I beg to move. That leave be given to introduce a Bill to protect from future nationalisation those private industries which are in receipt of State subsidies or loans under the Cotton Industry Act 1959, the Shipbuilding Credit Act 1964 or the Fort William Pulp and Paper Mills Act 1963. The purpose of my proposed Bill is to reassure those industries that the fact that they have received grants and loans from the Government for certain purposes in the national interest will not be used as a reason, should there be a Labour Government in power next time, for nationalising them or for the State taking control of them. It is generally agreed on both sides of the House that money given under these Acts to these companies has been of great benefit both to the industries and to the areas in which they are located.

These Acts are the actions of government in this country in which we have a mixed economy. Private capital and public money, or State capital, both have an essential part to play. This is so not only in this country, but in almost every modern country today, except in the Socialist world. Both State and private capital have to play their full part if the economy of a country is to flourish. This country is no exception to the rule. Whichever Government we have in office, it will have to deal both with State and private enterprise and to co-ordinate the activities of the two in the best interests of the country.

An important factor at this stage in our history is that although both parties face the fact that we have a mixed economy there is a fundamental difference between the two parties in approach to the running of the economy. If I understand it correctly, hon. Members opposite believe in Socialism. Going back over the years, the record of the Labour Party is a mixture of Christian humanitarianism and Marxism and of great service according to its beliefs, but the essential core of that philosophy is a belief in Socialism; and if the Labour Party abandoned its Socialism it would abandon its spirit and inner drive. That is why the Labour Party, in spite of whatever economic reasons may arise, cannot abandon Clause Four. It is a fundamental fact of the situation.

I go further and say that I think that the Labour Party, when and where possible, would like the State to take control of various enterprises and industries and would like an extension of public ownership for its own sake. I do not accuse the Labour Party of being idiots. Where this approach is impossible, the Labour Party will come to terms with private industry. But by and large, and where-ever it can, it will extend public ownership and State control. That is its attitude, and there is nothing in this attitude about which it need be ashamed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I said about which the Labour Party need be ashamed, according to its ideas.

On our side, we believe that private enterprise functions in a beneficial way for the development of our economy. At the same time, when necessary, we have never been afraid of the State intervening in support of private industry and—here some of my colleagues will disagree—even of the State starting up an industry. On the other hand, hon. Members on this side of the House would do this only where we feel that it was really necessary. By and large, we believe that as much of the economy as possible, for economic, social and other reasons, should be left in private hands. That is the best and fairest way of developing our economy.

As far a 5 I understand, members of the Liberal Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]—say that this fundamental difference in approach to our economy and to the whole social outlook is completely unimportant. They say that it does not matter whether one believes in Socialism and in the State running things or whether one believes in private enterprise and wishes private enterprise forces to run the economy of the country. They say that that is quite unimportant—and this is a good example of the contribution which they have to make to our philosophy.

Speaking as a Scottish Member, I would say that the Acts in respect of shipbuilding and the Fort William Pulp Mill have been and will be of great benefit to the Highlands in particular and to Scotland in general. Hon. Members opposite are equally as keen to see them successful as we are. Perhaps I may add a word about the Fort William Pulp Mill, which is in my Constituency. I hope that I shall be forgiven for doing so. This great project, which has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, will be of immense benefit to the whole of the Highlands. The Government have agreed to make available up to £10 million in loan and grant and another £3 million for houses and ancillary services. The company has gone into this great project, both for its own advantage and profit and, at the same time, for the benefit of the Highlands and the economy of the entire country.

There have, however, been a number of remarks by hon. Members opposite which have cast doubts about the future relationship between the State and these companies. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), in the debate the other day, said that if the taxpayers were being asked to put up their money for the Fort William Pulp and Paper Mill project they were entitled to a stake in the industry. On the face of it, that is a very reasonable statement, but it must be seen against the background of statements made many times by the Leader of the Opposition, who has made his views clear in the matter, which is that "State finance means State participation in the ownership and control and in the profits." If the remarks of the right hon. Member for Belper are taken in conjunction with those of the Leader of the Opposition, who goes a stage further, it means that the State would seek control of these industries both in the running of them and in their profits. Nevertheless, if hon. Members on both sides of the House support the Bill, we can reassure these industries that they will not be taken over by the State if the party opposite comes to power. I hope that they can be reassured.

These remarks about these industries must be seen against the background of the various statements made by the Labour Party in the past and in the present. I should like to ask the Labour Party one question. If the Leader of the Opposition becomes Prime Minister, does he intend, as many hon. Members of his party undoubtedly think, to seize the commanding heights and to carry the revolution one stage further forward? Will he do that? Many people in his party support him because they think that he will. Is it his aim to seize the commanding heights and to carry the revolution one stage further politically? Or, on the other hand, will he act according to what he tells his friends privately in the City when he reassures them that he will not nationalise their industries and that they will be all right under the Labour Party? Does it mean that the men in the City are being fooled or that the back bench Members are being fooled?

Today, I am more concerned with the narrower subject of the Bill, in which we seek to reassure those industries under the three Acts I have mentioned that they will not be taken over, should there be a Labour Government, just because they have received Government funds and loans, and that State control would not be made a condition of any further funds and loans. I ask my hon. Friends on this side of the House and hon. Members opposite to support the Bill.