The President of the Purchasing Officers' Association is perfectly entitled to his view, but, of course, it is a view naturally sympathising with another purchasing officer, and I really cannot find it in my mind to agree that he is in a better position than Sir Harold Howitt to judge just where the right balance lies in these matters, and I believe very few other people will either.

The report shows that during Mr. Gethin's two years' service, or just under two years' service, he did, of course, make a useful contribution to the development of the right solution to this complex problem. He was a senior official highly paid to do just this. He did it, and, indeed, it would have been very surprising if he had not, and Sir Harold Howitt in his report gives him credit for it. Along with the Commission and other responsible officials he helped to secure competition and lower prices on the Westinghouse vacuum brake problem and to develop a stronger organisation for purchasing and contracting.

I do not propose to go into detail on the vacuum brake problem or other problems, but once again I rely on the comment that I have just made that Sir Harold had no other purpose but to make a completely impartial and independent report. He gave us the benefit of that report after very careful investigation. It would need extremely strong evidence to show that his report was either unfair or unsound. Although my hon. Friend draws a conclusion from the Westinghouse incident that Sir Harold was unsound on the overhead electrification and signalling cases.

It is not easy to decide when contracts are allocated instead of being competed for. One can only decide by collecting facts and by an expert man carefully reviewing the evidence. Sir Harold Howitt gave us the benefit of that. In the end, this is a matter for each one of us to decide whether we agree or not, but without supporting evidence, which has not yet appeared, it is very difficult indeed to reach the conclusion that Sir Harold was wrong. On the Westinghouse incident I would say only that Sir Harold concludes in paragraph 79 by saying: I do think, having regard to the amount involved and the urgency of the programme insufficient effort was made by the staff concerned "— which includes Mr. Gethin— prior to the meeting of the Supply Committee on 21st April to explore alternative source-of supply. Therefore, it was quite evident that in Sir Harold's view there could have been greater effort before. But let us be clear that at that April meeting Mr. Gethin rightly, because it was his job, called the attention of the Committee to the need to look beyond the traditional suppliers, and three days later the Commission itself was deciding something very much on the same lines. In the ensuing months, not only Mr. Gethin but Mr. Hanks, a member of the Commission, and other officers were actively engaged in following the matter up to see what competitive tenders could be obtained.