British Labour M.P. Leaves Party On Nationalisation issue

Grey River Argus, 28 October 1948, Page 5

British Labour M.P. Leaves Party On Nationalisation issue

LONDON, Oct. 26

Mr Ivor Thomas, ivl.t'., formerly Under-Secretary ror Aviation and the colonies in tne present Government, has resigned from the Labour Party because he disagrees with tne Government's plans to nationalise the steel industry ana reform the House of Lords.

“These contentious measures,” he says in a letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Attlee, “cannot fail to impair that national unity which is essential if we are to show our full strength abroad in this critical time, rlie Parliament Mill cannot be reconciled with the plain and grammatical meaning of 'Let us face the ititure’ on which Labour fought the election.

. “ft such major constitutional questions cannot be resolved by interparty agreement, they should be submitted fairly ana squareiy to the eiec note enacted by the use of a cemnorary majority in the House o. commons which was gained on othex issues.”

The Labour Party earlier this year expeded Mr Alfred Edwards, M.P., because of his "general political conduct.”

Mr Edwards frequently criticised the proposed nationalisation or iu i.on and steel industry. He had stated that, to put the steel industry into viie nands of the Civil Service, was suicide.'

Conservatives Seek Check on Nationalisation LONDON, Oct. 26 The Opposition leaders, immediately after the King’s speech, met in tne House of Commons and decided to precipitate at once a ciash over steel nationalisation by putting down amendment regretting its inclusion in the King’s speech. The amendment will be that in a period of grave difficulties it deplored that the ment is spending time on a furthe. nationalisation measure, especially as the previous nationalisation attempts had proved “either failures or had certainly not yet proved themselves a success.” The motion, when its actual terms are settled, will be moved on November 2 and voted upon on November 3 when the debate on the address will end. Speaking in the House, Mr Eden condemned the Government’s plans to nationalise iron and steel, “f take this occasion to make it clear that, should we be victorious at the polls, we shall consider ourselves free to repeal this legislation.” The Prime Minister, Mr Attlee said; “The Iron and Steel Bill, which will be read a first time to-morrow, provides for iron and steel in the right quantities and qualities which are basic to planning the economy of this country.” Mr Churchill interjected; “It is. a wrong thing to do and a wrong time to do it.”

OPPOSITION ON STEEL INTERESTS The Bill to nationalise Britain's steel industry will cause the bitterest political battle tor years, says Kerner's political correspondent. Some steel interests are preparea to spend xoUU.Oui) in a country-wide campaign against the Bill. The Bill win secure rue per cent., control of the steel industry for the State, reports the Daily 'Telegraph’s political currespunuem.

Tne rorm ot nationalisation wm indifferent from any previously attempted in that it will follow the nnancial rather than the functional structure of the industry. The shares of the principal firms concerned with primary steel processes are likely to ue acquired at Stock Exchange prices. The situation will almost certainly arise in which State-controlled finishing firms will be competing with private enterprises although the latter will depend lor their raw steel supplies on State-controlled concerns. me correspondent adds that the Bill will be the most bitter Parliamentary bone of contention for many years because the Conservatives and the Socialists agree that the steel industry is a citadel of private enterprise and a controlling factor in economic recovery. Reuter’s correspondent says: The iron and steel industry at present comprises 2250 separate firms, employing 495,000 workers. It has invested capital ot £3bo,ouo,ouo and its annual steel output is 15,000,000 tons. The Nationalisation Bill will provide lor a Steel Board to control the industry, although some of the leading firms may be allowed to retain their identity. The Conservatives will try to throw out the Bill on these grounds:—

That the Government has no mandate from the electors. That .nationalisation will dislocate the industry and hinder output, just when steel is most needed for rearmament. That central control can only lead to inefficiency in a complex industry that has within it 32 different trades. That it is preposterous to tamper with a happy industry.in which there has been no serious industrial dispute for 40 years. That production costs will rise under State control. The Government’s case for nationalisation will be: — There is a mandate from the people because it was clearly stated in Labour’s last general election programme that only if public ownersnip ol steel replaced’ private monopoly could the industry become efficient. That private monopoly control has led to the raising of steel prices. That six big urms control more than half of Britain’s steel production and about 100 men really control the entire industry. . _ .