistics can do nothing but good in that it will certainly result in producing from both types of company better services and lower costs. For that reason, it seems to me that competition is a thing to be encouraged. If a nationalised company can show that their operating statistics are better than those of the privately-owned companies, all well and good. The public, who are the owners, will be pleased about it, and the privately-owned companies will try to get down to those figures. If the reverse is true, then the case is altered, and let us hope that the Commission's companies will start to get down to the same figures as the privately-owned companies. That would be the type of healthy and friendly co-operation between private enterprise and nationally-owned companies which is part of the background of this Bill.
LORD WINSTER: The noble Earl said that he was staggered by the temerity of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in moving this Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I did not use the word.
LORD WINSTER: I think those were the words used. I can only say that I have never regarded the noble Earl as a man to be staggered so easily. I shall have to revise my opinion of the state of his nerves, because, as the noble Viscount just said, it has been shown quite clearly that there are points of real substance in this Amendment. I make any comments on this Bill in no sense of hostility to the Bill. The principle is accepted, and one is only concerned now in trying to make it the most satisfactory Bill possible. What I find curious about the Bill is that in many of the clauses the Government appear to me to be standing upon two feet. This is a Bill to remove an industry from national ownership to
1180
private enterprise, but now and again I feel that the Government have one foot on the shore and another foot in the boat, and are rather hesitating between private ownership and nationalisation. We have already a clause in the Bill which strikes at a fundamental principle of private enterprise, which is that the Commission need not accept the best price they can get for their assets. Here again in this clause there seems to be an attack upon another fundamental principle of private enterprise, and when these things occur in this way I cannot help feeling that here and there in the Bill the Government have introduced a clause or phrase which is aimed at minimising the opposition which the Bill will encounter. That is the point that I should like to have cleared up.
In transferring an industry from national ownership to private enterprise, why are these concesssions to the principle of nationalisation made from time to time, and things introduced into the Bill which are contrary to the principles upon which private enterprise is supposed to run? I understand nationalisation and I understand private enterprise, but I am perfectly certain that to try to work upon a compromise between the two cannot lead to a satisfactory result for any industry.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think if the noble Lord has read the Bill he will realise that this was actually a compromise measure and that a considerable amount of public transport is still to be left under public ownership. All this clause does is to lay down that that portion which is left under public ownership shall be subject to normal Ministerial and Parliamentary control.
I cannot help feeling that this has been a very useful discussion, because I freely admit that when we began it was not completely clear what noble Lords wanted. I should have thought that, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, the words in this clause did not in fact lay these companies open to the danger of being compelled to publish facts and figures about their activities that would endanger their power of competition. After all, these Acts of Parliament are ultimately subject to interpretation and to administration by reasonable people. The report which is ultimately handed

1181
over by the Commission will be judged by the Minister, and I cannot imagine any Minister demanding facts and figures that would in fact damage the working of the company. Therefore, I am afraid I am not convinced at all that there is anything in this clause which need be altered. But at the same time, the purpose of a Committee stage is for discussion and consideration, and I gladly say that I will look at these words. I ant not at all committing myself, but I will certainly look at them and see if it is possible, by any stretch of the imagination, that they can be interpreted in such a way as to do the harm which the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Lucas, fear.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl, and I apologise to the House for not making myself clear in my original speech. I made perhaps two mistakes. I tried to be brief and I thought that noble Lords who had read this Bill would also have been acquainted with the provisions of the 1947 Act. Obviously noble Lords have not read the 1947 Act. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, admitted that he had just looked at it.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I refreshed my memory.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: A subtle difference. I studied it, and I came to the conclusion that there had been far too hasty a lifting of the provisions of the 1947 Act in this regard. That had been done in order to take care of the malpractices of monopolies, and provisions had been put into this Bill without sufficient thought being given to the fact that the monopoly would be wide open. If I may, I will reply to one point. The British public are not going to be interested in the costs of the operations of these companies; they are going to be interested in one thing—their charges. That is what affects them, and not the costs. We do not object to every scrap of information being disclosed, except that information which would be of benefit to competitors and which would put these companies in an inferior position. The noble Earl says he will look at this point. I thank the noble Earl for proving me wrong. He is more conciliatory than I thought, and with that
1182
happy thought, and buoyed up with greater optimism than I had before, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
5.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
Transfer of property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares.
".—

(1) If it appears to the Commission that it is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act, be disposed of under this section and that such disposal will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard under subsection (3) of the said section three, they may make over that property, together with any such rights or obligations of theirs as in their opinion can conveniently be made over therewith, to a company under their control in the shares of which no other person than they themselves have any beneficial interest, with a view to the subsequent sale of the shares of the company:

Provided that the Commission shall not exercise their powers under this subsection without the approval of the Board.

(2) Where any property is made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section it shall be made over at a price equal to the net value thereof as shown in the books of the Commission (but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the making over thereof so far as not already taken into account), increased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any rights of the Commission made over therewith, and decreased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any liabilities of the Commission made over therewith.

In this subsection "net value" means value after deducting depreciation, and the references to values shown in the books of the Commission are references to the values so shown after making, of the Commission, in keeping their books for any ear falling wholly or partly after the passing of this Act, depart to any substantial extent from the principles and practice applied by them for the years falling before the passing of this Act, all adjustments which are necessary to produce the result which would have been produced but for the departure.

(3) Where the Commission have made over any property to a company under subsection (1) of this section, they shall proceed to the sale of all the shares thereof as soon as is reasonably practicable, and to that end shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, by public notice invite tenders for the purchase (in one parcel) of all those shares, on conditions specified in the notice or ascertainable in a manner specified in the notice:

1183

Provided that—

(a) no invitation to tender under this section shall be issued without the approval of the Board; and

(b) if it appears to the Commission that the sale of the shares by tender would be inappropriate and would be unlikely to secure the best possible price for the shares, they may, with the approval of the Board, sell the shares (in one parcel) otherwise than by tender.

(4) In determining whether any tender or offer for the shares of any such company as aforesaid is to be accepted or refused, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding the ownership or control of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking being concentrated in too few hands.

(5) No tender or offer for the shares of any such company as aforesaid shall be accepted or refused by the Commission without the approval of the Board, and the Board shall not approve the acceptance of any such tender or offer unless they are satisfied that the price is a reasonable one having regard to the value of the company's undertaking and the rights conferred by the subsequent provisions of this section.

(6) If any difference arises between the Commission and the Board under this section, the Commission or the Board may refer the matter to the Minister and the Minister shall give such directions as he thinks fit and any directions so given by him shall be binding on the Commission and the Board.

(7) Where property is made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section, section twelve of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, shall have effect as if—

(a) the company were and at all times since the passing of this Act (or since its incorporation, whichever is the later) had been a subsidiary company of the Commission and the Commission were and at all times since the passing of this Act had been the holding company thereof;

(b) the Commission, in every application made for a licence under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act, being an application made before the making over of the property, had signified to the licensing authority their desire that the provisions of the said section twelve should have effect as respects the company;

(c) the reference in subsection (1) of the said section twelve to Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, included a reference to section fifty-nine of the Transport Act 1947, subsections (1) to (5) of section six of this Act and Part II of the First Schedule to this Act:

Provided that this subsection shall have effect in relation to a company only as respects the period preceding the date on which its shares are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section.

(8) Where the shares of a company are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof
1184
under this section, Part I of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect as if the company had, at the time of the transfer of the shares, purchased as or as part of a transport unit all the vehicles owned by it on that date which were then authorised vehicles under an A licence granted to the Commission under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act or were specified in a then pending application for such a licence as vehicles intended to be authorised there under and as if all such things had been done as would have fallen to be done if the vehicles had been so purchased; and, without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection, references in the said Part I to transport units and to purchasers of transport units shall be construed accordingly:

Provided that—

(a) the total number of trailers specified by virtue of paragraph 2 of the said Part I in applications for special A licences shall not exceed the number of trailers made over under subsection (1) of this section by the Commission to the company;

(b) in paragraph 4 of the said Part I, the reference to the Commission shall be deemed to be a reference to the company and the reference to the publication of the public notice inviting tenders shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of the transfer of the shares.

(9) The Commission, in making over vehicles to a company under subsection (1) of this section, may, by notice to the company, designate certain of those vehicles as additional vehicles, and in that event—

(a) any application by the Commission for an A licence under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act and any licence granted in pursuance of any such application shall lapse so far as it relates to any motor vehicles so designated, but without prejudice to the substitution of any such vehicle for another vehicle in accordance with the provisions of the said Part II;

(b) the Commission shall give all such notices and make all such applications as are necessary to secure that no such vehicle, being a motor vehicle, is included in an A licence so granted, otherwise than by virtue of such a substitution as aforesaid and that any such vehicle, being a motor vehicle, which has been included in such an A licence otherwise than by virtue of such a substitution is removed there from;

(c) any such vehicles, being trailers, shall be left out of account for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the proviso to the last preceding subsection.

(10) Any property made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section shall be deemed for the purposes of section five of this Act to have been disposed of as or as Fart of a transport unit, but if, after any property has been so made over to a company but before the shares of the company have been transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section, any property of the company (whether part of such property or not) is transferred to the Commission, the property

1185
so transferred to the Commission shall be deemed for all the purposes of this Act to become property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking and shall be dealt with accordingly.

(11) A company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section—

(a) may dispose of any of its property in the ordinary course of its business; and

(b) may, with the approval of the Board, dispose of any of its property to the Commission,

but, save as aforesaid, may not dispose of any of its property:

Provided that this subsection stall have effect in relation to a company, only as respects the period preceding the date on which its shares are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section.

(12) Until the shares of any company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section, any person employed by the company shall be deemed for the purposes of section ninety-five of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to terms and conditions of employment of staff), to be employed by the Commission and to be under the direct control of the Commission themselves.

(13) Where a company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section has disposed of all its property, this section shall cease to apply to it unless and until further property is transferred to it under the said subsection (1)."

The noble Earl said: This is an important Amendment which I have the honour to move on behalf of my noble friend. May I say, by the way, that we are very glad that the general principles contained in this new clause have been very well received by noble Lords on both sides? The only apology I have to make is for the fact that this clause is so long and complicated. I feel that, in fairness, I should say that the clause was tabled immediately after the Second Reading, in order to give everyone who so desired the opportunity of seeing it; and we also circulated among, at all events, some people, an explanatory memorandum to make the clause as easy as possible to understand. This clause is part of a scheme which runs through the Bill. There are six minor Amendments and one fairly major Amendment to Clause 12, with which I will deal later; and there is a reinstatement of a subsection which my noble friend moved to delete from Clause 4 and which now appears as Amendment No. 99. The reinstatement in Clause 24 gives the Commission general powers to create
1186
companies, whether under this clause or under Clause 4, which we have just been discussing.
I should like to examine this new clause and explain it as carefully as I can within a few moments. There are three stages: first, the creating of the companies; secondly, the position of the companies when created; and thirdly, the sale. These are reflected in the different subsections of this clause which I think will be readily understood. The companies must be created with the permission of the Board. Again, the initiative in the first place lies with the Commission. That is without prejudice to the consideration in Clause 3—that is to say, with regard to rights and obligations. The price which is paid over to the company will be the net value, which is the value on the books of the Commission. And they can be—and this is important—unlimited in size. That is the formation of the companies as such. When these companies are formed, the Commission will be very much in the position of a holding company. They will have to obtain licences for companies operating and they will be able to do so in their own name or the name of the company; and they will have six months to do so. For the purposes of section 95 of the 1947 Act, the staff remains employees of the Commission. There is no alteration at this stage at all.
The company itself is free to carry on business; in fact, it is essentially a going concern. It may sell its own property in the ordinary organisation of its business. It can sell to the Commission—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Back to the Commission?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Back to the Commission—provided that it has the permission of the Disposal Board. But in certain other respects, apart from the employment position and licences, the holding company is still in control. When the sale takes place it must be in one parcel. That does not necessarily mean that cash must pass on that date. The sale can be either by tender or by agreement, or in such other way as the Board may indicate; and the Board must indicate that the price is reasonable. The whole of this scheme is permissive—that is to say, in the first place, the proposals must come from the Commission and

1187
be approved by the Disposal Board; otherwise there will be no companies formed. In the second place, this is no change of policy: it merely creates an opportunity for persons to operate. There is no change in policy or principle but it will allow people to operate on a very much larger scale by means of the company structure. The sale, of course, will proceed as quickly as is reasonably practicable and at the best price. The object of this new clause is to create an organisation which can carry on a service and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, emphasised earlier to-day, to keep the present service going. The object of this structure is to enable an organisation to be built up so that the service can be taken straight over, without any cessation of operation. I shall be glad to answer to the best of my ability any questions which noble Lords may ask. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
5.8 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am going to congratulate the noble Earl on the lucid way in which he has explained a very technical Amendment—if I may say so, a rather technical Amendment made worse by some very involved drafting. He has put the purpose of the Amendment very clearly. I desire also to offer my congratulations to the Minister. I say this with great sincerity. The Minister has shown himself, all through the progress of this Bill from its birth in another place, to have a very receptive mind. He has done well considering the handicaps under which he started.
This is the first appearance of an entirely new principle which some of us have always wanted. It was my intention, on behalf of noble Lords associated with me on this side of the House—an intention of which I gave due notice during the Second Reading—to put an Amendment down to ensure that there would be a sufficient number of companies formed to take care of the absorption of the major part of the other property assets—in other words, the assets of the Commission other than vehicles. I repeat, about £40 million worth of these assets are in vehicles, and
1188
about £60 million worth are in other property. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in his Second Reading speech, maintained the same point—that there is only one way in which you can sell the bulk of these other assets: by hiving them off into companies, not selling them as chattels. The only way you will get rid of the buildings and depôts is by organising limited liability structures and wrapping them round the kernel of a transport business.
When I saw this Amendment—it was put down, as the noble Lord has rightly said, with all due speed by the Government; it was most considerate of them to do it immediately after Second Reading—I thought this was a principle, introduced in this House, with which we on this side could be satisfied. Our desire was that there should be sufficient of these companies formed to take care of the bulk of other assets, because the only real value of these other assets is in the operation of a transport company. If you sell them on the market as chattels you might as well throw them on the scrap-heap. You must sell them as a going concern, with all the accounting, all the stores and with all the other paraphernalia of a company. It is only in that way that you will recoup anything of the goodwill figure that we all hope to see come back.
Now I note in the noble Earl's speech a doubt. I want him, if he will be good enough, to give us this information quite frankly, because his answer will guide us as to whether or not on Report stage we return to this point with another Amendment. If I may put it in the vernacular, which I know the noble Earl will not misunderstand, I thought he was rather trying to "play this down." He appeared to be trying to say: "Do not think that this is going to be a major part. Do not think that this is going to do very much. We are not departing from any principle." I do not think we need depart from any principle that he has enunciated. We need not depart from any principle which affects the small man coming back into the industry. But I beg the noble Earl to realise that this is the only way of avoiding the heavy loss that I estimated on Second Reading would amount to £50 million, if these assets were disposed of at public auction, without reserve. I do not think there should be much of a

1189
loss, but if the disposal is prosecuted in a businesslike manner, the loss that is eventually made can be amortised in the accounts of the British Transport Commission, as it could be in the accounts of any other business. If the losses are large, they will have recourse to the levy—and I shall have something to say about the levy later on.
I want the noble Earl to assure us that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, by adopting the method of the limited company structure, to form sufficient companies to absorb a major proportion of those assets of the British Transport Commission which must be sold by the company structure method, if anything like a reasonable price is to be realised. If the noble Earl will give us that assurance we shall be more than satisfied, because on this particular point we support him, in principle, with one or two slight reservations which may be mentioned later on. If he will give us that assurance, it will guide our conduct in the remaining stages of this Bill.
5.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved, as an Amendment to the proposed new clause, to leave out "all" in subsection (3) ["all the shares"]. The noble Viscount said: There are three Amendments, Nos. 25, 26 and 27, which stand in the names of my noble friend Lord Teynham and myself, so perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I spoke about them all together, as they all refer to the same point. I can certainly follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in welcoming the clause which has just been moved by my noble friend. It looks as if noble Lords opposite have welcomed this clause not only in principle, but also rather more in practice than they welcomed some of the earlier clauses in the Bill. My own feeling is that a great deal of use will be made of this clause and that an expedient of this sort is the right way to hand over transport to private enterprise in what one might call a painless way, in such a way as not to disrupt the operation of the transport and also not to disrupt the positions of the people who are running those companies.
It is also, I think, a far better way in which to take care of those assets of the Transport Commission which are represented not by vehicles but by
1190
garages, service depôts, stores for spare parts and such things. So far so good. But there is one point that worries me a little. The draftsman has evidently spent much ingenuity and time on this clause, and his efforts, if I may say so with great respect, have had the cumulative result of bringing a little unbalance into this Bill. All the regulations for dealing with road transport are laid down meticulously, and yet, when we come sooner or later to Clause 14 about the railways, we shall find broad directions to prepare a scheme. If wonder whether it is right that we should go on adding to the details of the road transport scheme in the Bill, and whether the position as in Clause 14 is not really the better one—to lay down the broad principles in the Bill and allow them to be threshed out in the light of requirements and of events.
One case in point strikes me regarding the words that are the subject of my Amendment. The Commission are required to dispose of the shares of these companies "in one parcel," whatever that turns out to mean. I take those words to mean that all the shares have to be sold at one time to one buyer. If I am wrong, my noble friend in front of me will no doubt say so. I wonder whether it is entirely wise to go into such detail. Admittedly, the object of the Bill, which we on this side of the House support most strongly, is to return the proper proportion of transport to private hands at the earliest possible moment. If everything goes well and buyers are to be found in the right numbers and at the right prices for the transport which is going to be disposed of, whether in these companies or otherwise—well, so much the better. Everything then will go right and the Minister will have no worry, nor will the Commission. But suppose, for a moment, that things turn out not to be so easy as at first we anticipated. I do not want to meet trouble half-way or to suggest that that trouble is going to be such that those words "in one parcel" would make it harder to achieve the desired result than it would be if the Minister had more latitude than he appears to have under the provisions of the proposed new clause.
I wonder whether we ought, for example, to exclude the possibility of the Minister accepting an offer to dispose of

1191
the whole of the shares in more than one parcel at the same time. That seems to be excluded by the Bill. I wonder also whether, despite the need to return transport to private hands, we are entirely right in the terms of the Bill to exclude the possibility of the Commission retaining, perhaps even for a short time, a minority holding in the shares of any given company. The power to do that might easily assist the Minister or the Commission, whoever is going to do it, and might make it possible to place the company in the hands of a much sounder and better buyer.
I should like to put those points to my noble friend in front of me and ask whether he thinks that they are worth further consideration between now and Report stage. My only interest in raising them is to see that we do everything we can to make sure that the disposal takes place in an orderly way, in the easiest possible manner for all concerned, and following ordinary business principles and commercial practice. I think we are going a little too far by leaving in the Bill the words which I suggest should be taken out. I am not suggesting that this Amendment is absolutely right—it may go too far as it stands. Indeed, I put it down largely in order that the matter should be considered and not with the idea of pressing the Amendment in its present form. I ask if it is possible for my noble friend to look at the matter a little further. If he feels that I am justified in asking that, then I will not press the Amendment at this stage, nor will I move the other two Amendments which are consequential on it. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved:
Line 35 of the clause, leave out ("all").—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
LORD TEYNHAM: I should like to support the Government Amendment, so far as it goes, because I think it will facilitate the sale of transport units. But I was a little surprised to see that sales of the whole of the shares of any company must be made in one parcel. I have always felt that it might be a good thing for the Transport Commission to run a partnership with private enterprise in road haulage, more or less in the same manner as exists in road passenger services, where it has certainly proved a very efficient and effective combination. Then again, as
1192
was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, I cannot help feeling that it might be much more difficult to dispose of shares in a company in one block than perhaps it would be to sell, say, 51 per cent. of them. Cases might arise in which buyers might not be able to put up the whole of the money, but might like to have an option on a group of shares and to pay by some form of instalment. I would ask Her Majesty's Govenment to look at this matter again.
LORD HAWKE: I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take this Amendment to their Amendment very seriously. As the noble Lord opposite said, the new clause as it stands provides a completely new conception of the relationship between road and rail in this country. But although the new clause as it stands provides an extremely good method, it is an extremely brutal method of solving the problem. There is no alternative; the shares have got to be sold. I, for one, want competition between road and rail, but I do not want to see such competition that I shall have to pay 6d. in the £ in income tax, or 3d. on a pint of beer, to keep the railways solvent. I think that this Amendment to the Amendment provides a degree of flexibility, from which it will be possible to ensure that competition exists, but that it is not too "cut-throat." If the system works in a monopolistic manner the Minister will always have power at some future date to tell the Commission to divest itself of some amount of its shares, so that its control over these companies is reduced, or even that it divests itself completely of that control. If our Amendment is accepted, I do not imagine, in the first instance, that they will part with such a degree of control that they will not be able to retain at any rate some degree of direction on the boards of these companies. Therefore, I think the new clause, as amended by my noble friends' Amendment, would be the correct solution of the road-rail problem.
5.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Noble Lords who have spoken have raised some interesting questions, which are well worth consideration. I agree with some of their observations. What I have to say applies not only to road haulage but also to the passenger side of the business. As I think I said in my speech on Second Reading,

1193
the object of doing this was to use and not to abuse. I agree, in principle, that it is a good thing that where the Commission is running the transport business, whether it be road haulage or passenger transport, that business must be efficiently managed, so that, as a haulage proposition or as a bus proposition, it will make money. I entirely agree that one of the ways that will best be ensured is to allow the Transport Commission to run the business, whether it be road haulage or something else, in partnership with a highly competent road undertaking. Certainly there will be occasions when that can be usefully discussed; but, quite frankly, on this particular clause does not seem to me to be appropriate time or place. In this Bill one part interacts so much with another than we are apt, in regard to a special matter, not only to argue from the particular to the general but to depart from the particular to the general.
What is the object of this clause? It is a very long clause—I wish that it could be simplified, but I must not hold out any hope that between now and Report stage the skill of the draftsman may simplify it. I do not believe that it could be made much simpler, even with Lord Winster's assistance. Its only object is to provide an alternative method of selling a transport unit in what we anticipate will be exceptional cases. The main method of sale, and certainly, in most cases, the convenient method of sale, will be that which has always been laid down in the Bill. The units will be, for the main part, those most likely to appeal to the potential purchasers. I think that is the most convenient method—and certainly it is the simplest. These units of varying sizes will be created by the Commission, with the approval of the Disposal Board, and sold for cash. That is the normal procedure under the Bill. Then it was said that we may find it a useful adjunct to the normal practice of sales of units for cash, to have a company structure, so that in appropriate cases a company may be created which owns the vehicles, the garages, and other ancillary assets. In those exceptional cases the Commission, with the approval of the Board, might consider that there would be a better chance of disposing of these units as a company, by selling shares in the company, than by selling the unit for cash in the ordinary way. I cannot say
1194
how many such cases there will be, but I think one must take it that this method of disposal is likely to be the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, if these Amendments were carried, they would apply only in exceptional cases. But, after all, the main purpose of this Bill is to dispose of these units as units.
I am not sure that there would not be insuperable administrative difficulties in selling part of the shares and continuing to hold the rest. I am the last person in the world to plead administrative difficulty or inconvenience if I think a certain course of action is the right one to pursue. I should be prepared, as one noble Lord said, to go through any obstruction by lawyers or civil servants to pursue the main object, if I believed that to be a good thing to do. But observe one or two results of what is how proposed. You sell a unit for cash. The whole unit is transferred. That unit is then entitled to an "A" licence. It will be rather difficult to grant that "A" licence in cases in which only a part has been transferred. I think that in subsection (12) there is a special provision concerning the safeguarding of the interests of employees. I do not know how that would work if there were a partial selling of shares. Moreover, although this may be a matter of opinion I am bound to say that all the advice which I have received accords with my own practical experience, that this would, on the whole, run counter to the principle on which stress has been laid on both sides of the House—that we must sell for the best price obtainable. It would be in a very rare case, I think, that a partial sale of shares would command the same price as a sale of a whole business, and, of course, in so far as some smaller sum than the best price is obtained, the levy would be increased.
But I find another difficulty. Everybody wants to come to finality about the levy. We have got to find out as soon as we can what is the loss which is going to be incurred on the sale. When a unit is sold, whether as a company or as a unit for cash, any loss is calculable; we know what are the assets included in that sale; we know what is the goodwill attributable. But supposing some shares are left to the Commission, what is the Commission, whose responsibility it is to assess the loss on the value, to attribute to the

1195
shares which are retained, as against the shares which are sold? Obviously, if the Commission retains the shares, then it is not entitled to compensation under the levy, because it would be compensated for something which it was retaining; yet no one has been able to devise a form of words to meet the case when this loss occurs, with so much sold and so much retained. What happens if the process goes on gradually and more shares are sold in six months' or a year's time?
My noble friend who proposed this Amendment said also that it might be that a prospective purchaser would not have enough money to pay the full price straight away. That would occur whether it was the purchase of a unit or of shares in a company. That is a thing which was appreciated; and, of course, if you got in the money you would probably get a better price. I think my noble friend knows of the arrangements which are already in train between one company—namely, the United Dominions Trust—and the Road Haulage Association, where credit facilities will be available to buyers. I think it likely that other companies will extend credit facilities in the same way. I think that is the right method of extending credit facilities. But, having said that, I hope that my noble friend will believe me when I say that I am not arguing against his main argument in favour of his Amendment, which was that he would like to see partnerships between the Transport Commission and other undertakings. On that I am entirely at one with him. I am not sure that any special provision in the Bill is required for that. In speaking on this point, I speak for the Minister of Transport and for the Secretary of State for Co-Ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power: I know that that is their view also. I believe that certain clauses which come later afford opportunity for encouraging and, if necessary, enforcing a policy which I believe the Commission would be only too ready to adopt. But this is not the way or the place to do it. We can do it only in a very limited number of cases. It might be done in cases where it would not be a question of a partnership, and it would be only on a most limited scale.
I have given very careful consideration to this matter, and I have been quite frank with the House, both as to what
1196
I should like to see done and as to why I should like to see it done. I should like to see some of the things come about of which my noble friend who moved this Amendment has spoken, but this is not the right way to do it. If I may respectfully say so, I would urge that these provisions should not be wrecked or spoilt by introducing partial proposals which are inappropriate in a number of cases. I have spoken at some length on this matter because I thought it was a very important issue, and I have given reasons why I do not think this Amendment is practicable. I am quite prepared to look at it again. Not that I would change my mind on anything I have said to the Committee to-day—and probably my noble friend agrees with most of the things I have said; nor would I put down something which merely presented the matter in a different way. But if I do find, on re-examination of the matter, something which might help towards partnership, I shall be prepared to return to the point. But for the reasons I have given I do not think this is the way to do it.
5.40 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: With the best will in the world I have tried to follow the noble Viscount, but I must confess that I have not grasped what he has tried to convey to us. What is the purpose in the minds of the Government in putting forward this particular clause? I can well picture people buying units: I can even picture people buying shares. But I do not understand what the Government have in mind in drawing a distinction between those two. What kind of transaction do the Government envisage will be handled by these shares? It is not a question of money; it is just as easy to buy commodities as it is to buy shares. Why this distinction? Can the noble Viscount give us some sort of concrete example in which this particular clause would apply, instead of telling us that they must be rare occasions upon which these powers will be operated. I am not at all clear upon this matter.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I cannot say what circumstances may arise. This new clause is moved because it is considered necessary. The suggestion came, I think, very largely from the Opposition, who said that there might be cases in which

1197
the Commission found that they would be able to realise better prices if they turned a unit into a company and sold the shares in the company rather than sold the physical unit. I cannot say, before the Commission have got to work, where this clause will apply.
LORD GREENHILL: I can understand that it will mean preserving, in a form which could be acquired by any investor, the value of the assets which are being offered for sale. What I do not understand is what the Government wish or intend to do with this particular clause.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Government intend to do exactly what the Opposition suggested we should do. I am sorry if it is not clear to the noble Lord. I suggest that he should study the clause. It enables the Commission, with the approval of the Board, in what they consider is an appropriate case to create a company, and to sell the unit as shares in a company, rather than to make a physical sale of the unit.
LORD GREENHILL: Would the noble Viscount tell me what, in his conception, would be an appropriate case?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: How can I tell the noble Lord what would be an appropriate case? I can only tell him what is an appropriate case when the Commission have looked at a particular case, have considered all the circumstances surrounding it and have said—I do not know what their reasons might be—that the unit would sell better as shares in a company than as a physical unit.
LORD GREENHILL: Then what are we legislating for if we cannot be told what is envisaged by the legislation?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We are legislating to do exactly what the Opposition have suggested. Really the noble Lord must settle this with his own Party. I have been asked over and over again by noble Lords opposite to give more discretion to the Commission in this business. Here I am giving discretion to the Commission. The noble Lord says: "Do not leave it to them, but tell them what they are to do."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think perhaps I can help my noble friend. I do not know whether he was present when I addressed your Lordships
1198
after this clause had been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. The question I addressed to the noble Earl is really the same question which my noble friend is raising in another way. For the convenience of the Committee, perhaps I can put my point briefly to the noble Viscount—who, unfortunately, was not in the Chamber when I spoke—on the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
We accept this clause, though my noble friend has something to say on another aspect of it. I am afraid that the noble Viscount cannot now conform to The request I made—he has cut right across it. My noble friend and I are trying to find out the same thing. I have done it one way, my noble friend is seeking to do it in another.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for what he has said about my right honourable friend—I much appreciate it—and also for the way in which he and other noble Lords have accepted the general purpose of this clause. Incidentally, he persists in talking of £40 million worth of vehicles, whereas I persist in saying that written down in the accounts the amount was £25 million. So there are still differences between us on the question of finance. The question which he asks is: what are the conditions in which the need to operate these powers would arise? Frankly, they are written into the Amendment of the Bill. Noble Lords opposite spent a lot of time yesterday saying that they did not like the Disposal Board. The position is this. The function of the Disposal Board is, in a way, to advise the Commission as to the sort of circumstances—place, size and equipment and so forth—in which a company could usefully be formed, a company whose shares would sell. That is functional. It is not really for us to give any expression of opinion. I could imagine occasions, just as no doubt the noble Lord could imagine occasions, when a certain type of business, a largish one, probably, could best be undertaken by a company. It is not for the Minister to interfere, unless there is disagreement between the Commission and the Board. It is for them to decide on the circustances in which this should be done. We have confidence that they will approach their task in a practical way, and use the powers of this clause when

1199
it is appropriate. I hope that, broadly, that answers the noble Lord's question. I do not think it is for us to go into this matter in detail.
LORD GREENHILL: I do not wish to pursue the subject unnecessarily, but it seems to me that if the Disposal Board have to decide how certain assets can be disposed of, there is an option either of selling for cash the assets to be disposed of or of forming a company whose shares will be disposed of. All I am asking is: What are the circumstances envisaged by the Government under which there will be a difference in the nature of the transaction? Are the Government now legislating for something they cannot even conceive ever happening, or are they saying that, because the Opposition has suggested something to them, they are propitiating the Opposition, even though they do not know what the Opposition wants—which is all it amounts to. Will the Government please tell us what we are legislating for?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I find it very hard to understand quite what the noble Lord has in mind. Without this clause, sales would have been by transport units—that is to say, sales of assets. In this clause we have taken powers—as has already been said, there has been a discussion about the matter, in which most of the Opposition has suggested that it should be done—to enable the formation of a company where it seems advisable that a company should be formed as a working organisation to carry on. I really do not see what the difficulty is.
LORD GREENHILL: We have been told that only in exceptional circumstances will the transaction take the form of sale by shares. What in the opinion of the Government are those exceptional circumstances? That is all I am asking.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The circumstances are these. People will want to buy—
LORD GREENHILL: Exceptional circumstances.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We think the circumstances will depend on the opinion which the Board form as to the way in which a particular formation can usefully
1200
be sold. That is all in the Bill, and I cannot add to it. When we have passed this Bill, substantial power will pass to the Disposal Board and to the Commission to conduct their affairs as the Bill directs. There is no statement in the Bill about exceptional circumstances.
5.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I believe that my Amendment to the Amendment is still before the Committee. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that we have reason to be very grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for the care and clarity with which he has explained the position of the Government. I should like to be able to say that I appreciate all his arguments and agree with every one of them without question, but he will forgive me if I cannot say that, because there were a number of technical arguments which did not convince me at once and I know I cannot argue against them until I have read them in Hansard. Another question, which was the subject matter of Lord Greenhill's speech, was whether this system of disposal by companies would be exceptional or the rule. As I understood my noble friend, disposal by chattels would be the usual method of disposal.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: By units.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I beg your Lordship's pardon. Disposal by units would be the usual method of disposal, and the method of disposal by companies, in the opinion of the Government, would be the less usual system. Whether that will be true, time alone will show, but that is the opinion given by my noble friends in front of me. I was grateful to my noble friend for reminding us of the financial arrangements which had been made through the United Dominions Trust, and possibly other financial companies, for financing those who are suitable buyers of a parcel of shares of these companies but perhaps cannot find the cash in any other way. I think that will meet a good part of the objections raised to this Amendment. May I be allowed to express the hope that if the United Dominions Trust wishes to make an application to the Capital Issues Committee (I am not personally interested in the United Dominions Trust), no objection will be made by the Treasury to placing funds at their disposal to finance those

1201
who are seeking to raise money for this admirable purpose? That is one way of getting round this difficulty, which I still think is a real one. Another way may be found in the opening subsection of Clause 5, to which we are coming in a moment. But I do not wish to take up further time of the Committee on this Amendment. I am most grateful to my noble friend for the consideration he has given to it, and for the consideration which he says he will still give to this problem, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. I will not move Amendments 26 and 27.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.53 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, as an Amendment to the proposed new clause to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will recollect that yesterday I moved the deletion of a similar subsection in Clause 3—namely, subsection (6). The case for the removal of this subsection is almost identical, but is stronger here because it will be even more difficult to ensure that the undertakings do not pass into too few hands. An undertaking was given to look again at the Amendment I moved yesterday, and if a similar undertaking can be given on this occasion I am prepared not to develop my argument—which would be in exactly the same form as it was yesterday—but to rely upon that assurance. I do not know whether the noble Earl can give me an answer straight away, or would he rather I deployed my case? I move.
Amendment moved—
Line 48 of the clause, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL DE LA WARR: It is true we discussed this matter fully yesterday, particularly on the point raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, of whether this was not a matter for decision by the Minister rather than by the Commission, and I undertook, specially on that point, to look at the clause again. I gladly repeat the assurance here.
LORD SILKIN: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.55 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: I wish to say a word about this proposed new clause. In the course of my lifetime at the Bar, I had many cases of estates having to dispose, of large blocks of shares. It is common knowledge that if one threw all such shares on to the market at the same time, they could be disposed of only at a serious loss. Consequently, in such cases the sale has to be nursed, as every man of any knowledge and business experience will agree. Steps must be taken not to dispose of all the shares at the same time and, if necessary, a holding company must be formed to liquidate steadily and carefully, and not throw on the market more than the market can absorb. Nobody with experience of this sort would doubt what I say. I take it that the object of this clause is to do that specific thing: not to dispose of too large a number of units at the same time. It is obvious that we might overfeed the market to such an extent that we could not get anything like an adequate price. Therefore, we might have to adopt the device of the company method of dealing with the situation. So far we are all agreed, and I apprehend that the basic idea underlying the company method of disposal is to ensure that the assets can be disposed of steadily, slowly and in an orderly way.
I notice that the first subsection of the new clause provides that this is to be adopted only if
"such disposal will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard under subsection (3) of the said section three—."
Looking at subsection (3) I find a series of things to which the Commission must have regard—I am not going to trouble to read them as they are all set out, but in particular there is the one we have been discussing about looking after the small man. I suggest that somewhere in this clause ought to be stated the underlying purpose of the clause. If I have got it aright, we are doing this to get the best price. Though in this clause it is stated that the object of this method of disposal is to look after the small man, and all the rest of it, I do not think that it is stated that what we want to do is to get the best possible price. I may not be correct there, because it is a complicated clause and I may not understand it fully. But we want to see that put in this clause

1203
—and I give notice now because it may be possible to consider between now and Report stage whether there is anything in my point and whether words can be put in. We should set it out at large that the object of resorting to the company procedure is to ensure that we get the best price. I should like to see the criterion which the Commission or the Board, whichever it may be, are to adopt. If we can get a really satisfactory price by the unit method of disposal, well and good, but if by the unit method of disposal carried on to the extreme, as it will have to be, we are going to disturb the market, then we will resort to the company method. That is the reason for it. Although we set out all sort of desiderata in this clause, we nowhere set out that desideratum which is fundamental—namely, to get the best price possible.
I suggest that in the reconsideration of this clause the noble Earl and his friends should look at it to see whether I am not right in saying that it would be a good plan to set out quite plainly that that is the criterion which ought to be present to the minds alike of the Commission and the Board, and anybody else concerned, namely, that this whole device, this elaborate clause, is to ensure that the Commission do not have to be content with a far too low price. That, after all, is the last thing any of us wants, because, in a sense, it is the concern of us all as taxpayers. Let us get the best price we can. I suggest that this clause ought to be looked at from that point of view. I do not want an answer now, but I should like the noble Earl to tell me that he will pay some regard to what I have said. If he thinks, on reading my words, that there is any substance in what I have said, I hope that he will ask the draftsman whether he cannot put in appropriate language to bring out plainly that intention, because that is the idea which I feel noble Lords on both sides have in mind, and that is the matter in which we are all interested.
It is a simple thing for these business men. Can we get a really satisfactory price by disposing of all this stuff, huge blocks of it, by the unit method? If not, let us resort to the company method. That is the criterion to be adopted in deciding whether or not to resort to the company method. At present that is not stated in
1204
the clause at all, and it should not be difficult to set out that that is the criterion to be borne in mind in deciding whether or not to adopt the company method. It is for that reason that I think the company method is so important. I am certain that if you fling all these assets on the market you will slaughter the price. The company method is the only successful way to nurse these things, and to ensure that you get a satisfactory arrangement in the interests of the taxpayer. I am not moving an Amendment. All I do is to ask the noble Earl to consider the point between now and the Report stage, to see whether it would not be possible so to alter this clause as to bring out that as being the main point and purpose of the whole business.
LORD HAWKE: If the Government are to put in considerations of the sort the noble and learned Earl has just mentioned, I feel that continuity of service should be included. To my mind, price and continuity of service are equally important.
EARL JOWITT: I agree, but I think those things ought to be there stated. Can the noble Earl tell us whether that proposition will be considered?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, for his remarks, which I know will be examined most carefully. What he has said is quite true. The selling of these companies will be a tricky business. One of the tasks of the Disposal Board is to help the Commission in their work. With great respect, I would say that the Commission were never appointed to attempt something approximating to a floatation. This may not be a floatation, but it has some comparable features about it. The noble and learned Earl mentioned the question of the best price. There are a number of factors to be considered—the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has mentioned continuity of service. I should like to point out, in reference to the companies Amendment, that the last words of Clause 3 (3) are:
"Subject as aforesaid, the transport units shall be determined with a view to securing that the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking fetches in the aggregate the best possible price."
I should have thought that the reference to that clause had precisely the effect of

1205
drawing attention to this particular factor in consideration of the word "expedient," which stands in the front of the companies clause. I may be wrong, and we will certainly have a look at the point to make it clear that that is one of the major purposes for which the companies would be formed.
Clause 5:
Disposal of property otherwise than in transport units
(2) The Minister may give directions to the Commission, as respects any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking, requiring them to dispose of that property otherwise than as or as part of a transport unit, and the Commission shall comply with any such directions.
Any directions of the Minister under this subsection may be absolute or conditional, need not be restricted to individual hems of property and may require the Commission to consult the Board and, to such extent if any as may be specified in the directions, to obtain the approval of the Board as to the action to be taken.
6.3 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, to leave out subsection (2), The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. Your Lordships will see that Clause 5 refers to the disposal of property otherwise than by the two methods we have already discussed, the unit method and the company method.
LORD HAWKE: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, because I am particularly interested in this point. Is his interpretation correct? Does this exclude the company method? I was going to ask the Government spokesman whether, in fact, it did not include the company method.
LORD SILKIN: I was going by the marginal note, which says:
"Disposal of property otherwise than in transport units."
LORD HAWKE: It does not say, "otherwise than in companies."
LORD SILKIN: No. But I thought we had dealt with companies.
LORD HAWKE: The Deputy Leader of the House, in commenting on our Amendment to the new clause after Clause 4, said that it was not the proper place to put it in. It occurred to me that
1206
somewhere in Clause 5 might be the place where we were covered.
LORD SILKIN: I suppose that it is arguable, but it would not be a very tidy method of doing it, if you have a special clause relating to companies, a special clause dealing with units, and then you say:
"Disposal of property otherwise than in transport units."
One would have thought the clause had relation to methods other than the two with which we have already dealt. Be that as it may, my Amendment does not depend upon that interpretation. It is that the Commission may dispose of their property by methods other than those two that have been dealt with. Subsection (2) of the Bill says:
"The Minister may give directions to the Commission, as respects any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking, requiring them to dispose of that property, otherwise than as or as part of a transport unit, and the Commission shall comply with any such directions.
"Any directions of the Minister under this subsection may be absolute or conditional, need not be restricted to individual items of property and may require the Commission to consult the Board…"
I quite recognise that there may be circumstances in which the Minister may have to direct the Board to dispose of certain assets, but I do submit that this subsection goes far too wide. It lays down no principles upon which the Minister is to act. He is not required to explain why he is giving his direction. It may refer to property which the Commission are entitled to hold, and are authorised to hold. It may be most damaging to their undertaking to be required to dispose of it.
Moreover, it does not relate to single vehicles; it need not be restricted to individual items of property. Indeed, theoretically, the Minister, having given the Commission five-fourths of what they held before, could then require them to dispose of the whole lot; and he is not required to give any reason for issuing such a direction. Again, I do not suggest that the Minister is going to do that; the Minister is a reasonable person and would not flout the intentions of the Act. But he is in a position to act arbitrarily if he so decides. What I suggest is that, while it may be necessary for the Minister to have a reserve power by way of

1207
direction—I would not challenge that—this goes much wider than can ever be necessary. Therefore I would ask that this subsection be looked at again, with a view to defining the circumstances in which the Minister may give such a direction, so that we all know on what principles he is going to act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 20, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Silkin.)
6.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I hope the noble Lord will excuse me if I reply rather shortly to this discussion. I am going to do so simply in these words: that these are, as the noble Lord has said, reserve powers. Every good thing in this world comes to an end, and somehow this sale has to be terminated. This is intended as a reserve power which will enable the Minister finally to bring to an end the whole disposal business. If these clauses existed alone in the Bill, what the noble Lord has said would have been perfectly true and it would have been highly objectionable. But one is entitled to read the Bill as a whole. What does the Bill say? First of all, we have the disposal in transport, we then have the disposal in companies and we then have the disposal at the request of the Commission and the Minister accedes to it. Then at the last the Minister has the reserve power of disposing of the remaining items of the Road Haulage Executive property.
That is as the matter stands, and it is a responsibility which the Minister has to carry. I admit that the powers are wide. The House of Commons and we in this House may question the Minister as to how he uses those powers. But they are the reserve powers to be used finally to terminate this whole disposal business. I hope the noble Lord will accept this explanation. If he thinks that those powers can be made adequate and yet restricted to that purpose, we shall be happy to consider it; but it must be clear that the essential terminating powers must exist in the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Earl has again said something which nobody could possibly infer from reading this subsection. He is now saying exactly what I said is not in the subsection—
1208
namely, the laying down of the principles under which the Minister may issue directions. What I asked him to do was to put those principles in the Bill so that we all may know the circumstances in which the Minister will use these very wide powers. If he says he is prepared to look at it again from that angle, to see whether the powers can be defined, the principles laid down or circumscribed, I am quite satisfied, and I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment. But if he says that this must stand and we shall have to guess hereafter what it means by reference to other clauses, and so on, it is really most unsatisfactory.
EARL JOWITT: I think this is a matter of great importance, and I beg the Government to think again. I beg them to remember what they have said for the last six years about this sort of clause. Before I start, may I ask the Committee to turn to Clause 9 (4) on page 12 of the Bill? It reads as follows:
"If it appears to the Minister that, having regard to the stage reached in the disposal of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking, it is expedient so to do, he may by order provide for abolishing the Board and winding up their affairs, and for transferring to the Minister any functions of the Board so far as they remain to be exercised or performed.
The power conferred by this subsection to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.…"
There, at least, this House and, of course, another place do have some sort of control—inadequate though I think the control is, because we have either to take that statutory instrument or leave it. So the Minister has those powers in this Bill already, but, of course, they are subject to statutory instrument.
Now come back to this clause, which is really one of very great importance. Let us see what it does. It is all very well for the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to say, "Take the Bill as a whole. You first of all have the disposal by unit, then you have the disposal by company and then you have this method of disposal." But the noble Earl has not realised that this is an overriding power. This enables the Minister to give any directions he likes without getting leave or approval of either House of Parliament, and it does not specify the grounds upon which he has to exercise his powers. I have known the Minister for a lifetime, and I am perfectly certain that he is a very reasonable

1209
person. I am not suggesting for a moment that this particular Minister will do anything unreasonable. But as noble Lords opposite said to me for so many years, that is no reason why we should confer upon the Minister powers in which he might act unreasonably. The noble Earl really must be more definite about this matter and think again.
If I understand the clause aright, it enables the Minister, without coming to Parliament, to give directions to the Commission which the Commission have to obey, authorising them to dispose of any property, no matter whether it is individual property or property of a class, under any conditions he thinks right. It is an absolute power. I ask the noble Earl this question: Is it not the fact that this overrides all the other powers? If the Minister chose to give a direction, could he not short circuit the unit method of disposal and the company method of disposal? Is it not plain that on this clause he Eras absolute authority to do what he likes? I was attacked for years by the noble Earl, amongst others, upon the iniquity of conferring these powers on a Minister, and about ousting Parliamentary control. Here we have it to a supreme degree. Here we have the power of a Minister to do exactly what he likes. Does not this power override, and does not the Minister have a right to overrule, any of the other preceding powers? Is it not therefore utterly fallacious to say here, as the Minister has, that we have to look at the whole combination of unit disposal and company disposal and then this method, which is a disposal "in the last resort"? It is not a last resort at all. It is a power which the Minister has which overrides all other powers in the Bill, if he is minded to be unreasonable about it.
Am I to be told by noble Lords opposite, who lectured me for the last six years, that this is what we have come to: that, without asking for a statutory instrument and without coming to Parliament, we are to confer upon the Minister this power? What a farce it is to discuss this unit disposal and this company disposal when you give the Minister power on his own ipse dixit, with no control in the courts or anywhere else, to say what can be clone, without any check or control at all. Am I right? Has the Minister that power, and if so will not the noble Earl
1210
look at it again? Surely what my noble friend Lord Silkin is asking is eminently reasonable. He requests him to consider this matter again; to give an undertaking that between now and the Report stage the question will be considered whether it is not right that the Minister's powers in this regard should be checked on the lines that the noble Earl himself used to prove so eloquent about in the past; whether we ought not to establish once again the sovereignty of Parliament, and the principle that we do not entrust to any Minister, however eminent and able he may be, powers to override completely the express sections of an Act of Parliament.
I beg the Minister to think again about this matter and to give us some undertaking that the observations that we have made on this clause will be carefully considered between now and the Report stage. I do not ask him to commit himself to the fact that he will make an alteration. All my noble friend Lord Silkin asked was that he should at least give an undertaking that he will look at this most seriously to see whether he cannot do something to moderate this absolutely uncontrolled power of the Minister. I quite agree that the Minister should have some power, but not uncontrolled power like this.
6.20 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: I have listened with some sympathy to what has been said by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, but if he will look at the 1947 Act, Section 4, subsection (5), he will find that very similar powers were given to the Minister under that Act. This is what the Act says:
"Without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this section, the Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, direct the Commission to discontinue any of their activities, dispose of any part of their undertaking, dispose of any securities held by them, call in any loan made by them or exercise any power they may possess…"
and so on. These are surely great and overriding powers.
EARL JOWITT: That, surely, is a mere tu quoque. If the noble Lord has no better argument than that, it is very shocking. It is shocking indeed to say, "You did it, and therefore we shall do it." This seems to me wholly lamentable. Are we now to be told—and told by people who lectured me six years ago

1211
—that the Minister is to have complete power to override the wishes of Parliament in these respects? Will not the noble Earl say that the whole matter will be most carefully considered?
LORD WINSTER: This seems to me a most objectionable thing. It is most unfair to the Commission and the Board. Under the Bill you are setting up a Commission and a Board, and you are giving them a duty to get on with the disposal of these assets. It is to be presumed, surely, that the Commission and the Board will do their best to carry out the duties imposed upon them by the Bill. Yet here is a clause in the Bill to say that no matter whether they are making an effort to do their duty or not, the Minister can step in, interfere with what they are doing, dictate to them and tell them what to do. Surely that is not a good thing. I should have thought that the powers which the Minister should have in this matter (and it is agreed that the Minister must have some powers) are implied in subsection (8) of Clause 4 on page 6, which lays it down that if the Commission and the Board are trying to get on with their duty but for some reason cannot agree as to what is the best course to take in a given case, the Minister then has power to intervene and give such directions as shall be carried out by the Commission and the Board. That seems to me eminently fair and reasonable. It seems to me quite unfair to give the Minister power to override and interfere with the work of the Commission and the Board without reference to the fact of whether or not they are making an honest effort to carry out the duty imposed upon them by the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is a great experience to think that we have not been wasting our time in the last six years. We now have a reformed noble and learned Earl with us, and we all rejoice on the new life which has come to him. It is certainly clear that if any Minister cares to be unreasonable there is not a shadow of doubt that at least for a time he can do quite a lot of damage. I am afraid that is inevitable, if he really wishes to behave like an idiot. But if he were to do so it could certainly be very awkward for him, especially, perhaps, if he were Minister of Transport. Since his job must be to get a good sale
1212
for these assets, he would hardly be encouraged to do anything foolish. However, I accept what the noble and learned Earl has said. There is undoubtedly a theoretical possibility of the danger which he mentions, in spite of the opening clause of the Bill which says:
"…it shall be the duty of the British Transport Commission…to dispose, as quickly as is reasonably practicable, of all the property held by them…."
Then the Bill goes on to describe how that shall be done. A rough reading of the Bill will show in what sequence these things are to be done. The noble and learned Earl is not, however, quite correct in quoting Clause 9, for the reference there is to the winding up of the Disposal Board, which is a separate matter, because the Disposal Board does not own any property in the full sense, except perhaps for a few debts. It is not on the same footing as the Road Haulage Executive. This, after all, is the element of final disposal. I think the powers to terminate this matter will have to be fairly drastic in some form. But I agree that it would be much better to avoid any dubiety and to make clear that the powers can be used only if certain other measures fail. We will consider that, and put the matter in a form which will, I hope, be acceptable to the noble and learned Earl.
LORD SILKIN: In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.26 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"(4) Any land or interest in land which, immediately before the date of transfer, as defined in Part II of the Transport Act, 1947, was property of any of the bodies specified in the Third Schedule to that Act and, on that date, vested in the Commission under the said Part II, may, with the consent of the Minister, be retained by the Commission notwithstanding that it is property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment merely seeks to give greater flexibility. At the present moment the Commission has to sell the land or interest in land in question under this clause. Now we are referring to sites that may well in the past have been owned by railways or canals, or the London Passenger Transport Board; and these are

1213
sites which the Commission were quite willing to let to the Road Haulage Executive. They did it willingly and, indeed, in the public interest; but one can conceive of cases where they would not wish to do so in the new circumstances, where it might be a matter of having to sell this land or interest in land to actual rivals. Again, it might not be in the public interest that they should do so, although probably, on the whole, it would be generally desirable. It is important that there should be some flexibility in the matter. Therefore we propose this new subsection, which lays down that the land or interest in land can be retained if the Minister is convinced of the real necessity for its retention, and that the property is not needed to make a satisfactory transport unit. I think your Lordships will agree that this is an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: On the face of it this is a reasonable and common-sense Amendment, and the noble Earl has explained it clearly. We all know that the Road Haulage Executive have rented or moved into some of the property of the railways, and we know that this could not be considered in this Bill as road haulage property which may be disposed of—indeed, must be disposed of. But the whole common sense of this clause is in my view spoiled by the insertion of these words:
"with the consent of the Minister."
There must be a bureaucrat, a sort of Frankenstein bureaucrat, hovering round this Bill, sprinkling these bureaucratic restrictions anywhere he can possibly get them. The property to which this Amendment refers is the property of the Commission temporarily occupied for the purposes of the Road Haulage Executive. If the Bill stands as it is, strictly speaking this property will be included as property of the Road Haulage Executive which has to be disposed of. The Amendment quite plainly says it can go back from whence it came. Why, to achieve this, is it necessary to have the consent of the Minister on every occasion? I wish someone would give an explanation. We propose to move an Amendment later in this Bill. There are nearly seventy cases in the Bill, where it is stated that the Minister must be asked before
1214
the Commission may do this or that. The day of dictators is not over. The noble Earl may answer me in the same way as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, answered my noble Leader, that no reasonable Minister is going to object to a desire being expressed by Parliament; but why must the consent of the Minister be obtained before Parliament can have that desire implemented? That is what we are asking.
LORD BURDEN: I should like to add a few words to what has been said by my noble friend. I ask the noble Earl whether he will consider taking out of this proposed new Amendment the words
"with the consent of the Minister,"
because here is an extremely important principle. It means that properties which were in no way associated with road haulage will now, under this clause, go back to the inland waterways or to the railways only if the Minister agrees; but the subsection refers only to inland waterways and railway undertakers, as defined in the Third Schedule to the Transport Act. While the principal object of this Bill is to dispose of the road haulage undertakings, we are now seeing that object widened into the disposal of properties which were transferred to the Commission as part of the railways and part of the docks, harbours and so on. It is widening the scope very much indeed. May I, as a railway man, say how difficult it will be if these properties do not flow back automatically to their original use, without any question at all of the consent of the Minister?
Take the case, as cited by my noble friend, of a road haulage unit or a few lorries using part of a railway goods yard, or using a shed or something of that kind, including rights of way and the use of the goods yard. That property will now pass to the new company unit or to the purchasers of the lorries; the use by the competitors of the railway undertaking of the goods yard, or a garage in a goods yard, to stable their lorries, will continue, unless the Minister decrees otherwise. Therefore, I hope we shall not now leave it in this state but that this point will be looked into between now and Report stage. If it is in order, I hope that an Amendment will be put down on Report stage. I did put an Amendment down yesterday, but unfortunately it was too late to be included

1215
in the second Marshalled List. We would delete from this Amendment the words "with the consent of the Minister," so that the properties flow back to their original use in the ordinary way when a road haulage unit is disposed of.
EARL JOWITT: May I ask the noble Earl a question? It is a simple one. As I understand it, this Amendment enables the Commission to retain certain property. That is right, is it not? The property which they may retain is either property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking or property not so held. That is right, is is not? Because the word is "notwithstanding." With regard to property not held for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking, which the noble Earl agrees is also covered, what is the necessity for this clause at all? The Commission are under no obligation to dispose of it, are they?
EARL DE LA WARR: No.
EARL JOWITT: Then what is the sense of saying "with the consent of the Minister"? Why say that the Commission may retain certain properties when the fact is that the Commission are under no obligation to dispose of those properties? Of course they may retain them, just as any ordinary owner may retain his property. You want only a power to retain which is coterminous with an obligation to sell. Is that not right?
EARL DE LA WARR: May I answer the noble and learned Earl?
EARL JOWITT: Certainly. It is a very simple point. The noble Earl, I am sure, must have considered it, but perhaps he did not quite understand what I was putting. I will put it once again. I do not understand why you want a power to retain unless that power is coterminous with an obligation to sell. If there is no obligation on the Commission to dispose of that property, why do they need a power to retain that property? That is the question.
EARL DE LA WARR: I will try to answer the noble and learned Earl first. If he will read the last nine words of the subsection, he will see:
"for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking."
1216
I am just wondering whether noble Lords really want to press me, if they think further on this matter, because, after all, they have to ask themselves: Why has this particular land been let to the Road Haulage Executive? The reason, obviously, is that there were sites being held in reserve by railways or canals or some other undertaking, and they were not using them for their original purpose. Perhaps they had preferred not to get rid of them but really had no use for them. Therefore, the sites were handed over to the Road Haulage Executive. The only case in which they will have to be sold is where they form part of a particular unit that is to be sold in normal circumstances. In such a case, they should be sold as part of that particular unit. But the Government agree that there may well be exceptions to that rule. Therefore, we felt it desirable to insert this subsection. As it is an exception, however, we felt that it was also right, in this case, to say that the exception should be put into operation only with the consent of the Minister.
EARL JOWITT: I have not made myself plain at all. The noble Earl has not answered the question I put to him, which is really a very simple one. It is the fact, I understand, that the only obligation on the Commission to sell is in connection with property used for the purposes of road haulage. Apart from that, they have no obligation to sell. Indeed, they can retain their central office, or what you like, because they are the owners of that central office, if it is not used in connection with the road haulage undertaking. There is here a subsection which contains the word "notwithstanding." The word "notwithstanding" makes it perfectly plain that property which they are to be allowed to retain may be property used in connection with road haulage or may be property not used in connection with road haulage. That is the obvious meaning of this subsection. My question is simply this: Why do the Commission want a power to retain unless they have an obligation to sell? There is no obligation to sell property which is not used in connection with road haulage. I am only asking for information—it really is a very simple question. What then is the meaning of a clause—it may have a perfectly good meaning—which says that the Commission may retain this particular property,

1217
if they get the consent of the Minister? Of course they may retain it. They are the owners of it, and the State imposes no obligation whatever on them to get rid of it. That is the point which I am asking the noble Earl and, if he will forgive my saying so, I was a little disappointed that I did not get any answer at all from him.
LORD HAWKE: I have been following the noble and learned Earl with great interest. Quite frankly, I cannot follow the interpretation he puts on the word "notwithstanding." I read the word "notwithstanding" to mean something in the nature of "even."
EARL JOWITT: "Even though."
LORD, HAWKE: "Even though" it is property held by them; and there would be the onus of getting rid of that property in other cases. But they can hold it, even though it would be property that they would have to dispose of, if they got the permission of the Minister. In that case, I think the noble and learned Earl's question need not be posed.
EARL JOWITT: Surely that is wrong. The fact that you may retain property which comes within category A, even though it is property that you can get rid of, pre-supposes that there is other property not coming into category A which you have also got to get rid of. Surely, that is the common sense of the thing.
EARL DE LA WARR: I really cannot pretend to be competent to make on the noble and learned Earl on a matter of law. I thought that, for all normal purposes, my interpretation was perfectly clear; but if the noble and learned Earl says he is not satisfied with the legal interpretation of what I have said, I am perfectly prepared to look at the matter between now and Report. In the meantime I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: I should like to make it perfectly clear that, as it stands, this Amendment allows the Transport Commission to retain parts of a goods yard or a goods shed which may be used temporarily for road haulage purposes, only with the consent of the Minister. I repeat, that on Report stage we shall endeavour to take out the words "with the consent of the Minister," so that the goods yards and other things
1218
will revert to the Commission for their original use.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble and learned Earl has really stated the case for this Amendment in regard to pares of a goods yard. If it were let only temporarily for road haulage purposes, then obviously it is a case for exception. But where it was a bit of land that the Railway Executive were not in fact using, and had not used for many years (we all know plenty of bits of land of that sort) then automatically it is part of the transport unit and should normally be sold with it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl is going to consider the point raised by my noble and learned friend, which rather diverted attention from the point raised in connection with the words "with the consent of the Minister." Would he also look at that at the same time?
EARL DE LA WARR: I will look at anything, but I certainly will not undertake to remove those words.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not asking the noble Earl to do that.
6.45 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, to add to the clause:
"(5) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore in this Act contained, if any property held by the Commission as part of the existing road haulage undertaking (other than property retained by the Commission under the provisions of this Act) has not been disposed of by the Commission by the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-four, the Commission may, if and to the extent that they deem expedient, retain that property instead of disposing of it, and any property that the Commission so retains they shall employ for the purpose of providing directly or indirectly for the public and carrying on such road haulage, services by way of carriage of goods for hire or reward as they deem practicable and expedient in the public interest; and for that purpose the Commission may without obtaining the consent of the Minister in that behalf make over such property or any part thereof and on such terms as the Commission think fit, to any company or companies formed by the Commission under or in pursuance of the provisions contained in subsection (1) of the section (the new Clause after Clause 4), and the Commission may for the purposes aforesaid cause to be incorporated such further Companies (without consultation with the Board) as they consider expedient in the public interest.
(6) In the preceding subsection the word 'property' shall be deemed to include shares in any Company formed by the Commission in pursuance of this Act."
The noble Lord said: I think this is an Amendment which will appeal not only to the noble Viscount but to the Committee as a whole. We have heard that to allow what I may call "Operation Disposal" to go on interminably would be in no one's interests. It will not be in the interests of the Commission, nor in the interests of the country; it will not be in the interests of trade or industry, and it will certainly not be in the interests of the taxpayer. At the same time, this matter must come to an end. The Commission are really told that they must carry on these intricate disposals and at the same time preserve a transport system for the country. They cannot do that and have the auctioneer's hammer hanging like a Sword of Damocles over their heads. It just cannot be done. The disposal must come to an end.
This Amendment is designed to bring that about at the end of the year 1954. We propose that after that time all property—units, companies and everything else—that has not been disposed of shall once again belong to the Commission; they can then sweep up the pieces and try to rehabilitate the transport system of the country. That is the simple purpose of this Amendment. There is nothing in the Bill which terminates the disposal except by the edict of the Minister. You cannot have a protracted and delayed operation; you must have a date upon which the guillotine comes down and industry and the country can once again be assured that the upheaval, great or small, is at last over. There is no need for me to say any more. That
is the simple purpose of this Amendment, which accordingly I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 47, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
EARL DE LA WARR: One cannot help feeling that this is at least an interesting Amendment, coming from a noble Lord who moved that the words "as soon as possible" should be taken out of Clause 1 of the Bill. As Her Majesty's Government have made clear throughout these discussions, not only do they desire but they are indeed determined that there shall be no unnecessary delay about the sale of this property. But the present arrangements with regard to the Commission keeping control over vehicles and other property are that the Commission are given the right to keep those vehicles that are considered necessary for some actual purpose. This Amendment would take no account whatsoever of need; it would affect any property that is left behind in 1954, whether the Commission had a use for it or not. What number of vehicles were left in the hands of the Commission would be a matter of pure accident. I am quite sure the noble Lord would not want that to happen.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, I would.
EARL DE LA WARR: Well, if the noble Lord wishes that, most certainly Her Majesty's Government do not. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, and that the Committee will support the Government in resisting it.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 54.

Selborne, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Selkirk, E.

Carrington, L.

Llewellin, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Cherwell, L.

Lloyd, L.

Cranworth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Allenby, V.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Monkswell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Palmer, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Rea, L.

Falmouth, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Remnant, L.

Furness, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Sandhurst, L.

Goschen, V.

Freyberg, L.

Savile, L.

Long, V.

Gifford, L.

Teynham, L.

Ridley, V.

Hacking, L.

Turnour, L. (E. Winterton.)

Swinton, V.

Hawke, L.

Waleran, L.

Hylton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Resolved in the negavite, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Commission's vehicles to require licences but to be free from twenty-five mile limit
(2) As respects goods vehicles which at the passing of this Act belonged to the Commission or were in the possession of the Commission under an agreement for hire or loan, the repeal of the said section shall not take effect until six months from the passing of this Act and, if before the expiration of the said six months an application is made for a licence authorising the use of any of the vehicles which so belonged to the Commission, that repeal shall not take effect as respects those vehicles until the application is determined by the licensing authority.
6.58 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that the total number of vehicles in respect of which any such licences are to be granted shall not exceed seven-eighths of the total number of vehicles comprised in the existing Road Haulage Undertaking on the 31st day of December. 1952."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to limit the total number of vehicles in respect of which licences shall be granted, having in view the total number comprised in the existing undertaking at the end of 1952. I think it is the fact that the Road Haulage Executive has something like 6,500 vehicles not in use at the present time because traffic is not available for them. If the Commission were allowed to license all these vehicles there would be more "A" licences than the traffic warrants, and I think it would also have a depressing effect on sale prices. I suggest that it is only reasonable that the vehicles unused should be excluded.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 12, at end insert the said proviso—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: May I add one word in support of this Amendment moved by my noble friend? In addition to the figures which he has mentioned there are also, I believe, another 6,400 or 7,000 vehicles belonging to the Commission which are undergoing repairs or are on the way to disposal. From this it will be seen that the number of vehicles held by the Commission and not assigned for service is very large indeed. If they were to be placed on the market as a part of these units it would have a very depressing effect. It is true that any vehicles which are not sold with road licences could be sold afterwards as chattels and would fetch a very good price. Therefore I think that it would not cause depression on the market if this Amendment were accepted.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not want to detain the Committee on this matter. I am myself of opinion that there is a great deal in what noble Lords have just said, but I should find it difficult to accept the actual wording of the Amendment. The figure seven-eighths, as well as the general drafting, we should certainly have to look at again. If the noble Lord will be good enough to withdraw the Amendment, I will gladly undertake to discuss the matter between now and the Report stage, and I have not the slightest doubt that we can come to agreement on another Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl for accepting the idea in the Amendment. On the understanding that the matter will be looked at again and that the figure of seven-eighths will also be looked at, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is one of the company Amendments, and it is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 38, leave out ("section four") and insert ("the preceding provisions")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Repeal, as from end of 1954, of provisions relating to twenty-five mile limit]:
7.1 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to add to the clause:
(3) The Minister may give directions to the Commission as respects the issue of permits referred to in section fifty-two of the Transport Act, 1947, and such directions may require the Commission to grant any particular application or any particular class of application for such permits."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been set down to cover ordinary and job permits during the period of the twenty-five miles restriction. As the clause is drawn at present, no mention is made of ordinary and job permits. As I see it, these might be cancelled by the Transport Commission during the twenty-five mile restrictive period. The object of the Amendment is to give a right of appeal to the Minister should such permits be cancelled. The ordinary permit allows a haulage operator to travel outside the twenty-five mile limit. A job permit allows him to travel outside the limit for a particular job lasting perhaps part of a day, a day or one or two days. The Amendment would ensure that the present practice in the issue of permits is continued. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 23, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD WOLVERTON: I should like to support the Amendment. As my noble friend has said, we think that during the transitional period there should be the maximum amount of flexibility. It is not covered in the proposed clause, and we thought that it ought to be there.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Permits have been granted in the past by the Transport Commission. They are of four types. Original and substitute permits fall into the first category and they, so far as granted, will all be continued until the end of 1954. This question has been raised purely in regard to ordinary permits and job permits. The noble Lord,
1224
Lord Teynham, has referred to the present practice, and Lord Wolverton has spoken of maximum flexibility. It is our intention that that should continue—that is to say, that the present practice should continue whereby these licences should be issued at the discretion of the Transport Commission. It is appropriate to make this point—that there is no vested interest in these permits. These permits have been granted at the discretion of the Transport Commission, and those who receive them have no real vested interest in them.
Though, as we have said before, we dislike a system whereby anyone licenses someone else to do a job which he might do himself, there is no other organisation which has the detailed knowledge which would enable them to grant these permits in the interim. Plainly, from the administrative point of view, it would not be possible for anyone except the Commission to decide whether it is appropriate that either job or ordinary permits should exist. I have been attacked by the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, on the question of the Minister having power. Here is an instance where Her Majesty's Government are reluctant to agree to the acceptance of powers of direction which it is suggested that my right honourable friend should take. We have the firmest assurance that the British Transport Commission do not intend in any way to alter the present practice. There are certain special cases of hardship which have been brought to notice, cases in which, for instance, a man has died and his original permit has lapsed, cases where a son has succeeded his father, and so on. In such instances, the Transport Commission have undertaken, in view of the circumstances, to give an ordinary permit.
I should also, I think, quote again what was said in the other place by the Minister on what the Transport Commission have undertaken.
"In July last year the Commission instructed the Road Haulage Executive that in general existing ordinary permits should be continued or renewed in accordance with recent practice, but that permits should not be issued to new applicants unless the resources of the Commission were unable satisfactorily to meet customers' requirements."
I hope noble Lords will accept that undertaking. I am certain it is made with absolute sincerity, and will be fulfilled. I think, in the circumstances, and bearing

1225
in mind the nature of the ordinary permits, that is the only practical way in which to approach the matter. I very much hope that this Amendment will be withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of the assurance given by the noble Earl that the practice with regard to the issue of a permit is to be continued, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.8 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON had given Notice of an Amendment to add to the clause:
"(3) Where—

(a) before the passing of this Act a notice of acquisition was served under Part III of the Transport Act, 1447 with respect to an undertaking; and

(b) that notice has not, at the passing of this Act, been withdrawn or declared to be of no effect but no transfer has been effected there under; and

(c) there is in force at the date of the passing of this Act a licence authorising the use of any vehicles which, if the transfer by virtue of the notice had fallen to be made at the passing of this Act would, by virtue of the notice, have been transferred to the Commission,

then, as from the passing of this Act, the said section fifty-two shall not apply to that licence or any licence substituted therefor so long as the following condition is fulfilled as respects that licence or, as the case may be, the licence so substituted, that is to say, that the total of authorised vehicles, being motor vehicles, does not exceed the total number of the vehicles, being motor vehicles, mentioned in paragraph (c) of this subsection."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before moving this Amendment I would point out that if it is accepted, it will have to be amended slightly. After the word "total", in the third line from the end of the Amendment, it will be necessary to insert the word "number". The passage will then read:
"that is to say, that the total number of authorised vehicles being motor vehicles,"
and so forth. To come back to the Amendment itself, its object is to free certain independent road hauliers who have hitherto been running outside the twenty-five mile limit from becoming, as a result of the Bill, subject to the twenty-five mile limit. It is clearly a freak, situation that has arisen, and one that hope and imagine was not intended by Her Majesty's Government.
I should first explain briefly the background history attaching to the situation which now arises. Under the 1947 Act, Section 52, original permits could be issued to hauliers so that they could operate outside the twenty-five limit, and at the end of one year the British Transport Commission could revoke the permits. If, as the result of revocation, a haulier could prove that his business had been seriously interfered with, the Commission were forced to acquire his unit. When the last change of Government took place, the British Transport Commission, anticipating a possible change in policy towards road transport, realising that probably in the course of the lifetime of this Government further haulage would not be taken over, offered to the road hauliers in that position a postponement of acquisition, to await events; and those who accepted that offer were able to continue to operate unrestrictedly. The present Bill abolishes the machinery in the 1947 Act which made it possible for hauliers to operate outside the 25-mile limit and, as a result, these independent hauliers will have to become subject to this limit. On a number of occasions the Government have said that they do not want to put further burdens and restrictions on the independent hauliers, and I imagine that this situation, by which their activities are to be curtailed, has arisen as the result of a slip or oversight. I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved.—
Page 10, line 23, at end insert
("(3) Where—

(a) before the passing of this Act a notice of acquisition was served under Part III of the Transport Act, 1947 with respect to an undertaking; and

(b) that notice has not at the passing of this Act, been withdrawn or declared to be of no effect but no transfer has been effected there under; and

(c) there is in force at the date of the passing of this Act a licence authorising the use of any vehicles which, if the transfer by virtue of the notice had fallen to be made at the passing of this Act would, by virtue of the notice, have been transferred to the Commission,

then, as from the passing of this Act, the said section fifty-two shall not apply to that licence or any licence substituted therefor so long as the following condition is fulfilled as respects that licence or, as the caste may be, the licence so substituted, that is to say, that the total

1227
number of authorised vehicles, being motor vehicles, does not exceed the total number of the vehicles, being motor vehicles, mentioned in paragraph (c) of this subsection.")—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In view of what the noble Earl said on the last Amendment, I hope he will not accept this one. I do not see how he could do it and be consistent, because the effect would be to burst open straight away the deferred abolition of the 25-mile limit in this Bill, and the Commission would be inundated with applications. The noble Earl stated his case with great clarity and I thank him for being just to the Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, has put his case clearly and fairly, but there are only sixty-one operators with 175 vehicles who invited notices of acquisition and whose acquisition was postponed by the fortuitous circumstance of the foreshadowing of this Bill. They have been enjoying the best of both worlds. They have enjoyed immunity from the 25-mile limit, but once this Bill is passed they will lose that privilege.
If the noble Earl accepts this Amendment, he will not be doing justice to his noble friend Lord Teynham, because it will mean that up to the date fixed the privileged few would enjoy the right of ignoring the 25-mile limit. I do not think he can turn down the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron. Why should these people have this exemption? The noble Lord wants to carry on for another two years the results of a fortuitous circumstance. This is not a matter which involves many vehicles but, in principle, if the noble Earl resisted the blandishments of his noble friend Lord Teynham, to be consistent he must resist those of his noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron.
LORD TEYNHAM: I would make it clear that my Amendment was set down in order to be sure that the present practice of issuing permits by the Commission should be continued. I was not asking for anything more or for anything special.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: The hauliers I was referring to have always been long distance people and never subject to the 25-mile limit. Those who are going to be subject to the limit until the end of 1954 have been subject to that
1228
limit since the 1947 Act. These are two different types of haulier. What I ask for in my Amendment is only what is covered by the assurance given by the noble Earl about the previous Amendment—namely, that people who have enjoyed unrestricted traffic up to now outside the 25-mile limit should not suddenly be deprived of that freedom by a Bill which is designed to free road haulage. I do not quite see the pith of the point the noble Lord opposite was trying to make. I think the two Amendments are quite consistent.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron has clearly explained a rather unusual circumstance. These hauliers are in a peculiar position and not entirely dealt with by the 1947 Act, and they require some attention because they have fallen between two stools. On the one hand, the original permits on which they were operating have lapsed and, on the other hand, their right to demand of the Commission that they should purchase their undertakings because they were long-distance and would be wrecked by the imposition of a 25-mile limit has also fallen; so that, pending other arrangements, they had been allowed to continue. To my mind there is no inconsistency in accepting this Amendment and refusing the last. Consistency is the hob-goblin of small minds and it would not worry me if this was inconsistent. I contend that this is a perfectly clear issue. Accordingly, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to these people and have pleasure in accepting his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Amendments as to grounds for granting or refusing licences]:
EARL DE LA WARR: This is little more than a drafting Amendment, but I think I ought to say a word. This clause provides additional grounds for the revocation of licences. It was never meant to be used retrospectively, and this Amendment and the next make that point clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 29, at end insert ("made after the passing of this Act").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 31, after ("expectation") insert ("made after the passing of this Act"—(Earl De La Warr.)
7.20 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to add to the clause.
"(5) This section shall come into operation on the 1st day of January, 1956."
The noble Lord said: This clause undoubtedly makes it easier for an applicant to prove his case before the licensing authority. Therefore, it allows easier entry into the industry. I suggest that this may eventually be a good thing, but that it would be wrong to modify the entry until such time as the denationalisation has settled down. Moreover, by this clause the licensing authority can take charges into account—which is new—when coming to a decision on any application for licence. Again, there is a change in the onus of proof, which also is likely to introduce more competition in road haulage. Eventually this, too, may be a good thing, but I would point out that more competition might well make the purchase of transport units less attractive, and therefore depreciate their value. I maintain that there is bound to be some disturbance during the sale period which will make the task of the licensing authority more difficult. Therefore, I feel that there is a strong case for postponing any experiments until denationalisation has settled down. It would also appear that in this clause little or no recognition has been given to the position of coastal shipping, which may be adversely affected by changes of licences before such time as the whole picture becomes much clearer than it will be in the first few months. I ask the Government to look at this whole matter again, with a view to postponing, if not the operation of the whole clause, at least certain parts of it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I spoke on this Amendment and did not move Amendment No. 39.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think it would.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There is a great deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, says. I feel that the whole of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, needs looking at. The Government—and I think they are wise—have the The siger Committee sitting on the whole of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. It is under the Road and Rail Traffic Act that the licences for goods vehicles are issued, and under the Road Traffic Act that licences for passenger vehicles are issued. We are now in 1953. The Government are going to do a lot of things. They are going to alter the emphasis here they are presenting a number of different aspects. The Government are, changing the face of the transport system of this country. I would beg of them not to do anything in a hotch-potch, piecemeal manner like this. It has been the ruination of many a Government's legislation that they would not get down properly to amending an Act but would try to tinker it about, and botch it up to make it suit modern conditions, when it did not. Frankly, I believe that the Government will find that they will have to take power to have more remote control, if I may use the expression, over those things. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, is quite right. We have twelve licensing authorities in this country. The same people issue licences under this clause as issue passenger licences and sit and hear appeals on fares. They have no common policy. This clause can be interpreted by twelve different licensing authorities in twelve different ways.
My object in putting down an Amendment to leave out Clause 8 was not to press it but to ask the Government whether they would have an inquiry into this and come forward with rather better material than the Road and Rail Traffic Act by the date which the noble Lord suggests, the first day of January, 1956. I should think that it could be done in two years. Therefore, I rather support the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. I do not know whether he is prepared to press his Amendment to a Division, but if he does he will find my colleagues and me in the Lobby with him. II hope that that will not put him off, or give him reason for withdrawing the Amendment—he might for once find himself in some good company. I think the noble Earl, Lord

1231
Selkirk, will see the force of my words. I am not at all opposed to what is being done. What I am saying is that the Government are doing a bit of tinkering. What they want to do by this clause is to open the closed shop. The people who will be against opening the closed shop are the hauliers, who do not want any more competition. They have a nice little closed shop now, but this is going to open it, and they will be against it. I do not really take them into consideration, but I want this thing done properly, if it is possible. I want the whole of the Road and Rail Traffic Act studied, with a view to amending it to suit present-day conditions. I think the noble Earl will find, before we have finished with this Bill, that we may suggest a number of directions where he will have to take powers. I am not going to delay your Lordships by talking at any great length on other Amendments which we have down, but the way I suggest that those Amendments could be made effective is through the medium of the Road and Rail Traffic Act. I think it would be in the interests of the Government to study this matter closely and to get the Road and Rail Traffic Act made more suited to modern conditions. I feel that they should do it by the date the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, mentions. That is why I put down the Amendment to leave out Clause 8. I have explained what I had in mind, and I shall not bother your Lordships by pressing the Amendment when we come to it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for raising this point, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for explaining the views he holds in regard to this clause. But I must emphasise that we are trying by this Bill to hold a balance between the different (shall I say?) parties who are concerned, and it is part of the balance that we should have a proper licensed competition. That is the essence of the Bill. It is with that in mind that we do not feel we can leave this matter over. Attractive as it always is to leave matters over until a Royal Commission, or some other body, has examined them, we felt that we could not do it on this occasion. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the The siger Committee will not deal much with the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, not at all.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The particular aspect here will not be dealt with. Let us examine just what this clause does, and see how we stand. There are really five things that it brings into slightly different perspective. In the first place, it instructs the licensing authority to pay attention to those persons requiring transport before those who are providing it. I think most of your Lordships will agree that that is a desirable provision. In the second place, it instructs the licensing authority to give special consideration to transport by containers, and so to do away with reloading from one vehicle to another. I think everyone will agree that that is a desirable thing. Thirdly—and this is a very important point, as my noble friend Lord Teynham has emphasised—it transfers the onus of proof from a man who is making the application to the man who is making the objection; that is to say, it is allowing new people to come in more easily than is the case now. We are frequently accused—I do not in the least mind it—of being friendly with the Road Haulage Association. This is frankly a provision they do not like, and we are endeavouring to hold a balance between this and other considerations.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has mentioned the question of charges. Clause 8 (3) (b) sets out the factors which the licensing authority have to take into consideration. They
"shall have regard to the relative efficiency, reliability and adequacy of the existing facilities at the date of the application and the facilities which the applicant will provide if his application is granted and to all other relevant considerations"—
They have to take into consideration all those points, and then comes,
"including the charges."
I am only saying that there are a great many other things to take into consideration before charges. I am not saying that charges are unimportant, because they are. But there are many other considerations, and we hope that this will not be the first and decisive influence on which an application will or will not be approved. I would add—and we did emphasise this in the original White Paper—that greater latitude will be granted to new men coming into the road

1233
haulage industry; and we want that to happen.
I would emphasise that there is not likely to be a great deal of disturbance in the course of the next two years. Anybody who wants an "A" licence to go long distances will have to buy from the Transport Commission. He will get an automatic licence from the licensing authority, and therefore the provisions here will have no application whatsoever. I do not know the precise position within the twenty-five mile limit, but I do not imagine there is a great deal of room at present for new entrants there. I do not know, but I suspect there is not. Therefore, I suggest that until the twenty-five mile limit is raised, this clause will, in fact, have very little application, except for one subsection, subsection (4). That is of great importance in the sale of transport units. It is concerned with false statements, and links up with Paragraph 4 of the First Schedule. That indicates that when a licence is granted to a purchaser from the Transport Commission a statement has to be made of the area from which he operates: he has to state that he will serve substantially the same area as those which might conveniently he served by users from the second mentioned base or centre. That is the only assurance we have that areas will, in fact, he served when units which are now served by the Transport Commission are sold off, and it is for that reason alone, or that reason inter alia, that it will be impossible for us to consider postponing the clause as it stands.
If there are other aspects of it which the noble Lord wishes to press, I shall be glad to consider them, but it must be made clear that, so far as location is concerned, there can be no question of postponement. I agree with the noble Lord that this is a matter which will require full examination, but in starting this new system of licensed competition we feel that it is essential to give a certain direction in certain circumstances. And we feel that it will give a fuller balance to the position of the road haulage people, the independent road hauliers, to have this provision at the present time than would be the case if it were postponed. If a thing is worth while in 1956, why should we not have it in 1953? Is the argument really so much stronger for 1956 than it is for
1234
1953? I do hope the noble Lord will not press this matter. I do not think the effects will be catastrophic, and I do not think the effects will be, felt in full strength for quite a time.
7.35 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I find myself in considerable agreement with what the noble Earl has just said. I feel that if we are to have this amendment of the law, the sooner we have it the better. I particularly find myself in sympathy with the general principle that if a person applies for a licence to do something, the onus should be on those who object and not on the person who is applying. It was a principle that I myself tried to interpret in town and country planning. Many local authorities seem to assume that the onus of being allowed to do something is on the applicant himself. Of course, it is not. There must be a clear case for refusing before a local authority refuses; and the same applies here. If a licence is to be refused, the onus must be on those who are objecting. That is a considerable improvement, and I think it would be wrong to postpone it. My noble friend Lord Lucas rather jocularly professed himself to be in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. Of course, what he meant was that the whole matter wanted looking at, and that there was a case for a review of the whole question, just as there is for a review of the railway system under Clause 14. For that reason, if there were to be a review, then there might be a case for putting off the change until the result of the review. If we are not to have a review, then the sooner Clause 8 comes into operation, the better. That is my own personal view, and I should not feel myself in a position to support the noble Lord, Lord Teynham.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I think we have reached the point where we can say that as regards three of the four subsections, we can accept the view of my noble friend in front of me. I wonder, though, whether there is not another word to be said on subsection (3). That is the important subsection. Subsection (3) has the two separate parts—the onus of proof and the arrangement for the bringing in of consideration of charges, which is new in this Bill. My noble friend Lord Selkirk

1235
said that if we are going to do it in 1956—on which we are all agreed—why not do it now? I think that the arguments for 1956, as against now, refer particularly to subsection (3). Many times in this debate we have all expressed the feeling that we want to do nothing which will make the transition stage more difficult or more uncomfortable for those concerned. Those of us who put down this Amendment, felt that the two provisions in subsection (3) were right ultimately, and might well be left over until 1956, in order not to produce any unnecessary friction in the transition period. It will be hard enough for the licensing authorities to know where they are under the changing conditions, and for that reason it seemed to us very much better that they should defer consideration of new factors such as charges.
As to the onus of proof, we feel that if the onus of proof is going to introduce more competition, that competition may work adversely to the taxpayers' interests. It may make it less attractive for people to go into the road transport industry, and may thereby reduce the number of applications to purchase transport, or the price fetched by the units sold. That is the sort of element in the case which we should be loath to see introduced in this period, which is going to be difficult enough as it is. I suggest that, whatever happens to subsections (1), (2) and (4), subsection (3) still merits further consideration.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I should like to support what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman has just said, because while listening with a great deal of interest to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I felt that these two particular matters contained in subsection (3)—the onus of proof and the question of charges should be looked into very carefully, with a view to seeing whether their introduction could not be postponed; although I appreciate that the other matters in the clause cannot wait. Take first the question of the onus of proof. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that at this stage the Government have the job of trying to maintain the balance between a number of different people. I should have thought that the application of this change of the onus of proof, particularly during this period of transition in the road haulage
1236
industry, is greatly "hotting up" competition amongst various people in the industry, and certainly might make for unknown, and even perhaps slightly chaotic, conditions during this period. Furthermore—and I think this is a very important point—after the end of 1954, when the 25-mile limit is raised and the short hauliers are free to go into long-distance haulage, the competition is likely to be much greater still, because the field will be open to many more people to go into long-distance haulage.
On the question of charges, it is perhaps odd that considerations of this nature should be introduced at a time when the question of the issue of licences will mean a great deal more work, both for those who have to consider the applications and for the hauliers who are applying. There is bound to be a lot of I work in finding out the details and facts, which must be accurate and which have to be brought before the licensing authority. It might have been better to let the industry settle down a bit in its new job before throwing this new burden on the officials and the hauliers. I hope the noble Earl will be able to think over these two points and perhaps meet us to some extent on them.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We have had a very interesting discussion. To me it has been a valuable one because we have narrowed the issue down to two points. One is the question of the onus of proof and the other is the question of charges. I have a certain amount of support from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on the onus of proof. It is difficult to push away the onus to show that an objection is bad. I may, for instance, apply for a licence, and if the other man says to me, "I don't want you to do so," it is difficult for me to show that his objections are bad; whereas he, if he objects to mine, can say "I have twenty vehicles doing nothing." That is a fact which can duly be presented. I suggest with great respect that the present method proposed in the Bill is probably more equitable. With regard to charges, we will certainly look at the charges provision again. We do not want to make this a major issue and we will see whether we can word it in such a way that it will be made more acceptable to the noble Lord. I hope that in the circumstances he will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will look at the matter of charges again. I think it is a very important matter. On the basis of the noble Earl's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause:
"(5) For paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of section two of the Road and Rail Traffic Act. 1933, there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(b) such motor vehicles from time to time in the possession of the holder of the licence under an agreement for hire or loan as are specified in the licence."
The noble Lord said: I will try to explain this in the briefest possible time, because it is a very intricate subject. It seeks to clear up an abuse which is very prevalent at the present time—the abuse of carrying goods for hire or reward by the medium of a "C" licence. Any "C" licence holder owning vehicles for carrying his own goods only has a margin, so to speak—a point at which he need not buy any vehicles but can hire them. The technique is for a haulier to go to a "C" licence holder and say, "If you will apply for a 'C' licence on your margin, then I can supply you with vehicles. You give me your disc and while I am carrying goods I will put your goods on the vehicle." He does this for about a dozen people, and so can change the discs at will and can carry for hire or reward. The practice cannot be detected. He does not go outside the provisions of the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933. He evades all responsibilities as regards wages and conditions of employment, and he also evades the obligations of the 25-mile limit under the 1947 Act.
That is an over-simplification of something which it would take me about three-quarters of an hour to explain in detail. I am conscious of the fact that I think this abuse will fade right out when the 25-mile limit comes to an end. Is it worth while doing anything between now and then? If the noble Earl says, "On balance we do not consider it is," I do not think I should die in the last ditch over this. But it is something of which perhaps other noble Lords have more experience than I have, and they may think it should be tackled now. I should like an expression of the noble Lord's
1238
opinion on this subject, and that is why I have put this Amendment down.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has moved this Amendment in terms of great moderation and frankness, and I am grateful to him. I have, in fact, run into one of these "institutions" myself, to my astonishment. One has to recognise in this case that this is an evil which has arisen directly out of the 1947 Act and that before that time it did not exist. It has arisen owing to the ingenuity of individuals, stimulated, if you like, by lust for profit, serving each other—simply serving each other. One party finds it more easy to get his goods moved and the other party finds a simpler way of getting traffic on the road.
The noble Lord has said frankly that the evil will fade out in 1955. The difficulty we are in is this: is it worth taking action in the interim period? There are certain definite advantages under the 1933 Act in retaining the measure of flexibility which has been allowed in "A" licensing. I think I am right in saying that, provided you pay the driver and have possession of the vehicle, that is enough for the licence. The licence need not specify any particular vehicle at all. That is done for the purpose of assisting people engaged in this particular industry—that is to say, they can transfer easily from one vehicle to another. Is it really worth sacrificing that measure of flexibility for a mere period of two years? I am bound to say that, on the information which we have at present, we do not think it is. After all, it would mean a rigidity about granting a licence which would be, or might be, permanent, and would redound to the disadvantage of people engaged in this particular industry. So, whilst I think the noble Lord has turned over one of those dirty stones which one does every now and again, in drawing attention to this matter—and it is one which undoubtedly has to be put right—I do not know that it is illegal. That it is an abuse of the spirit of the 1947 Act I have no doubt. I feel, on the whole, it is not worth taking action during the small period which remains to us.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I do not

1239
usually cross swords with lawyers because I am not a lawyer. The whole practice is illegal. As he has said, this is greed and lust, and he will know better than I do that the whole practice originated in Scotland. So, with a fellow feeling for the noble Earl, I will not pursue the matter any further. To save him further embarrassment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Supplemental provisions as to preceding sections
(4) If it appears to the Minister that, having regard to the stage reached in the disposal of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking, it is expedient so to do, he may by order provide for abolishing the Board and winding up their affairs, and for transferring to the Minister any functions of the Board so far as they remain to be exercised or performed. The power conferred by this subsection to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
7.52 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words from "affairs" down to and including performed. The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 40. The particular subsection in which these words occur gives the Minister power to abolish the Disposal Board when he thinks that the Board has substantially done its job. I have no objection at all to that. Of course, when the Board has done its job, or when the Minister thinks that it has done its job, it should be wound up. But the subsection goes on to say:
"and for transferring to the Minister any functions of the Board so far as they remain to be exercised."
That is the part of the subsection that I am asking to delete, because I do not agree that those functions should be transferred to the Minister in so far as they remain to be carried out or performed. These are the functions of advising the Commission on the disposal of the property required by the Act. I take it that, so long as there is any advice to be given to the Commission, so long as there is any property to be disposed of, the Minister will not wish to wind up the Board. He will do it, I imagine, only
1240
when the property has been disposed of. So I cannot conceive what other functions will remain.
If any functions do remain, surely it is not for the Minister to carry them out. They should be left to the Commission. If there are any minor matters of winding up to be carried out, surely it is for the Commission, and not for the Minister, to do it. Is the Minister going to take over the staff of the Disposal Board and run it?—because he cannot run these functions without a staff. It seems to me, putting it at its highest, that these words are wholly unnecessary, and putting it at something less than its highest, I would say that they may indicate something which we do not understand. I am not going to press this Amendment. I would only ask the noble Earl who is to reply just to look at it, without any commitment whatever, and see whether, when the job of the Disposal Board has been done, it really is necessary to talk of transferring to the Minister functions which, ex hypothesi, have come to an end. If the noble Earl is prepared to ask his right honourable friend to look at this point and see whether those words are necessary, I shall be perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 21, leave out from ("affairs") to end of line 23.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I thank the noble Lord for the way in which he has posed this Amendment. At first thought. I found it a little difficult to follow noble Lords on the other side of the House, because they started off discussion on this Bill by saying that the Board must be abolished. Now they are objecting to its abolition by the Minister when its functions are more or less fulfilled.
LORD SILKIN: No.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not want to make that point. I think there is a great objection to having Boards and committees hanging about when their functions are virtually fulfilled.
I use the word "virtually" There is bound to be a time when the work will be running out, when there will be just a few more vehicles and a few more bits of property to dispose of, but not sufficient to justify the existence of a Board.

1241
At that time I think it is right to do away with the Board and for the Minister to take on its very slender functions. I am wondering whether I may mention the next Amendment. I should find it difficult to agree to this Amendment, but perhaps I may say straight away that I am prepared to accept the next Amendment, which requires that an Affirmative Resolution of the House must be passed before the Board can be abolished. Perhaps we might dispose of this matter in agreement.
LORD SILKIN: In disposing of this Amendment, I hope the noble Earl is not trying to bribe me.
EARL DE LA WARR: I merely wanted the noble Lord to be in possession of all the facts.
LORD SILKIN: I will move the next Amendment formally when the time comes and not put up the argument for it. The noble Earl is under a misapprehension. I am a good democrat, and this House having decided to have a Disposal Board, I accept that position. I am not seeking to get rid of it nor am I objecting to its coming to an end at the right time. I think that is right, and I said so. What I doubt—I do not put it higher than that—is whether the Minister should take over the function of the Board when the time comes for the Board to be brought to an end. It is that which I am asking the noble Earl, without any commitment whatever, to look at again. It may be that: these words are right; it may be that it is right that the Minister should take over non-existent functions, functions which have already been disposed of. It may be right to say so in an Act of Parliament. But I doubt whether the Minister is the right person to take over such functions as are left.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask the noble Lord who is to take them over?
LORD SILKIN: I am in this dilemma, that I cannot conceive what functions will be left.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Exactly.
LORD SILKIN: But, in so far as there are functions of advising the Minister, I should have thought that the Commission were the right people. However, as I say, I am not pressing this Amendment. The noble Earl can look at it or not,
1242
just as he likes. I think he would be well advised to look at it again. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (4), in the second paragraph, to omit all words from and including "any" down to the end of the subsection, and to insert:
"no order shall be made by the Minister under this subsection unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 25, leave out from ("and") to end of line 27, and insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
8.0 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:
Compensation for losses arising through interference with existing contracts
".Where—

(a) the Commission the Road Haulage Executive has, before The thirtieth day of April, 1952, entered into any contractual arrangement with any other road haulage undertaking; and

(b) the revenue or capital value of such undertaking has been or will be diminished by the effect of this Act on that contractual arrangement;

then either—

(i) the Commission shall pay to the owner of such undertaking full compensation for such diminution; or

(ii) if any such contractual arrangement shall involve the purchase by the Commission or by the Road Haulage Executive of any such undertaking, the Commission or the Road Haulage Executive as the case may be shall be released from such contractual arrangement on the payment by the Commission of full compensation for the damage suffered by such undertaking as a result of such release."

The noble Lord said: Although this suggested new clause looks fairly simple, it is rather a difficult one, in that, so far as I know, it applies to only one company and its two subsidiaries—F.T.S. (Great Britain). So far as I know, they are the, only road haulage undertakings having a specific long-term contract with the Road Haulage Executive. They were, and are, mainly employed in the transportation of

1243
films from one end of the country to the other. When transport was nationalised they applied to be taken over by the Transport Commission, but theirs was such a complicated form of business that, instead of taking them over, the Transport Commission made out three forms of contract, each precisely the same, so that the three companies could go on doing this work, without competition from the Road Haulage Executive and without any opposition from either the Road Haulage Executive or the Railway Executive to the licences they might require. Those contracts are in existence to-day; but if the Commission is done away with, they go to the floor; and this company, who on the strength of those contracts, have raised money to purchase additional vehicles, suddenly find themselves left open to free competition from everybody, and to opposition by anybody who wishes to oppose their applications for new licences. In fact, all the benefits of their contracts have disappeared and, so far as I can see, there is nobody against whom they can enforce their contracts.
I realise that, in the main, trying to legislate for a hard case generally produces a bad law; on the other hand, justice is justice. They did not sit on that stool of their own free will; they were perched there by the Executive. They have got their contract with the Executive who, by rights, should have paid them something in the neighbourhood of £625,000, or probably rather more, if they were taken over. Now, not only will they not get that sum, but the contracts which they had previously entered into are not fulfilled. I should have to take up a great deal more of the time of the Committee if I were to explain the whole matter in detail. What I did was to send a memorandum on the subject to the noble Viscount who is in charge of a Bill, in order that he and his advisers could study the matter and see what could be done to help. Naturally, I am not wedded to the words of my Amendment. What I should like is an assurance that the whole matter will be examined and, if it is humanly possible, that something will be done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I hope that the Government will turn this Amendment down flatly. This is not even a hard case. Moderate language would tempt me to say that it is just a bit of special pleading, to put in a new clause to suit somebody who, because of a change of policy by this Government, is going to lose the advantages he gained from the last Government's enactment. If one Government is coming in and is going to change the policy of the last Government, somebody is bound to lose. Here is one company who, before nationalisation, had to withstand the rigours of competition in the transport industry. When nationalisation came along the British Transport Commission could have acquired this concern, but as it was specialising in one particular branch of transport—I do not know whether the noble Lord mentioned the name of the firm—
LORD SANDHURST: It is F.T.S.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is a firm dealing in the carriage of films. If the noble Lord had not mentioned the name, I certainly did not intend to do so. It is a film transport company specialising that particular business. The British Transport Commission said that they did not want to dabble in this sort of thing. They said, "What we will do is to enter into an agreement with you, to allow you to have a monopoly. We will not enter into your sphere. We will give you permits to carry on this work. We will enter into an agreement with you covering so many years, and we may perhaps extend it after that number of years; and we will see that your monopoly is not interfered with by us, and therefore by nobody else." That was all very nice. But now, under this Bill, the company have to revert to their pre-nationalisation status—they have to withstand the rigours of competition. They have liked the "featherbed" of monopoly; it has been very nice for them, and they do not now want to suffer the cold, icy blasts of competition.
The noble Lord now comes along as their advocate and says that because the Government which noble Lords opposite now support have brought in this wicked Bill, this company wants £620,000, which is the sum they would have got in 1948 if they had been taken over by the British Transport Commission. I suggest that

1245
that is asking a little too much. I suppose it is worth trying. But if noble Lords Opposite believe in competition, then I am afraid they must take the swings with the roundabouts. The British Transport Commission are not going to cancel the company's contracts. They can continue with their contracts, but they will not have great value, because they do not protect the company by giving them the monopoly granted by the British Transport Commission. So now they have got to operate against wicked competition, which of course they do not like, and they want noble Lords in this House to insert a new clause into the Bill which will have the effect of handing over to them £620,000. I do not think the noble Earl opposite is going to accept this Amendment; but should he be inclined to do so, I want to ask him, where does the £620,000 come from? Is it to come out of the levy? It must do, because it will be a loss on the Commission. If the Commission are going to pay £620,000, they will say that it is a loss on the transfer occasioned by this Bill, and that they must charge it to the levy. Would the "A," "B" and "C" licence holders in this country really like to see their levy increased in order to pay compensation to the extent of £620,000?
EARL DE LA WARR: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I answer his question by saying to him simply: What questions you do ask! Her Majesty's Government have the greatest sympathy with the case put up by the noble Lord, but he will be the first to agree—indeed, he actually said so—that it is exceedingly difficult and dangerous to legislate for one company. As we all know, the situation is not so unique as we like to think. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has rightly said, the agreements that arise out of these monopolies inevitably fall to the floor. If you are going to do away with monopoly you must do away with those monopolies that arise out of the central one. There is no doubt that the company in question will suffer. It is a very specialised company. I have been surprised, from the inquiries I have made, with what immense efficiency it has satisfied this particular market. I do not see how we can get away from the fact that it will in future be open to competition from other parties' vehicles. I am afraid that we cannot have it both ways. It is a choice between competition and mono-
1246
poly, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment, though I feel a great deal more sympathy with this company than apparently does the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
LORD SANDHURST: I do not know whether any means can be found for meeting the position. One means would be a peculiarly Irish one of buying up the company quickly and letting it sell itself back a little later. But I do not think that would be regarded as a good policy. I see the point with regard to monopoly and competition, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10:
The transport levy
10.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and to the provisions of section thirteen of this Act, in the case of the vehicles described in the first column of the Tables in Parts I and III of the Second Schedule to this Act, being vehicles which are used on public roads in Great Britain on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, a charge, in this Act referred to as "the transport levy," shall be made in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this section for the benefit of the Transport Fund established under the next following section.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-four" and insert:
"a day to be appointed by an order of the Minister, being the first day of January in any year."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which is a very simple one.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is not this Amendment put forward really to make way for a later Amendment in the name of the noble Lord?
LORD SANDHURST: The later Amendment is consequential upon the one I am now moving.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think we should discuss the two together.
LORD SANDHURST: The later Amendment, as I have said, is a purely consequential one. We can discuss the two together, though the disadvantage will be that if the Amendment I am moving is lost and the other is moved with it, that also will fall. This Amendment

1247
is a very simple one. The levy is strongly objected to throughout the country, by almost every trader. Many traders feel that if the transport were sold the loss would be very small, and there should be in fact no need to have a levy at all. This is simply a case of leaving everything as it stands in the Bill, but, instead of making the levy come into operation automatically on January 1, 1954, telling the Minister he must wait until he sees the real need for the money before he raises it. That, briefly, is the situation as far as the first of these two Amendments is concerned. The question at issue was raised in another place, but nobody seemed to deem it worth while to answer it. But if you are going to encourage the Commission or the Board to sell their units at the best possible price the greatest mistake in the world will be to give them a bag full of money into which they can dip their hands to replace losses incurred on any individual unit. If they feel that they have got to get a proper price, they will, by some means, get it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 33, leave out ("the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-four") and insert ("a day to be appointed by an order of the Minister, being the first day of January in any year").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I would not say for one moment that the noble Lord's Amendment is not worth answering, and I am glad to give him an answer and, I hope, a clear one. He said it was dangerous to give these people a bag of money into which they could dip their hands. I do not know how much there is going to be, but certainly there is going to be a considerable sum, and we decided in principle on the Second Reading, and will decide again on the appropriate clause, that there is to be a levy for it. But the one thing which is certain is that when these businesses are sold they cannot realise what was originally given for them. The money has to come from the levy or the taxpayer. Assuming there is to be a levy, everybody wants to get rid of it as soon as possible. In the alternative, if this levy were not imposed on the date which is set down they would only have to borrow through the bank and pay interest at bank rate.
1248
Of course, the noble Lord is proposing the present Amendment to pave the way for a later Amendment to Clause 10 which stands in his name on the paper. I think it fair to draw the attention of your Lordships to what the Amendment now being proposed involves in preparing the way for Lord Sandhurst's later Amendment. That is the Amendment numbered 42A, and it asks the Committee to say that the Minister shall not impose the levy until the loss upon sale has risen to 1 per cent. of the capital value of the assets. I asked for a calculation to be made to show what that meant, and the answer was £17 million. So no levy would start until the deficit was £17 million. And if the deficit was £16,999,999, and rose no higher, there would never be a levy at all. No doubt it would suit the noble Lord and those for whom he speaks, but it really would not suit the taxpayer at all. It is no good saying: "The Commission will pay." If the Commission is out of pocket, only one person pays, and that is the taxpayer. I must say that I hope your Lordships would not wish to put an additional burden of £17 million upon the taxpayer at a time when many of your Lordships—certainly the noble Lord is one—are urging that there should be the maximum of economy and reduction of taxation.
LORD SANDHURST: I cannot say that I am at all happy about the reply which the noble Viscount has given. For one thing, I do not see why there should be any big loss on the sale of this undertaking. When the Road Haulage Executive took over and nationalised transport, they bought up a great many fleets made up of vehicles which were really little more than mobile wrecks. To-day they have a first-class fleet which they are selling back, and the difference between the two ought to make up for more than the difference arising from the loss of goodwill. However, in view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.22 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved in subsection (1), after "nineteen hundred and fifty-four" to insert:
"other than vehicles owned by—

(a) the Commission and

1249

(b) local authorities as defined in subsection (1) of section one hundred and nineteen of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and in subsection (1) of section one hundred and thirteen of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, used for the purposes of the exercise and performance of their powers and duties."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. It is really two Amendments, but I thought it might be for the convenience of the Committee if they were put together. What I am seeking to do by the Amendment is to exclude the Commission and the local authorities from being charged a levy. The cases are a little different, and I hope I may be permitted to put them separately. As regards the Commission, I think it is quite simple. The purpose of the levy is partly to make good to the Commission losses they will sustain in disposing of the vehicles. It seems extraordinary to charge the Commission themselves a levy in order to make good losses which the Commission is going to incur. This is not merely a theoretical point it is a practical point. These losses will either have to be made good by the taxpayer—which, as the noble Viscount has just said, is most undesirable—or by increasing charges which the consumer will have to pay. Neither of those courses is right. Therefore, I am suggesting in this Amendment that the Commission should be excluded from payment of the levy.
As to the local authorities, they possess vehicles but they are not using them for the purpose of profit: they are using them merely for the purpose of carrying out their normal functions. I suppose the majority of vehicles which local authorities own are used for the purpose of carrying out maintenance work on their housing estates, and the effect of imposing a levy on the local authority vehicles must be to increase the rates. It is the only way in which the local authorities can meet these increased charges. And the rates are high enough. Particularly at this moment, when almost every local authority in the country is increasing its rates very considerably, it would seem to be a pity to impose a further charge upon them. And it is an unjust charge. One can understand a levy being imposed on undertakings which stand a chance of making a profit, and which are, in fact, being run for profit, but local authorities, of course, are not being run for profit;
1250
they are merely rendering service to the community. It seems grossly unfair that they should have to pay a levy as well.
The case that has been made for charging both the Commission and the local authorities a levy is based on administrative convenience. The levy is linked up with payment of Excise Duty, It is said that it is simple for anyone who pays Excise Duty also to pay the levy. In this connection I would quote what the noble Viscount himself said only a short time ago. He said that if he thought that a thing was right, he would not let administrative convenience stand in the way of it. I agree with him entirely. And I do not think he would do so. I do not think he ought, in this instance, if the case is not one of equity but one of administrative convenience, to say that anyone who pays Excise Duty should also pay levy. I suggest that that is not an adequate reason for imposing a levy on these two types of authorities. I have put the cases very briefly, but I hope that the noble Viscount will not think, in consequence of that, that I feel any the less strongly about this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 34, after ("fifty-four") insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
8.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord has put the case very fairly, and if I thought this was merely a matter of administrative convenience I would not reject the Amendment on that ground. I am not going to ask the Committee to reject it on that ground. I am going to ask the Committee to reject it on what I may call broad grounds of equity, fairness and convenience. Let me, first of all, dispose of the nightmare which the noble Lord has raised that rates are going up by some vast sum.
LORD SILKIN: I did not say a vast sum; I did not say how much.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I thought the noble Lord suggested that at any rate they were going up by some considerable sum. Certainly he made our flesh creep. Considering that the levy comes to only a fraction of a penny per ton-mile, I do not think—indeed I should be prepared to bet upon this—it will have any effect upon the rates. Broadly, I think the argument is that either you do this out

1251
of taxation or you do it out of the levy. I think it is right—and the Committee have accepted it—that we ought to do it out of the levy. And I also think that if we are going to do it out of the levy, the levy ought to fall widely on people of the same classes. You cannot put it simply on the sort of "A" licence holders, who carry for hire and reward. If you did, I agree that the payment to be made then would be vast, and it would put up the rates enormously. I cannot see any argument based on logic or ethics which would say that a Commission which has to compete on equal terms with other people has to be exempt, while other people are included in the levy scheme.
I may observe, in passing, that a lot of local authority vehicles are already excluded, among them fire engines, vehicles kept by local authorities while they are used for the purpose of their fire brigade service, ambulances, road rollers, certain road construction vehicles, and any vehicle being used for clearing snow from public roads by means of a snow plough or similar contrivance. You cannot let off local authorities because they do not operate all their vehicles for profit. They do not operate them for profit; but they operate them in order to save themselves spending money. If they had not their own vehicles for carrying their own goods, they would have to pay a contracting firm to do it. If a local authority have found it convenient to have their own lorries, they are in exactly the same position as any firm with a "C" licence, and if we let off the local authority because they find it more convenient to have a vehicle of their own rather than hire a road haulier to do the job, in equity, exactly the same argument could be made for "C" licence holders—at least, for those who do not hold a "B" licence as well. We have applied the same rough justice to Government Departments owning vehicles. For instance, the Post Office are going to pay the levy. In common justice we had better put the levy on all people who come properly within the same class. That is my answer to the question why local authorities should not be exempt and why the Commission themselves should not be exempt, although the levy goes to compensate them in other respects. I think it will be quite unfair and improper to
1252
exempt the Commission, who are going to be put on all fours with all other road hauliers.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
8.35 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to delete Clause 10. The noble Lord said: Now we do join issue. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, is not going, because I was expecting to see him with me in the Lobby, as I am going to improve on his Amendment. I am going to attack the levy because, if I may use an Irishism, there never was a case for the levy and now that the Government have agreed to the companies method of disposal of assets there is even less a case for one. The new clause that has been inserted in this Bill today lays down in subsection (5) the injunction that
"the Board shall not approve the acceptance of any such tender or offer unless they are satisfied that the price is a reasonable one having regard to the value of the company's undertaking and the rights conferred by the subsequent provisions of this section."
I argue strongly that if the shares in the companies are properly valued, if the units are properly marketed and the goods that have to be sold as chattels are properly marketed, there should be no loss that cannot be easily amortised by the Commission in the ordinary way of business. The Commission's turnover is £600 million a year, and I believe that if proper me chanting methods are used, the amount of ultimate loss will be a small one, if any, and within the scope of amortisation. We are going to have a levy that is to compensate the Commission for this loss, but unless the proper merchanting methods are used the loss is going to be enormous. On Second Reading, I said that if no regard is paid to real value well marketed, the loss to the taxpayer can be £50 million, while the loss by disturbance to the transport system is not measurable.
This levy is to be spread over goods-carrying vehicles of one ton and over in weight. Out of 900,000 vehicles affected by the Bill, 560,000 are over one ton in weight, and out of that total "C" licence vehicles number 450,000. The levy is spread over "A", "B" and "C" licence holders, and so 77 per cent. of the levy will be found by the "C" licence holders who, except by an odd chance, are not going to buy any of these

1253
vehicles. I think that should be known throughout the country, that one class is going to be singled out for taxation and 77 per cent. of that taxation is going to be paid by one section of that class, whose members are not carting goods for hire or reward but are using their vehicles for carrying their own goods. This means that 77 per cent. of the levy is going to be borne by industry and trade—at a time when the Government are exhorting industry to cut costs because we are over-pricing ourselves in the export market.
There is another denationalisation measure on thestocks—the denationalisation of steel. There is no levy there. Who is to pay for the loss that may be incurred when the steel shares are marketed? Who is to pay for the compensation to employees for loss of employment or worsening of conditions in the case of steel? There is no levy, so it must be the Exchequer. Why is one method adopted as regards steel and another method as regards transport? Perhaps the question has lever been asked, so I ask it now. Why should there be a different method? Is it because the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not touch this transport levy at arm's length? The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said on Second Reading—I paraphrase him, but I think correctly—"The first thing you did when you nationalised transport was that you had to go to the Treasury for a guarantee of £1,000 million. "That is quite right. That was to pay the stockholders of the railways, to give them gilt edged securities. But he went on to say: But under this Bill this will not cost the Treasury anything"—suggesting, of course, that the other did; although, in fact, it did not. But the levy is chargeable to tax. Any concern that has to pay the levy is allowed to charge it in their accounts against tax. So that, in the ultimate result, the Treasury lave to find from the taxpayer 50 per cent. of the total of the levy, contributed by those who are profit-earning companies.
I wonder whether industry is going to put up with this. I wonder whether industry is ever going to learn. There is no guarantee that this levy will not go on for ever: there is no guarantee that it will not go on and on in future legislation. I am young enough, or old enough, to remember the pledge given by Mr. Lloyd
1254
George about the vehicle tax. That was to be a levy on road vehicles only for the purpose of maintaining the roads—Mr. Lloyd George put his hand on his heart and said that. And Mr. Austen Chamberlain, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said: "If that is ever altered we, the Conservative Party, will vote against it." But when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1926, he was going to have no nonsense about pledges like that. He was going to garner it into the Treasury. That is how this money is collected to-day. The vehicle owners who have to pay this levy are already taxed at the present time to the tune of 87 per cent. of the total vehicle taxation, which is £375 million a year. The industry is the milch cow.
Perhaps the greatest objection of all is that this provides the Disposal Board with a bottomless purse. There is no financial discipline at all. There is no limit to the drawing that can be made on this levy, and there is no limit to the time that it can continue. if some of the things I fear are going to happen; if some of these chattels are sold at scrap value; if the purchaser is going to have all the consideration that we have heard; if these shares are not going to be marketed, as my noble and learned Leader said, at the best possible time at the best possible price, and a £50 million loss is going to be made, then it will take twenty years to amortise that. The levy is designed to collect only £4 million a year, and my calculation is that to pay off a loss of £50 million, at £4 million a year will take, with interest, twenty years. If the loss is £30 million, it will take ten years. There is nothing to stop any Board from going on endlessly. This is the kind of conversation that might take place between the Board and the Commission. The Commission may say, "No, we are not going to agree the price at which you want us to sell our assets, because it is too low." The Board may then say, "Why should you worry? There is the levy. You will get it back via the levy. Why should you stick out for a proper price?" Have your Lordships ever heard of financial arrangements like that made in the conduct of companies?
What are we getting to? If a dispute arises between the Board and the Commission, because the Commission will not sell their assets cheaply, and the

1255
operation is being delayed, they can then go to the Minister. The Minister may say to the Commission, "We must get on with this. Do not stand out for a price in future. We have got to sell these things, and you must not worry about any loss. There is the levy." How can you sell the taxpayers' assets on a proper basis when there is, all the time, this bottomless purse? Do not forget that we have had an admission that some members of the Board are to be the nominees of the Road Haulage Association. Do you mean to tell me that industry will put up with this? Do you mean to tell me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has countenanced it? I should like to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, two questions, and I want to ask them in terms. The first is whether the financial adviser to the Ministry of Transport, Sir Alan Rae Smith, one of the most eminent accountants, has been consulted about this method. If not, why is he there?
The next question I want to ask is this, have the Auditors to the British Transport Commission been consulted? If so, what is their advice? All the professional advice that has been given to me is that this is an absolutely unworkable method, because the endless discussions on how they are to assess the loss, if any, and what is to be done with the levy, will continue for years and years. As I have said, there is no time limit. In point of fact, it is anticipated by the Government as going on interminably, because the Bill provides that the Minister must give Parliament a report every three years as to the progress made. In twenty years' time there can still be this levy, an inducement to bad management, an inducement to slack selling. And there is only one thing that justifies this levy—namely, the indecent haste: "Sell at any price; it does not matter; you will not lose anything, because you have the levy." That is my case against the levy.
The Minister on many occasions has said: "We are only doing now what you did under the 1947 Act. We are forcing people to sell, and so did you." I said: "Yes, we did." There was a forced sale by the hauliers to the Commission; but there was a forced purchase by the Commission at a predetermined price. Here you are forcing the Commission to sell.
1256
You know that you cannot put any statutory obligation upon the buyer to buy. The market price will dictate in the end. So this levy is introduced to make up the other figure of the equation. That is why I ask the Committee to reject this clause. I ask you to reject it because it is bad in principle; it is one of the worst principles ever brought into the fiscal system in this country. It is liable to stay with us in one form or another. It was never stated in the White Paper that we were to have compensation to employees, and when the debate on the White Paper took place I asked the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, across the Floor of the House who was going to pay for the compensation for displaced employees. I asked whether the hauliers or the Government were going to pay. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said: "How wrong it would be for us to ask private enterprise to pay!" That is what private enterprise is doing; it is paying in the end, and that is the provision in this Bill. That is our case. We feel very strongly on this matter and I move the Amendment without any knowledge of what the noble Viscount opposite will say. But I will sit down and hear what he has to say, because I want to know—I press him on this, and I think the House is entitled to know—what is the opinion of the chief financial adviser to the Ministry of Transport. Has he been asked? If not, why not? Have the auditors to the Transport Commission—two of the most eminent accountants in London—been asked? If not, why not, and if they have, what is their opinion? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 10.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
8.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I can only presume that this Amendment is inspired by shame. The nationalised undertaking has lost the whole of its goodwill. In ordinary business, where an undertaking loses a large part of its capital or income, the company or its shareholders have to bear it. I am interested to know whether that is the basis on which the noble Lord would have us proceed, and whether he considers that the £30 million lost, or whatever the sum may be, should all be charged up to the Transport Commission. Unfortunately, charging things up to a nationalised industry does not mean

1257
charging them to a shareholder or going to the court to write down your capital; it means charging them up to the taxpayer. There are only three ways—realistically only two—in which this loss can be met. You may say that the Commission should bear its own loss. But it cannot, because it falls back automatically on the taxpayer. You may say that the taxpayer should recoup, or you may, as we have here, put the levy on all road haulage.
All sorts of theoretical and ethical arguments can be used as between the taxpayer and the levy on haulage. By and large, it has nothing whatever to do with the financial adviser or some firm of accountants. It is a simple ethical principle upon which Parliament is quite competent to decide. Anyone can understand it. Broadly speaking, I think most people would agree that the levy in its present form is the best way out. We have decided that it ought to range wide—the House has decided that—over all vehicles of the same kind. About half a million vehicles will pay a small sum for a limited period. Here the actuaries do come in I am told that it means a fraction of a penny per ton-mile. As my noble friend Lord Leathers said on Second Reading, as a result of this Bill trade and industry will get a better service, and so it is not unreasonable to put the levy on the "A," "B" and "C" vehicles.
EARL JOWITT: Why "C"?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The "C" licences form perhaps the most arguable case. After all, they are going to get a

CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Allenby, V.

Gifford, L

Bridgeman, V.

Hawke, L.

Cholmondley, M.

Falmouth, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Goschen, V.

Llewellin, L,

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.

Lloyd, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Swinton, V.

Mancroft, L.

De La Warr. E.

Palmer, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Grey, E.

Cherwell, L.

Savile, L.

Onslow. E. [Teller.]

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Stamp, L.

Radnor, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Teynham, L.

Rothes, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Turnour, L. (E. Winterton.)

Selkirk, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Webb-Johnson, L.

Freyberg, L.

Wolverton, L.

better service, and they have the privilege of using their own transport when it suits them and of using public transport when that suits them. I thought it was pretty half-hearted, although I was not surprised at the objection. There was one argument which I had never heard before, and I must congratulate the noble Lordon having imagined some new thing which nobody else had ever imagined—I might also say, on having imagined some vain thing. He said, "It can go on for ever—thirty or forty years. Nothing will stop Minister after Minister once this has started. It will be diverted to this purpose and that, to the benefit of this person, or to the benefit of that." Of course, that is completely untrue. Clause 13 provides at the very beginning of subsection (1) that when the Transport Fund is sufficient to meet all the payments falling to be met there from, the Minister cannot carry it on; he must by Order provide that the transport levy shall not be charged in respect of the use of any vehicle after the end of that period. The levy, therefore, is for a precise and definite purpose. It cannot be applied to any other purpose. It cannot be extended for a day longer than is necessary for that purpose. The House has already decided, I think, that it is on the whole reasonable to levy it on these classes of persons who're specified in it, and naturally the Government will stand by this essential clause.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 17.

NOT-CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Greenhill, L.

Pakenham, L.

Lawson, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Archibald, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.) [Teller]

Mathers, L.

Shepherd, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Silkin, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Winster, L.

Crook, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 11 [Establishment of Transport Fund];
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice of an amendment to delete Clause 11. The noble Lord said; In view of the fact that we have divided on Clause with its principles, I not propose to move this Amendment because Clause 11 is really consequential on Clause 10.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Payments to Commission out of Transport Fund for loss on disposal of road haulage undertaking
12.—(1) An amount equal to—

(b) one million pounds (for the loss from disturbance suffered by the Commission while the assets of the existing road haulage undertaking are being disposed of),

shall be paid out of the Transport Fund to the Commission by such instalments as are hereinafter mentioned, that is to say—
(4) In this section "the road haulage capital loss" means the amount by which the aggregate of the prices at which property is sold under section three or subsection (1) or subsection (2) of sective five of this Act falls short of the sum of the following amounts, that is to say—

(a) the aggregate net value of that property as at the times of the respective sales, as shown in the books of the Commission but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the sale so far as not already taken into account; and

9.5 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1) (b) to leave out "one" [million pounds] and insert "ten." The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission and with the permission of the Lord Chairman I intend to deal with this Amendment and the next together. In the Bill as it stands, an amount of £1 million is to be
1260
paid to the Commission out of the Transport Fund for the loss and disturbance suffered by the Commission while the assets of the existing road haulage undertaking are being disposed of. This is a separate compensation from that which is to be paid on the loss of realisation. The Government have thought fit to put the amount of £1 million into this Bill. I do not know how they arrive at the figure of £1 million. It must be an entirely arbitrary figure; and I amendeavouring to make it realistic by asking your Lordships to alter the £1 million to £10 million. I think that perhaps this figure of £1 million was put into the Bill because at the time the Bill was drafted the Government had the idea that the disposal of all this property and all these assets would be completed within a year. In point of fact, the Minister said in another place, early on in the proceedings there, that he thought nine or ten months would see the end of the disposal. I do not think he takes the same view now. And after all the disruption, the disturbance will not be confined to one year. It may not be confined to two years or perhaps three years.
How, therefore, is this figure of £1 million arrived at? If the Government will tell us that I might be satisfied. I suggest the figure of £10 million. I have also put down, in my next Amendment, these words:
"or if the Minister so directs such other sum as may be determined by an independent person appointed in default of agreement between the Minister and the Commission by the President for the time being of the Institute of Chartered Accountants."
If noble Lords think it is too much to insert £10 million they will easily arrive at the conclusion that the figure of £1 million is meaningless. What the exact figure should be, I do not know; and a far cleverer individual than I will have to try to find out. I do not know on what basis the calculation of this compensation for disturbance will be made. If, however, it is an ascertainable figure, I suggest

1261
that some independent arbiter be asked to decide it. If it is not an exact figure, and we have to do some intelligent guessing, I may tell your Lordships that all accountant opinion which I have consulted agrees with me that my guess of £10 million is a little more intelligent than the Government's guess of £1 million. With those words, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 36, leave out ("one") and insert ("ten").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I hope that the noble Lord will not let his imagination run away with him, and that he will not think that all losses must necessarily be on the scale which this unhappy Commission have entertained in the last few years. This, quite frankly, is guesswork; it is an arbitrary figure; but it is a pretty reasonable figure. The amount required may be a little more; it may be a little less. So far as it goes, this. I will not say "calculation," because these are not things one can calculate, but this figure, is likely, if anything, to be above rather than below the amount required. Probably £1 million is somewhere near the mark. Consider what the noble Lord proposes. He says:
"Take thy bill and write fourscore."
Poor Commission! I give it only £1 million for loss by disturbance. The noble Lord gives £10 million. I really feel that this is loose dealing with millions, even for the Party opposite. To put in £10 million would be to impose a wholly unnecessary penalty upon the levy payable, which the noble Lord was so anxious to relieve, and would give the Transport Commission a wholly unearned increment.
The noble Lord says, "Neither you nor I know exactly what the amount is going to be, so let us have an accountant." Any accountant can guess—but his guess would be no better than ours—what the loss by disturbance is likely to be. I believe that to be an absolutely impossible calculation for any accountant to make, and I will tell your Lordships why. What has he to estimate? He has to estimate what the net revenue of the Board would have been if there had been no disturbance. He has to take into
1262
account or guess what would have been the effect of variations in trade on the general economy of the country. He has to take into account—and how can this be more than a guess?—whether the Commission have taken all possible steps to limit the loss by disturbance and have taken all possible steps to maintain the efficiency of the undertaking. The noble Lord says that he has consulted many accountants; I have not consulted any about this. But I do know enough of accountants to say that no accountant would think of attempting to answer a proposition such as this. If one asked him to do it, he would say, in simple language, "Your guess is as good as mine." I think the House had better make a guess, and I think that £1 million is probably as good a guess as anybody is likely to make. Certainly, unless I can hear some better arguments than have been made so far, I shall ask the House to stand by the £1 million as a fair guess.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Leathers, I beg to move this Amendment. It is one of the companies consequential Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 45, after ("means,") insert ("subject to the provisions of the next following subsection").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (4) after the first word "amount" to insert "(to be determined by the Minister)."The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Leathers, I beg to move this Amendment. It is not a great deal more than drafting, but it makes it abundantly clear that the Minister is responsible for determining just what the road haulage capital loss will be. The procedure of how it is to be determined and calculated is laid down in this clause, but the clause does not show quite clearly who makes the final determination. We thought it as well to put these words in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 46, after ("amount") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What the noble Earl has just said increases our disturbance more than ever. This is what the subsection says:
"In this section 'the road haulage capital loss' means the amount"—
and then the noble Lord wishes to insert the words:
"to be determined by the Minister".
How that is determined is set out precisely in this Bill under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (4). It could not be more precise. The noble Earl then tells us that the Minister is to have an overriding veto as to whether it is to be done in that way. Really, we have had this argument so many times. This clause, if it is passed, will state precisely the will of Parliament, but, by some bureaucratic dispensation, the Minister can then upset it all. Where are we getting to? I see a noble Lord opposite shuddering and shaking his head. I should think it would make anybody shudder.
LORD HAWKE: He has got the ague.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This will give him something worse, I should think. How can we pass this Amendment without some further explanation? The noble Earl has just said that its purpose is to make sure that the Minister has the final word as to what is the capital loss, but it is all set out in precise language in the subsections as to how that loss is to be calculated. May we have some further explanation?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I can give a further explanation but I really think this is rather a storm in a teacup. I admit subsection (4) lays it down rather fully, but there are a number of factors which could be put one way or the other. For instance, paragraph (b) refers to:
"the expenses incurred by the Commission in connection with those sales, so far as not included in the sums shown in the books of the Commission as expenses deductible in computing the sums shown therein as net traffic receipts."
I am quite certain the noble Lord will admit that accountants could present that information from slightly different angles. That is the whole purpose of this Amendment. The broad lines are not laid down so precisely. I say there are elements in
1264
it which will require a final and definite statement. That is all the Amendment is intended to do. The limits within which the Minister can act are very narrow. To pretend for one moment that there exists a veto on the precise position defined in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) really does not reflect a realistic reading of the Bill. What is true is that there are certain margins within these clauses which could be pushed either one way or the other. Precision is essential and important, for the Minister, after all, has to fix the levy, terminate the levy, and make payments on what is due under this figure. I think it is right and proper that a perfectly definite and clear-cut decision should be given of what is the loss involved.
EARL JOWITT: I thought I heard the noble Earl say that this was little more than a drafting Amendment. When a Minister takes it upon himself to say that, particularly at this time of night, things are very apt to go through. I do not know how the noble Earl came to say that, but it seems to me that this is much more than drafting. Set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)are various principles which are to be the governing factors. But for this Amendment, it would be for the courts to decide the figure; one would have a right to go to the court and ask the court to determine it. What you are doing by inserting these few words is to take it out of the purview of the courts and put it into the hands of the Minister. There may or may not be a case for that; but this much, at least, is plain: that this is not a matter of drafting—and whoever is under the impression that it is a matter of drafting is under a profound misapprehension about the whole thing.
I entirely agree with the noble Earl that when factors like these are set out they are difficult to determine. I had many cases of that sort in the old days, when one accountant would come and give one figure and another accountant would give another figure about half as large as the first, and sometimes the court would say that the right figure was about halfway between the two. Of course it is difficult to determine. The vital point at issue here is, ought it to be determined by the courts or by the Minister? If we insert these words, the courts will have no jurisdiction at all in the matter, always

1265
provided that the Minister has been honest. So long as they are satisfied that the Minister has come to an honest determination, the courts are excluded; they cannot do anything at all. But if we do not have these words, the whole matter will be open to the courts, and they can decide. Here there is an important and a real distinction in principle. This is not a matter of Grafting.
LORD WINSTER: Is not the duty thrown upon, the Minister by the explanation given by the noble Earl a very peculiar one? The noble Earl referred to paragraph (b) and said that different accountants might present the matters referred to in different ways. So that what the explanation amounts to is that in regard to a financial matter affecting his Department, the Minister is given one view by one accountant and another view by another accountant, and he is charged with the responsibility of deciding which of those views he prefers. That seems to be a most remarkable duty to throw upon a Minister.
LORD OGMORE: I think that here we ought to have a further explanation from the noble Earl, because the light that has been thrown on this matter, both by my noble friend Lord Lucas and by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, shows that this is quite a substantial alteration. In the normal way, as one would anticipate, the subsection as it stands sets out "the amount by which the aggregate of the prices" for the property sold "falls short of the sum of the following amounts," and then the sum of the following amounts is set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d.) and (e). Surely, in the normal way that amount would be arrived at by whomsoever is properly competent or capable of assessing the values of the property under the various headings set out in the subsection.
Presumably that was the Government's view when this Bill was drafted. They thought, as everybody would think looking at this, that, added up, these categories would give the values of the property which we are considering. Then, by an afterthought, they bring in the Minister, and he, being the final arbiter, apparently has the responsibility, duty and opportunity of himself estimating what the road haulage capital loss is
1266
going to be. As I see it, this puts the Minister in a new and very powerful position, one in which he was not put before and we are now told that this is a drafting Amendment. I should have thought that to make the Minister into what is virtually a dictator in regard to this very important matter of the assessment of the road haulage capital loss, is doing something far removed from moving a drafting Amendment, and I think we are entitled to know from the noble Earl why he led the Committee to believe that this was only a drafting Amendment. I take it that if my noble friend Lord Lucas had not jumped to his feet and raised this point, with the support of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, the Committee might have passed the Amendment without any more consideration at all, unless someone else had realised what the alteration meant.
Quite apart from what we were led to believe by the noble Earl, I think the merit of the proposal has to be considered. I say that in that respect my noble friend Lord Lucas has made a very strong point. This is one more case where the Minister is to be the sole determining factor. In some cases it may be necessary, although they are not nearly so numerous as are provided for in the Bill. But in this case, where it is possible to arrive at the correct valuation or estimate in accordance with the directions given in the subsection, I suggest to the Committee that it is not necessary to have the intervention of the Minister of Transport. And if he does come in, I am bound to say that it makes us suspicious. Recently some of the suspicions that we had at the beginning began to die down a little, but this sort of thing makes us very suspicious. It was not thought to be necessary when the Bill was drafted; it is thought to be necessary now. We want to know why there is the change. Unless we hear some reason for the change, I am afraid our suspicions are bound to be enhanced.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should hate the noble Lord to go to bed with a suspicion which is quite unfounded. The word "drafting" was perhaps not exactly the best word to use. I nearly always use the wrong word. But what my noble friend meant, and I thick what most people here understood him to mean, was that this Amendment would make plain

1267
the manifest intention of the Bill. I hope I do not do noble Lords opposite an injustice, but anybody who has read through page 16, where there is an obligation, a duty, and a discretion—so far as there is a discretion—put on the Minister the whole time, will, by the time he reaches the last line on that page, consider it is perfectly obvious that the Minister is the person who should decide. If I may substitute for what I consider to be the reasonable language of my noble friend, the words "to make plain what is the obvious intention of the Bill," then I do not think we need quarrel about it. Of course, it is commonsense to have it. Suppose in this one instance out of the rest of the provisions of this clause we left the matter in doubt, and it was possible to go to the court, would this thing ever come to an end? Presumably, the Commission could go to the court, but so could any one of five hundred thousand people who are going to pay the levy. We might have a dripping roast for the lawyers, but we should also have this matter going on for an eternity, which is the one thing that noble Lords opposite have been complaining about. But if we put upon the Minister, who will have his actuaries to advise him, the obligation to say that the amount is so much, then we know where we are, and I am certain that anybody who will have to pay the levy, and indeed anybody who is going to receive the levy, will thank us. If we do not put this Amendment in, we shall leave the matter in doubt, and the people who are going to pay or receive will be in endless doubt as to where their liability lies until the lawyers have had their cut at it.
LORD SILKIN: We have now heard the explanation. I would first challenge most strongly the suggestion that it was clear from the Bill without these words that it was the Minister who was to settle the matter. There is nothing in this clause to suggest that. I certainly would not have imagined that this matter was to be settled simply by the ipse dixit of the Minister. The Minister may have many fine qualities, but he is in no way qualified to decide this very complicated matter. Is it really satisfactory that the Minister should settle it without being answerable to anyone as to the way in which it is settled? The noble Earl, in putting this Amendment forward, indicated
1268
that there were possibilities of considerable variation in the interpretation which might be put upon paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). There may be a wide range between one interpretation and another, but, surely, the people who are going to be concerned are entitled to some satisfaction, either that of being able to discuss results or that of being able to challenge them. I submit that there ought to be, if not the courts, at any rate some sort of tribunal which would be satisfactory to the Commission, to the thousands of people who are going to pay the levy, and to the community. There ought to be some arrangement which would be satisfactory to everyone, by which the actual amount of the loss should be determined.
I take it that the intention is that whatever the Minister says should not only be accepted but should be final and not subject to appeal. So we have the position that the Minister states a figure but he is never to be required to state how he arrives at it, and whatever he says must, in the end, be accepted by all concerned, without any question. There will be no opportunity of arguing the case. I admit that that idea has the merit of simplicity. Of course, in all dictatorships there is that same advantage. You cannot argue with dictatorships; you just have to accept them. In many cases you close down the law courts and, indeed, close down the laws. But I do not think that that, in itself, is a conclusive reason for having dictatorships. It is certainly not a conclusive reason in this case for leaving the whole thing to the Minister, and not having any opportunity of questioning his decision or of arguing about it, or even of finding out how he has arrived at it. I hope that noble Lords opposite will give an assurance that they will look at this matter again to see whether some better method can be found.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I give the noble Lord the firmest assurance that we will not look at this matter again, because it is one on which we are perfectly clear. Therefore, if it is a matter on which he is determined to dissent, I hope we may divide.
LORD SILKIN: That is a challenge which we will accept. We feel just as strongly that the noble Lord is wrong as he thinks he is right. Merely being

1269
emphatic about it, is no substitute for argument.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I feel, listening to this debate, that noble Lords opposite are saying more and more about less and less. In the first place, my noble friend on the Front Bench started by saying that this is little more than a drafting Amendment though that assertion has been hotly contested. The Opposition are suggesting that a position has been arrived at which, happily, we are very far from reaching. If you look at the subsections of this clause, you will see that the Minister is mentioned in a great many places; he is mentioned all through the early part of the clause. The Minister has the final decision in what is to a large exent a Departmental matter. If it were a question of the Minister deciding between a number of individual members of the public as opposed to the Minister, deciding matters of the levy, I could not agree more that there would be a strong case for the independent member of the public having the opportunity of recourse to an independent tribunal. But I do not think that that is the position here.
I believe the position to be this. In the first place, the method by which the loss is to be calculated is clearly laid down in subsection (4). The point is whether these calculations should be accepted or whether, if there is a dispute between professional people who make these calculations, the Minister should decide. This is very largely an internal matter, and power is given to the Minister to decide whether the calculation has been properly made in accordance with the Act—as it will then be—or not; or if two views are put to him by the Department, it will be for him to decide which should prevail. He certainly does decide as to whether more or less of the loss should be borne by the levy. That surely is not the great and high constitutional matter which it has been represented to be by noble Lords opposite. I feel that this is a proper case for the Minister to make the decision and that the elements which would demand recourse to an independent tribunal are not here. I feel that my noble friends in front are right in saying that they stand by the terms of the clause.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: As we shall have another opportunity of returning to this matter—there is another Amendment later in the Bill—I do not intend to ask your Lordships to divide upon it now. But I think noble Lords should appreciate this. This Bill has made a journey through another place. The Government have had a lot of time to consider it, yet in this House we are suddenly confronted with this Amendment. I suggest that the reason is this: that someone is advising the Government that their financial provisions in this Bill are so crazy that no professional accountants would ever arrive at a decision. Therefore, they have to provide for an arbitrary decision by the Minister. As we shall have another opportunity of discussing this point, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: On a point of order, my Lord Chairman, I should prefer that proposals to withdraw Government Amendments should come from this side of the Chamber.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.38 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (4) (a), to leave out all words after "sales" down to and including the second "account" and to insert:
"after taking into account depreciation up to the time of the sale, such value and depreciation to be calculated in the manner provided by section forty-seven of the Transport Act, 1947."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I now propose is one of considerable importance. Paragraph (a), on page 17, sets out how the capital loss of the Commission is to be arrived at. Paragraph (a) reads:
"the aggregate net value of that property as at the times of the respective sales, as shown in the books of the Commission but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the sale so far as not already taken into account:…"
I contest that as being the proper basis of valuation for sale. May I refer once again to the new clause which has been inserted into this Bill by the Government—the new clause after Clause 4.
My Lords, I have been talking in this House since half-past two. I have not

1271
left this Bench and my voice is on its last legs. Could I have the courtesy of silence while I am addressing the Committee. I do not think that that is too much to ask?
As I have repeatedly said, subsection (5) of the new clause lays down that the price must be
"…a reasonable one having regard to the value of the company's undertaking …"
Therefore we cannot take the net value of the property. I pay no attention to the value of property passed from the Commission to one of the companies, but I am interested in the value put on those assets when they are sold to the ultimate purchaser. The Commission, as prudent business men, have written down these assets. There is a vast difference between the book value of any asset and the selling price which business men would ask. The prudent business man writes down his assets so far as he is allowed to do in law by the Inland Revenue, but that is a different thing from the value he places upon them when they are sold.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said in his speech on Second Reading, and he has repeated it several times, that though I had valued the vehicles owned by the Commission today at £40million, in the published balance sheet of the Commission they were valued at £28 million. The noble Earl is quite right, but that is the written down figure. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who said that the Commission had purchased a lot of poor vehicles, but they spent a lot of money repairing them, and that had added to their value. The Commission took possession of many vehicles before purchase tax was imposed, and purchase tax has increased their value. When the Minister was discussing this point in another place, after saying that the maximum number of vehicles which could be grouped together with the Minister's approval was fifty, he went on to say (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 46, col. 1942):
"If each vehicle is worth £3,000, such a business would be worth £150,000, which is a substantial undertaking."
The Commission's valuation was £28 million. My value is £40 million. And
1272
the Minister's value would be £120 million. Now, what is the value? It is certainly not the net value as shown on the books of the Commission.
If we are going to say that that is the value to the Commission of the whole of the assets which may be transferred to one of these companies is the book value, I contend, with sincerity, that we are saying something which is untrue and would never be supported by any business man. We have to recognise that some of these companies may be very valuable and others not of such great value. The aggregate will amount to a sum we hope will prevent the necessity for any levy to be made. We are not going to make a big profit on every one, but there are some that, by fortuitous circumstances, will fetch a high price. Maybe a group in Manchester will bring a high price, but another group formed in the remote parts of South Wales will not be worth bothering about—if my noble friend Lord Ogmore will forgive my saying so. The aggregate is the thing. What we have to do is to say that the value of these assets is not the book value.
I am not going to deal to-night with the question of income tax, because it is too late, but there is a tax question involved here, too. The words I propose are the same as those which appear in the 1947 Act and they are the best I can think of, though I am not wedded to them. I think the basis of valuation given there is fair. At least, it is the value at which some of these vehicles were acquired and it cannot be too bad. It might be considered that that should be the value for the purpose of the payment of this levy. I do not think I can make a clearer case than that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 5, leave out from ("sales") to ("and") in line 8 and insert ("after taking into account depreciation up to the time of the sale, such value and depreciation to be calculated in the manner provided by section forty-seven of the Transport Act, 1947,").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
9.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This would be an odd Amendment coming from any quarter, but it is odder still when moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The procedure suggested would be extremely

1273
inconvenient. It would lead to the maximum of delay. Observe what would happen. If, instead of a plain statement in paragraph (a), we substituted the current replacement value, as the noble Lord's Amendment seeks to do, every vehicle would have to be valued by reference to the current replacement value of a similar vehicle, depreciated (as the clause in the Act cited runs) at 20 per cent. We should have to revalue every single one of 40,000 or more vehicles which are to be sold. That revaluation, with the revaluation of all other property, would be a difficult and laborious task and would involve considerable delay. The whole object of Amendment after Amendment which the noble Lord has moved is so to delay in every way the operation of this Act that it may fail completely. I think the noble Lord has been perfectly frank about this and has not concealed it. His attitude has been: "If we are not going to win by hook, we will win by crook." The noble Lord said "By hook or by crook." The noble Lord need not be too mealy mouthed about this, but if he likes, I will withdraw that remark. He is trying to frustrate the principle of the Bill in every way he can. That is a perfectly legitimate thing for the Opposition to do, but we are not going to stand for it.
Let me say why I think this is an odd Amendment. If we take current value and not book value for the physical assets of the business, obviously we shall have to take current value and not book value for the goodwill. What has happened? Surely, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I must not say, "By hook or by crook," but the Opposition say the Commission are to have it whichever way suits them, on the principle of "Heads I win, tails you lose;" that "If it suits me to take book value, I will take book value; if it suits me to take current value, I will take current value." That is a very odd way of valuing a business. Really, in common decency I am sure the noble Lord will agree that if you take current value for one thing, you take current value for the other. How would that operate? This business has lost most of £33 million of the goodwill, because it has carried on at a loss, where the private business carried on at a profit of £9 million or £10 million a year. That is what the levy is about. The value of
1274
the good will has depreciated to next to nothing, but the value of the goodwill stands in the books at £33 million. That is why we must have the levy. If we were to pay current value on physical assets, and current value for goodwill, that might considerably reduce the amount of the levy, and considerably reduce the amount which everybody will pay. But it certainly would not redound to the benefit of the Commission, whose interests the noble Lord professes to advocate but in this case, I think, is not advocating to great advantage.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I answer the noble Viscount? When the noble Viscount addresses some noble Lords on this side he appears to me to suppose that we came down with the last shower and never spent any time in business at all. The noble Viscount is completely wrong. Anybody with an ounce of business experience knows that a figure of goodwill can be quite a lot of things. Take again my case of Manchester. Very likely there will be a company formed by the British Transport Commission for sale in Manchester, or in Birmingham, where there is a great demand for haulage and where the potential profit-earning capacity of that company is high. Does the noble Viscount say, "As the unit to which this was attached, some years ago lost some money, there is no goodwill value upon that company you are selling to-day"? That is a futile argument. If you were selling the British Transport Commission as it stands, lock, stock and barrel, there might be something in the noble Viscount's argument. But even then, I would contest it. When he talks about loss, and talks about goodwill, I wonder what the profit of the British Transport Commission would have been if, in 1947, they had been told, "You must, when you are incorporated in 1948, lay all your plans, and shape all your policies, on the basis that in five years' time you are going to be sold under the hammer." They would not then have made a loss, if they had been prudent business men. The British Transport Commission were entitled on January 1, 1948, to lay all their plans on the footing that they were going to be long-term in this business. When you are starting a long-term business with a capital of £1,180 million, it really is long-term.

1275
They ran as a business only for twelve months, because for the first four years they were acquiring the road haulage concerns. They did not become a real entity until one year ago.
All the arguments put by the noble Viscount are fallacious. Please do not think that we are quite so "dumb" that we have not had any experience. One does not mention personal things here, but I can assure the noble Viscount that I have not been in business all my life without learning something; and one of the things I have learned is that goodwill—as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, knows—is something that can mean two different things to two different people, one the buyer and the other the seller. The noble Viscount accuses me of delaying this Bill. That is a false accusation. What I am interested in, first and foremost, is not to satisfy the Election pledge of the Conservative Party but to do the best I can for the taxpayers of this country. I want to see these assets fetch the highest pos-

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Crook, L.

Pakenham, L.

Stansgate, V.

Greenhill, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shepherd, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.) [Teller.]

Mathers, L.

Silkin, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Winster, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Selkirk, E.

Freyberg, L.

Gifford, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Allenby, V.

Hawke, L.

Bridgeman, V

Jeffreys, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Falmouth, V.

Llewellin, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Furness, V.

Lloyd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Goschen, V.

Mancroft, L.

De La Warr, E

Long, V.

Palmer, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Swinton, V.

Ritchie of Dundee. L.

Grey, E.

Sandhurst, L.

Howe, E

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Stamp, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Teynham, L.

Radnor, E.

Douglas, L.(E. Home.)

Wolverton, L.

Rothes, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.6 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: With fear and trembling I say that this Amendment is almost a drafting Amendment. It deals with the question of goodwill. The words that are in the Bill, "properly apportion-
sible price. But if the noble Viscount has anything to do with it, the levy will be so heavy that, at the rate of £4 million a year, I doubt whether the noble Viscount will be on this earth to see the last instalment paid.
LORD WOLVERTON: I have listened with great attention to what the noble Lord has just said. Perhaps he thinks that we on this side of the House are very "dumb." If you break up companies, as they were broken up, and put them into a large organisation like the Transport Commission, naturally the goodwill has gone. When you build up the companies again it may take years to get back that goodwill. Steel nationalisation was done in a different way. There, the problem is different, because the steel companies were kept with separate identities: but in the case of road transport the companies were broken up and, as a result, the goodwill was broken up.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 15; Not-Contents, 37.
able," are considered to be over-rigid, and we propose altering those words to "ought justly to be apportioned." Your Lordships will see the profound difference. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 22, leave out ("is properly apportionable") and insert ("ought justly to be apportioned").—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thought all this goodwill had gone. They have found it again, and now they want to apportion it. We support that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 34, leave out ("includes a reference to all") and insert ("means the aggregate of all the")—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (4), to add to the definition of "price," after the word "purchase"
"adjusted, however, by adding the value, if any, as at the time of the purchase, as shown in the books of the Commission, of any liabilities of the Commission to third parties taken over by the purchaser from the Commission and subtracting the value, if any, at that time, as so shown of any obligations of third parties to the Commission taken over by him, not being property."
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend. I beg to move this Amendment. This is a further definition of "price" as applied to transport units. It is not consequential on the companies clause, but is entirely consistent with the line adopted by the companies clause. I have been into this matter, and I think the noble Lord may take it that, from an accountant's point of view, it represents a correct approach to the problem. It is perhaps a little difficult to envisage exactly the type of liability which might arise out of it—possibly a hire purchase scheme, or something of that character. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide for some sort of continuing liability which might arise in transferring units from the Commission to purchaser. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 38, after ("purchase") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: I beg to move the next Amendment. The Commission have suggested that some of the adjustments needed in calculating the capital loss may be a little difficult to assess, so we have tried to meet them by substituting words which we hope will give them a little more flexibility.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 42, leave out ("all necessary") and insert ("the appropriate")—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
"(5) Where, under the section of this Act (Transfer of property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares) the shares of a company to which property has been made over under that section have been sold by the Commission, subsection (4) of this section shall have effect with the modification that the price at which the shares are sold shall be treated as if it were the price (as therein defined) at which property had been sold under section three of this Act and with the following further modifications—

(a) to the sums mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection there shall be added the aggregate net value of the property of the company as at the time when the shares are transferred in pursuance of the contract of sale, as shown in the books of the company but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the transfer so far as not already taken into account, increased by the value, is any, as so shown, of any rights of the company as at that time not already taken into account, and decreased by the value, if any, as so shown of the liabilities of the company at that time;

(b) to the expenses referred to in para-paragraph (b) of that subsection there shall added the expenses incurred by the Commission in connection with the making over of the property to the company and the sale of the shares;

(c) the references in paragraph (c) of that subsection to the sales shall be deemed to include references to the making over of the property to the company;

(d) references in paragraph (d) of that subsection to the property which was the subject of the sales shall be deemed to include a reference to the property referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection:

Provided that if, under the contract for the sale of the shares, the nice paid therefor depends to any extent on the position as respects the company or a particular date, paragraph (a) of this subsection shall have effect as if the references therein to the time of the transfer of the shares were references to that date.
In this subsection "net value" means value after deducting depreciation, and the references to the aggregate net value of the property as shown in the books of the company are references to the value shown in the books of the company after making the appropriate adjustments of provisional items and, if the company in keeping their books depart to any substantial extent from the principles and practice applied by the Commission for the years falling before the passing of this Act, all adjustments which are necessary to produce the result which would have been produced but for the departure."
The noble Earl said: This is an important part of the new companies provisions. It does little more—in fact it does nothing more—than has already been done in respect of the transport units in subsection (4). The wording is slightly different in certain cases, to adapt itself to the companies structure in the various definitions which fall under subsection (4) which make up the capital loss. I would, however, mention one point. It is under consideration by the draftsman whether the whole of this computation of the capital loss could not be more conveniently included in a Schedule. At the present time, this clause is inordinately long, and if it needs redrafting that may be done on the Report stage. I mention it now merely so that your Lordships may understand it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 12, as amended, be agreed to?
10.10 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: Before we leave Clause 12 I want to say a few words with regard to the position generally. As I have always understood the constitutional position, a Minister is technically responsible for a certain Department and answers for it. In this debate on the administration of transport, and on this clause in particular, the Commission and the Road Haulage Executive have been attacked time after time. They have been accused of dissipating the goodwill of the undertaking and there has been no one officially in this House to answer for them. Strictly speaking, representatives of the Road Haulage Executive should have been in the Officials' Box, so that we
1280
could consult them in regard to the defamatory statements which have been made in regard to their administration.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Who has made defamatory statements?
LORD BURDEN: Defamatory statements have been made.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: By whom?
LORD BURDEN: By members of the Government Front Bench. I say that a statement is defamatory when one talks about the Road Transport Executive and the British Transport Commission having dissipated the goodwill of a business.
EARL DE LA WARR: Can the noble Lord quote the reason for these remarks?
LORD BURDEN: The noble Viscount time after time has said that the goodwill has disappeared.
EARL DE LA WARR: This is quite intolerable. The noble Lord has never quoted a single word. I challenge him.
LORD BURDEN: I stand to my ground. On constitutional, let alone English, practice, it is wrong for men to be attacked as the Road Haulage Executive and the British Transport Commission have been attacked, without there being anybody to answer for them. They have never had a fair chance, let alone the Englishman's privilege, of defending themselves. I make the most energetic protest at the way in which they have been treated.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjurned at fourteen minutes past ten o'clock.