I have only four minutes left, and I want to deal with one or two other points which my hon. Friend has raised.

It was quite clear in the final result of the vacuum brake incident that although Mr. Gethin played a useful part in it, and a part that one would expect him to play, it was by no means by his responsibility alone that competition was obtained in due course.

The question of the relationship between purchasing engineers and staffs is a common problem in industry as well as on the railways, and it is a particularly difficult one. The history in the Commission is that in 1955, before Mr. Gethin arrived, the Commission had started reviewing the purchasing procedure. It knew it had a difficult problem, and, indeed, the appointment of Mr. Gethin was one way in which it was hoped to deal with the problem. He was included with the committee of senior officers which reported in October, 1956—the "Blue Report" which has been referred to and which was supported by Mr. Gethin. After much deliberation the Commission finally decided to produce a new supplies organisation in May, 1957, resulting in August, 1957, in the directive which provided for the appointment of a chief contracts officer laying down the relationship with technical departments and his duties. In paragraph 49 of the Report Sir Harold Howitt quotes that Mr. Gethin broadly agreed with this.

The chief contracts officer was appointed two months ago and is making good progress. He is establishing good relationships and a uniformity of contractual practice. Normally tenders are competitive, but where that is not the case and contracts have to be allocated, special financial safeguards are required, and it has been his responsibility to define them. Allocated contracts of over £100,000 the Commission must approve, and when they are under £100,000 either the Works and Equipment Committee or the area board approves.

There will always be some occasions when it is in the interest of the railways, as indeed with other big industrial and commercial units, for contracts to be placed without competition. It is the exception, but inevitably it arises sometimes in particular, with the modernisation of the railways when time has been such an important factor, and still is. The balance of advantage then has justified the placing of contracts by allocation and not by competitive tender. The decision as to whether or not that should be done must lie with the Commission. To limit its discretion or require special reports would undoubtedly reduce its competitive ability.

These matters are essentially within the scope of the day-to-day management of the Commission, that is to say, they are matters for the Commission and not for my right hon. Friend or for Parliament. So I must reject the suggestion of my hon. Friend that this new control should be created. A progress officer is in the course of being appointed. A production officer will be appointed in a few months when the Commission has completed its present review of production policy. This will give the necessary officers the authority about which my hon. Friend is concerned. They will have direct access to the Commission and also the right of access to the Chairman himself. That should provide a complete safeguard against the possibility about which my hon. Friend is anxious that they will not have the necessary authority and influence to cope with the very influential technical and engineering departments.

Regarding the comments of my hon. Friend about the "sacking" of Mr. Gethin, we must be clear that he left the Commission by agreement. Mr. Gethin has never made any complaint about that in public or in any other way. He left on an agreed basis and said so publicly in an agreed statement with the Commission. It was not until after he had left that he made his allegations about the Commission, and, therefore, the implications made by my hon. Friend that the Commission "sacked" him because of some clash is completely without foundation and I am surprised at my hon. Friend for making them.

The effect of my hon. Friend's suggestion would be to increase the control and direction of the Commission from the centre. I believe this is fundamentally wrong.