I rise at this early hour of the morning to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), but may I first respond to his opening remark and say this about the very serious railway accident which occurred this evening. I am not yet able to give an official account or details of what has taken place, but reports indicate that the toll of dead and injured is heavy—perhaps very heavy. I take this, the earliest opportunity, to express, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and myself, my deep sympathy with the relatives and friends of those involved. In the meantime, I am assured that everything possible is being done to deal with the very difficult problems involved on the site.

My hon. Friend has raised the problems that arose during the summer, which were dealt with by Sir Harold Howitt in his report, and he has raised a number of points in his speech with which I should like to deal. The last point raised by my hon. Friend was that there should be some sort of watchdog with power to look into the affairs of the Transport Commission. I say this to him, that at the present time my right hon. Friend is responsible to Parliament for the broad policy and action of the Commission. Once a year the Commission presents its Annual Report, which is debated here and can be studied in detail by hon. and right hon. Members of this House. That gives an opportunity for reviewing what the Commission is doing. In addition to that there is the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries, which can, of course, look into many aspects of its activities. These are very substantial safeguards and inform Parliament of what the Commission is doing, and, in my opinion, they are quite adequate.

My hon. Friend started with the contention that Sir Harold Howitt was less than fair to Mr. Gethin in his Report. I really think there is very little if any independent evidence to support that allegation. Sir Harold Howitt had complete freedom to investigate any aspect he thought necessary within his terms of reference. He is completely independent. Indeed, the general impression his Report has made is an impression of impartiality and thoroughness.

I understand that Sir Harold Howitt turned on to the job of this investigation about 14 of his own staff, and that they were working for eight weeks on this exclusively; that during that period, as well as studying a great many papers, they interviewed 40 responsible officials apart from the many personal contacts they had. Indeed, the Report makes it quite plain that a very thorough, careful check was done. At the end of it the Report gave, to the benefit of this House and the public, Sir Harold Howitt's own very expert judgment, as a very experienced public man and a very experienced accountant, of the balance of the information which his investigations had produced.

It is a matter of opinion whether one agrees with it or not, and it is for each one of us to decide, but my hon. Friend is taking on himself a very big responsibility in conflicting with these views, reached by Sir Harold Howitt and quite obviously generally accepted throughout the country. Sir Harold Howitt had the benefit of a complete investigation, carried out thoroughly and impartially, and, having collected all the information he thought necessary, he then reached the findings which were put in his report.