NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

HC Deb 08 May 1933 vol 277 cc1286-327

6.52 p.m.

Dr. WILLIAM McLEAN

With the permission of the House, I should like to refer to the Amendment standing in my name, because it is a matter which may be of some interest. In this Amendment, I venture to suggest That it would be advantageous to prepare a national development plan, or survey to assist the Government in estimating the effect of the prevailing social and economic tendencies on the nature and extent of the development for which local authorities should provide in their planning schemes; and also to assist the Government in taking any action in the light of these tendencies which may be necessary to co-ordinate and promote the trade and other developments of the country under private enterprise. In preparing a "planning" scheme, the first necessity that has to be met is to obtain some idea of the nature and extent of the development for which one has to provide. Once that has been ascertained, it is a comparatively simple matter to construct upon it the town and regional plan, with the zones for light and heavy industries, residential and shopping areas, open spaces, communications, and reserved areas for agricultural and other purposes. Without that preliminary there is a great danger that public works may be constructed and public services may be provided which will never be justified. In making these investigations, or "survey" as it is tech- nically called, to ascertain the possibilities of development, one often finds that the problem is affected by some economic or other circumstance situated outside the town boundary, or even outside the region surrounding the town. In fact, the problem may be a national one, concerning certain industries, or concerning, it may be, the construction of some important bridge, arterial road, dock, or main drainage scheme which, if constructed, would affect the development of a large area of the country. A considerable amount of regional planning has already been done throughout England, but it needs to be co-ordinated from a national viewpoint.

I remember in preparing the town-planning scheme for the city of Alexandria, 12 years ago, we planned the city and harbour as a unit. Alexandria is the commercial gateway of Egypt, and we had to consider the possibilities of the trade of the country, the rapidly increasing population, the new areas to be put into cultivation, and relative matters. We had to consider the developments that were taking place in other Mediterranean ports which might affect the future channels of trade. All this entailed consultation with various business and other interests, and, in the end, we obtained a fair picture of the future possibilities of the city and the harbour and they were planned together accordingly, for a large development which subsequent events justified. I quote this as an example of a case where, to get an idea of the nature and extent of the development to be provided for, it was necessary to make a national survey, and, to some extent, an international survey, of the problems affecting the matter. It was this work which showed the necessity for the national development plan for Egypt, of which I had the honour to be the author.

It must be admitted that planning a country like Egypt is easier than planning a highly-developed country like ours, which is more complex and contains problems of change as well as of expansion. It must be clearly understood that my proposal is not for the preparation of a national plan in the sense of a town or regional plan, but for a survey of the facts regarding the development of industry and other matters from the national view-point; and then to make an examination, to ascertain the prevailing tendencies as exhibited by those facts. The survey might be usefully extended so that, in addition to the economic survey, there might be an examination of other matters of national importance affecting the development of the towns and regions. Much work has already been done: for example, the national electricity grid, the large main-drainage projects, river purification, the regional allocation of water supply catchment areas throughout the country, and also the main lines of communication. These matters have all been dealt with by separate Government Departments, and committees, but the national aspect has never yet been co-ordinated.

The Ministry of Health have laid great stress upon the need for regional planning, emphasising the need for close examination of local tendencies and conditions, in consultation with the local interests concerned. That is the only way to get down to the facts. They have also endeavoured to check the planning proposals submitted to them from the national point of view, in consultation with other Departments concerned. I submit that a comprehensive national survey, on the lines suggested, would be of great value for these purposes, and also for informing the local authorities, as well as private interests. It is urgent for us to know the prevailing social and economic tendencies in national development, not only for planning purposes, but also to assist the Government in any action which may be necessary in promoting trade, and in other matters. The examination of the results of this survey to ascertain these tendencies, taken along with what is revealed by the Census in the way of population changes, from which to estimate developments, is in the nature of planning ahead; and it is in this limited sense I would here use the phrase "national development planning."

In order to prepare the survey, I would suggest that it is necessary to form a National Development Survey Committee of representatives of the Government Departments concerned, with perhaps the addition of outside bodies in an advisory capacity. The Government Departments interested appear to be, first of all, the Board of Trade and the Ministries of Agriculture, Transport, Health and Labour. To these you might add the Scottish Office, the Electricity, Forestry and Development Commissions, and the Economic Advisory Council. The committee would study and collate all the information available regarding trade development. It would note the tendencies in industrial expansion and contraction. It would take special account of resources and industries of national importance and what is being done, or is proposed to be done, in the reorganisation of industry. In other words, it would make a survey, so far as is necessary or possible, to give a general picture of production, markets and the prospects of the future.

A great deal of information, of course, exists, but, being uncollated, its value is rather limited. The town and regional development surveys of the local authorities, and also those of the industrial development councils throughout the country, would be done concurrently with the national survey on the same matter. The National Development Survey Committee would be able to guide, generally, the lines of these local surveys, and would correlate the results as they became available. The work of the committee would doubtless be published periodically, and it would require continual revision as circumstances changed. The result of this industry and resources survey, and the examination to ascertain the prevailing economic tendencies, taken along with the population changes revealed by the Census, would probably be sufficient to enable estimates to be made of the effect upon the nature and extent of the development to be provided in the local authorities' planning schemes.

The survey would also be useful in other ways. For example, it would help to supply the Government, and the local authorities, with an economic background so that the necessity for the construction of public works might be more easily judged. Again, slum clearances would be facilitated with regard to rehousing; whether to be on the same or other sites. That would be assisted by the knowledge of the economic and geographical tendencies of industrial development, and consequent employment. It is further suggested that, in the light of the ascertained tendencies, and by the co-ordinated study of the results of the survey by the committee, the Government would be assisted in taking any action necessary to promote the trade and industry of the country. The information to be gained from the survey would be useful to the Import Duties Advisory Committee in dealing with the possibility of development of industries and determining how far any measure of Protection was resulting in expansion. It is obviously necessary, in planning the tariff policy of the country, that the Government should have accurate and up-to-date information regarding the industrial development which has taken place, or is likely to take place, under the stimulus of our changed fiscal policy. One might also hope that the survey would provide information regarding the geographical distribution of industry and the tendencies to expansion and contraction, which would facilitate the consideration of the reorganisation problem. The information would also be useful in the problem of the industrial revival in, and the drift of industries from, the depressed areas, of which my constituency, unfortunately, is an example.

Most of these remarks regarding industry are equally applicable to agriculture, and the results of the work to be done by the Market Supply Committee, which the Government propose to set up, would be extremely useful in the national development survey. Whatever may be the view as to the value of this survey in assisting any Government or other action in the. economic problems of trade development—that is with regard to the second part of my Amendment—I submit, with regard to the first part, that is the development planning problems, a long practical experience tells me that all our planning must be based upon the future needs of trade and industry, and that this survey is necessary. The Board of Trade I hope will very carefully consider this proposal which I venture to put forward. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to favour me with some reply. In conclusion I would like to remark again that the difficulty of this investigation, and the uncertainty of the result in a highly developed country such as ours, is not a reason for making no investigation at all. Rather it is a reason for so widening the scope of the survey that it will form the very best basis possible for our planning and assist any action for the recovery of the country.

7.12 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY

I would like to support my hon. Friend in this question which he has raised. It is peculiarly appropriate to raise it in this Debate. The question of whether you, Mr. Speaker, should leave the Chair is traditionally bound up with putting forward the chief grievances from which the country suffers before entering into Committee of Supply and voting Supply to the Crown. Now if there is one thing which this House has to demand of the executive it is planning ahead at the present moment. Planning is, I believe, far more fundamental, and far more urgent, than even my hon. Friend has suggested. It is peculiarly appropriate, too, that this question should be raised when it is a question of going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates this year.

What are the Estimates which we are about to consider in Committee of Supply? Their whole character is that of marking time. They neither represent any effort at large scale, far-reaching permanent economies, nor do they provide, on the other hand, for any positive, or deliberate, development of any of the Civil services. They continue the provisional, and temporary, so-called cuts made 18 months ago in, for instance, teachers' salaries and policemen's salaries. They continue them only provisionally for one year, and no effort has been made by His Majesty's Government to reach any new, or more permanent, basis for these expenditures. In the case of teachers' salaries, the Burnham Committee is still inanimate. No attempt has been made to plan a future scale that extends to this service. Why have these Estimates this wholly provisional character? Here, again, this Debate is appropriate to what we are to have in the two succeeding days. The Government are marking time because they have pinned their whole faith, rather hesitatingly, and not with any great display of confidence—and in this they are at one with the great majority of the experts of this country and other countries—to the possibility of raising commodity prices by international action. That is the policy which they have announced.

The economic problem with which we have to deal is that of the fact that rates of interest on capital and the wages and salaries of labour are wholly out of relation with the level of commodity prices, except in a few unfortunate industries—the heavy industries—where already wages have been forced down to meet the fall in commodity prices, but, even so, have hardly been forced down sufficiently to correspond with that fall. There are only two possible solutions of that problem—either to raise commodity prices, or to reduce the general level of rates of interest on capital and of wages and salaries. I am not going to enter now into the question of the proper share of the sacrifice which should be made by capital and by labour, except to say that I believe that in that matter there is no question of choice, but that infinitely the bigger sacrifice will have to be made by capital, because it is capital which more than anything else is being devalued by the character of the present situation. I do not want, however, to go into those wide questions to-day.

The Government, pinning their faith to the possibility of raising commodity prices by international action, have decided to mark time this year. A year ago the whole House in every quarter was impressed by the need for the reduction of Government expenditure, if that could be brought about. The Government had their advisers. They had two economic committees, one appointed by the Government, and one self-appointed by itself. Those committees have reported, but the Government have decided for this year to take no action upon their reports. On the other hand—and this is the circle in which we always go in these matters—while, immediately after the Budget, we were all clamouring for economy, six months afterwards we were all clamouring for development. Six months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan) and others of us pressed the Government for expansion, but there again the Government have decided not to follow that advice either, but to take the middle course and mark time.

Suppose, however, that it should turn out that the policy of raising commodity prices by international action is not practicable, that commodity prices cannot be raised to anything like the level of 1929, that the whole momentum of our civilisation appears to be slowing down to such an extent that it is impossible to maintain the value of a large range of the commodities on which the life of the whole world has depended in the past, and especially capital goods such as iron and steel. I sometimes wonder how so many people, especially hon. Gentlemen opposite, can speak so much and so often about our living in a, world of plenty, and yet expect that in a world of plenty, where it is relatively easy to produce large quantities of goods, and where, with a declining population immediately in prospect, and taking into consideration our command of national resources, our power of supplying their needs is so much enhanced, the conclusion can be resisted that there must be a reduction in the value of goods which it is so easy to produce and which are becoming so common.

In any case, whether that be true or not, it is at least possible that this effort will fail, that it will be impossible to raise commodity prices in that way; and what will be the position of the Government then—what will be the position of any Government 7 They cannot go on with these mark-time Estimates year after year. Next year they will have to adopt a positive policy in relation to what they have discovered in their international negotiations, the proceedings of the World Economic Conference and their international agreements. Are the Government working on any plan, any scheme whereby they can make a plan of their future policy? These are matters which will have to be considered in a comprehensive plan. My hon. Friend will understand me when I say that he has approached the question mainly from the point of view of town planning on a large scale. In that I agree with him. I think it is extraordinarily pathetic, and, indeed, one would think one was living in a world of Alice in Wonderland, when one opens the daily Press and finds eminent gentlemen, great authorities on housing and town planning, commenting on the surprising fact that the number of families has increased very much between the last two censuses, and assuming that that increase in the number of families and the decrease in the average size of the family must necessarily continue in the future. They ignore the obvious fact that there are more women of marriageable age, between 15 and 50, than there ever were before, so that naturally the number of families is correspondingly increased; and they ignore also the ascertained fact that in the immediate future the number of women of that age will be greatly and steadily reduced, and that, therefore, in all probability—indeed it is a certainty —the number of families must go down again.

When these plain facts are ignored by gentlemen who have devoted their lives and energies to these questions, one has impressed upon one the urgent necessity, even in the narrowest sphere of town planning, for such a large-scale investigation of the facts as my hon. Friend has suggested—an investigation on such a scale that only the Government can provide it; and, if it is so necessary merely on the ground of town planning, surely it is even more necessary still on the wider ground that I have tried to indicate. If it is utterly useless—and it is useless and would be absurd—to press on the Government this year schemes of large-scale economy, if the Government are perfectly right, as, indeed, I think they are, in marking time as they are doing, it is all the more necessary that they should have their plans laid for what they propose to do in certain eventualities a year hence.

Perhaps I may conclude with one irreverent remark—irreverent to this House more than to the Government. I have sometimes wondered whether, in debating whether you, Mr. Speaker, shall leave the Chair, we are not indulging in an out-drawn farce which no longer corresponds to the real facts. Why, one might ask, is it necessary for this House to resolve itself into Committee of Supply? We shall not be able, under the Rules of the House, to discuss any matter of real importance on the Estimates in Committee of Supply. There is no question of importance on the Estimates in the present situation, with the approaching fundamental changes in the whole of our social conditions and the, organisation of our life—there is no single question which can be discussed without bringing in the consideration of legislation, and that will be completely out of order when the Faithful Commons in Committee of Supply proceed to consider the Votes which they are to make to the Crown. If this House in the future is to deal adequately with the voting of money, we shall need a fundamental alteration in our Rules of Procedure, and, until that alteration is made, I sometimes doubt whether our proceedings in this regard are not very much in the nature of a farce.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH

I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Tradeston (Dr. McLean) on having raised this subject, and on the speech in which he introduced it. I do not suppose that there is anyone in the House who is more qualified than he to introduce a question of this kind. I notice that a certain valuable work of reference states that he was actually responsible for a planning scheme for the city of Jerusalem, and I think that a man who is capable of planning a New Jerusalem is exactly the man that we need at the present time. I agree also with the terms of the Resolution which he has placed on the Order Paper. It ends with the words "under private enterprise," and, therefore, presumably, will not commend itself to hon. Members opposite, but that fact certainly commended it to me, because, in the natural development to which my hon. Friend is looking forward, he obviously envisages private enterprise as a main activity in the development of the future.

At the same time—and it is the combination of ideas that I like—there are several lines in the Resolution, before he comes to private enterprise, in which he indicates that a great deal of national planning and national activity is necessary in order that private enterprise may function properly. With that I agree entirely, and it was exactly the point of view taken in 1928 by those who were responsible for a book called "Britain's Industrial Future." I do not know whether my hon. Friend has read it, but it is significant that the personnel of the Committee on National Development which he has himself suggested is exactly similar in every particular to that set forth on page 286 of the book to which I have referred. I am not seeking in any way to claim patent rights for any party or any group of men in ideas of this kind; it matters little to us on these benches who makes this survey, who acquires this knowledge which is so necessary, so long as it is done, and so long as the knowledge acquired is used. I only ventured to quote that book as showing that these ideas are common to Members in all parts of the House, and that fact ought to commend them to a National Government. The Government are very fond of exploring avenues, and they have here an avenue which I think they ought to explore to the fullest.

I should understand the functions of such a development committee in a rather wider sense, such as was suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). The town planning side is very important, and it is natural that the Mover of the Resolution should lay a great deal of emphasis upon it, but the town planning side is only a part of the far wider problem. What are we going to do with the population of this country, a population who have gone to various centres, who have gone to live in various towns and districts, because there was new wealth there, or some other natural resources which enabled them to work and get their living? Now those resources are no longer enabling them to get their living in those places, and the question how our towns are to develop is absolutely bound up with the far wider question of what we are going to do with our population, and that is a question which no Government can now ignore.

One does not need to be any kind of Socialist to see that any Government, of whatever party, has to take on a measure of responsibility and control over the lives of the people which would probably have horrified Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone said many wise things, but some of them, I think, cannot apply altogether now. When he said that money must be left to fructify in the pockets of the people, that was, no doubt, true. If money is taken to too great an extent from the pockets of the people, industry will suffer. But if the underlying assumption that, if you left money in the pockets of the people, it would automatically find its best outlet without any kind of planning or looking ahead, and would automatically find such an outlet as would give the greatest amount of employment was true in Mr. Gladstone's day, it is certainly not true now. We have only to look at what is happening around us at present. If you want to lend your money to the bank, the bank will hardly take it, because it cannot itself lend. It is not only labour but, capital that is on the dole, standing idle in the market place. That is the situation which we must meet by planning. The situation has changed, because the easy times of the last century from the point of view of trade are gone, probably never to return. The times when, in the words of ancient Pistol, the world was our oyster which we with sword would open, when every corner of the earth was a profitable sphere of activity for our trade, have passed away and it is difficult to see them returning in equal measure, with an impoverished India and a disorganised China, with the small States of South America and Central Europe in a position in which they are unable to make an effective economic demand for our goods, with new competitors in the field, such as Japan stepping in to compete in industries which we had regarded as our Own.

We have another factor added by this Government in the last few months that, by a system, of tariffs, the rightness or wrongness which I will not discuss now, the Government have elected for the development of home industry—supplying home needs—rather than looking in the main to the export trade. It is a deliberate choice. I am not saying whether it is a right or a wrong choice, but it means that the Government have taken on an additional responsibility for examining all the sources of home development in order that that source of employment to which they have devoted themselves may be developed to the widest possible extent. All these changing circumstances are altering, in one district and another, the factors which lead to employment. It means that districts which in the past were densely populated cannot now, by their own efforts and their own resources, sustain that population any more. That is why we have a distressed areas problem, and why we have to go to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour and implore them to find some means of helping us to carry the burden which we can no longer bear locally. The future plans of the Government with regard to rating, town planning and everything else depend on what the Government really think they are going to do with our population. In Middlesbrough we have 16 per cent. of the total population unemployed—more than half the insured population. What is going to happen to them? What idea have the Government in their mind?

There are three courses that may be adopted in dealing with it, and they all require knowledge if they are to be carried out. They all require the kind of knowledge and the kind of inquiry which the hon. Member who spoke first suggested. In the first place, the Government may think we are going to get them back in the end at work again in their own industries. With regard to iron and steel and coal, I do not believe that any Member of the Government can seriously believe for a minute that in the near future, at any rate, they are going to get the major part of those who are unemployed back into those industries. They cannot suppose it. Even if you could get back to the fullest production that has ever been known in those districts, it would not employ the total number of people that we have. There has been a change of method. In a way the tragic thing is that inefficiency and efficiency lead very largely to the same insult. If you are inefficient in your industries, you lose your export trade in competition. If you are frightfully efficient, you invent new methods whereby you produce the same volume of stuff with fewer hands. Nevertheless, the Government should at least try to find out and try to form some reliable estimate for themselves, if their policy of tariffs is successful, and if their desires are fulfilled, as to how many they expect to get back in those districts into the industries to which they naturally belong. That is the first step. No effort has been taken along that line since the Industrial Transference Board in 1928. The situation is very different from what is was then.

Perhaps the Government are considering that these men are going to be taken somewhere else and put into some other industries. I do not quite see the industries that are going to take up these hundreds of thousands of men from coal, iron and steel and the textiles and the other trades. I wish I could. But, if the Government think that to any large extent it can be done, they ought to inform themselves with the greatest rapidity and thoroughness as to where the transference is likely to go. It is no good expecting Middlesbrough and Coventry, for instance, each to make proper plans for the development of their future when they do not know whether perhaps a large part of the population is going to be shifted into some new industry. If that is what is going to be done with these people in the end, we need to know and we need to plan. Of course, there is the third and most melancholy possibility that perhaps the Government have no plans for the future, for any future that we need consider now, either to get those men back to work in their own trades or in others. But even that decision requires knowledge and requires planning because, if the Government make up their mind that this large population is not going to get back into employment either in their own trade or in others, they have to make some kind of future for these people, they have to make some kind of arrangement, either by reduction of hours or working part time, whereby these peoples' vitality and industrial usefulness might be in some way preserved. It would be better to keep all the people working some of the time than that some of them should never be working at all. Which of these courses is to be pursued, or which combination of them is to be pursued, must depend upon having accurate knowledge of the situation. It is knowledge of that kind for which the survey which we asked in our industrial policy in 1928, and for which the hon. Member for Tradeston is asking to-day—it is a survey of that kind alone which could supply the materials that we need.

Last Monday my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) asked the Lord President of the Council whether the Government will present to the House a programme, in accordance with that part of the statement issued by the Prime Minister in conjunction with the President of the United States, which declares that Governments can create conditions favourable to business recovery by the development of appropriate programmes of capital expenditure? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1933; col. 501, Vol. 277.] The Lord President of the Council replied that the passage indicated that the questions there raised were all inter-related and could not be settled by any individual country acting by itself. One is at least entitled to assume that this matter has been discussed between our Prime Minister and the President of the United States and that it is going to be an important part of the discussion at the World Economic Conference. If so, there surely can be no harm in our arming ourselves at the earliest possible moment with the information that we shall need if we are to make the kind of capital expenditure that was suggested by my right hon. Friend's question. The great tragedy of it is flat one is always waiting for something to happen—some election or some conference somewhere. When the last Government was in power, first one Minister was appointed to deal with this subject and then another, but there was always some reason why delay was to take place. I am not making any recriminations about the past, but in the future things may move more rapidly and, if, as I hope, this policy of increased capital expenditure is going to be made possible, we must at the earliest moment fit ourselves for putting it into effect.

Everyone must have read in the "Times" the proposals of Mr. Keynes on this subject. I do not suppose that everyone will agree with every word of his suggestions, but surely he was right when he said that the only effective means of creating new demand and raising world prices was the increase of capital development by loan expenditure. I think that, whether the details of the plan with regard to international gold notes are possible or not, there, at any rate, in that statement of the problem he was right, and also when he said that the primary task of the World Economic Conference would be to revive a parched world by releasing a million rivulets of spending power. If that is to be done, we need to acquire the in formation which will enable us to make that capital expenditure upon the soundest possible basis. I do not want to see the money wasted any more than the fiercest economist in the House. The way to prevent it being wasted is to acquire the appropriate information at the earliest possible moment. If the Government did that, let them go into the usefulness of this or that kind of expenditure suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), or anyone else, and criticise it. We once produced a Yellow Book on the subject of unemployment which was laughed at by many as a mere party manoeuvre. If the Government think that was not sound, they must produce their own green or yellow book, or whatever it may he, with things that are sound and possible. They, as a Government, have opportunities of information far beyond that of any opposition party or private Member, and they need to tackle the question at the earliest possible moment. They cannot deny that there are things that are needed—things that could now be done.

We have heard from the Minister of Health to-day with regard to two methods of development—drainage and water supply. He said it was only a question of getting money. If the money could be provided for it, there was no purpose, probably, on which it could be better spent. It is recognised by one of the most prominent Ministers as being an urgent need which he is only prevented from fulfilling because he cannot lay his hands on the pounds, shillings and pence with which to proceed. The construction of bridges, thousands of which were recommended to be reconditioned in each year in the Transport Committee's Report, is not only a matter of the direct employment that would be given. There is the demand in the iron and steel trade for the very work which large numbers of the unemployed are qualified to do.

Other schemes could be put forward. Housing on a far larger scale than anything hitherto put forward, on a scale more like that put forward by Sir Tudor Walters when he was in this House could be put forward. Such a scheme would be far easier now than it was when Sir Tudor Walters brought forward his scheme. Money and materials are cheaper, and there is any amount of labour willing and waiting to undertake the work. All these avenues of profitable capital expenditure are waiting if and when the Government, the President of the United States and the other people who will meet in the World Economic Conference can make up their minds that it is worth while. I hope we shall not regard ourselves as hopelessly tied and bound by the decisions of other people in the conference. I freely admit that a far greater success can be made of capital development and of an expansionist policy if the principal countries of the world, if we, the United States and France, work together. It is far easier and more likely to be a success than if we move alone. We should not resign ourselves to hopelessness and inaction if we find that other people will not go with us, or will not go all the way with us. We should, at any rate, be able to do something for ourselves.

I hope that no one here will consider, to whatever party he belongs, that too much responsibility is being put upon the Government and that too much is being asked from them. In these days Governments have to undertake increasingly responsibility of planning. The world is too crowded and the problems are too insistent to allow the mere automatic play of the forces of supply and demand to be left to be settled without any responsibility. That has been the constantly increasing tendency among people who are not Socialists at all. It was so in the Liberal Government between 1906 and 1914, and in this Government we have had two Measures, at any rate, which would have been regarded as entirely outside the scope of Governments not so many years ago—the Exchange Equalisation Account, taking on a big responsibility in a matter which, in the old days, was left purely to chance, and the Bill introduced the other day by the Minister of Transport dealing with rail and road traffic. I am not speaking as to the merits of that Bill, but as to its object. The object claimed by the Minister of Transport was that by this Bill the Government were trying to bring order out of chaos, even in the one realm of traffic. I ask that we should, by adopting suggestions of the hon. Member for Tradeston as a nation, endeavour to bring order out of chaos in a great many other things as well. We are living in a time of great changes in every department of our life. We are, in the words of the title of the work by the late Charles Masterman, in the greatest peril of change if we do not seek to master and to get control of it. The question is whether that change shall in future be a leap in the dark, or whether it shall be an ordered march forward to a goal clearly envisaged and foreseen.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE

I think that the whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Tradeston (Dr. McLean) for his very clear and admirable speech in which he gave us the benefit of his practical experience. His speech has been followed by speeches by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) and by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) which seemed to show a very great degree of unanimity. We must all regret that there is no Member of the Cabinet present to hear these speeches from supporters of the Government. We have, it is true, an admirable representative in the Parliamentary Secretary, but, naturally, he cannot speak with regard to policy. Policy is not his line. I echo the complaint made by the Noble Lord and others that it is a lesson in planning which the Government need particularly. It is the absence of planning which has disheartened everybody so much. Look at what has occurred in the last few days. We have had a discussion in the House on the subject of trade agreements, and we are to have another one in the course of this week. It is clear that the Minister in charge of the trade agreements had no idea at all of any national planning. We are to have the Minister of Agriculture speaking again shortly. He is to bring in more of his planning, because he is the one planning Minister in the Government. He is planning agriculture. He is to plan fishing, but he does not seem to be linked up in the slightest degree with the President of the Board of Trade. It is possible when he has made all his fishing arrangements that he will find that the fish have been sold, and that when the fishing industry think that they are in a secure position, they will find that the whole thing is upset by some trade agreement made by the President of the Board of Trade. That is only by the way as an illustration of the entire lack of planning.

Take the speeches of the Prime Minister. There is never a sign of planning. There is not the slightest suggestion that he has any grasp of what is happening. The hon. Member who raised this matter dealt, to a large extent, with the question of town and regional planning. That is a very important side of the question, but he did not exclude the question of industrial planning. That point was stressed by the Noble Lord. Our position is that you must have geographical planning with regard to areas and to industry. I entirely agree that we should have some expert body set up, but it is no good having an expert body set up unless you have a, Government who know how to use experts and are prepared to take responsibility and to act upon their advice. The fault of the use of the Economic Advisory Committee is that it may give lots of advice, but there is no acting upon it, and it has never been utilised in any degree with regard to planning.

I wish to put forward one or two points on the planning question. Is it not rather odd that this House is in a process of giving the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer power to deal with the planning of the exchanges? This House has granted him another £200,000,000, a very considerable sum, to play with. I do not want to enter into currency squabbles again, but a very high authority said that he was playing "blind hokey," whatever that is, and another very high authority said it was a very dangerous game to play. But the House is willing to trust the right hon. Gentleman with £350,000,000—I think it is rather more, some £375,000,000—to smooth out the inequalities of the exchange, and yet if you suggest a mere £100,000,000 to smooth out the inequalities of industry they will say that it is extravagant.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to the House what he means by "the inequalities of industry."

Mr. ATTLEE

Perhaps if the hon. Member will have a little patience, he will allow me to make my point. The point is that you have the adoption of planning by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in so far as he intends to use large sums of money to deal with the exchanges and to keep the exchanges steady.

Mr. BRAITHWAITE

With one exchange.

Mr. ATTLEE

Really, that is not a very good point. Whether it is one, two, three, or four does not matter. Will the hon. Member try to grasp the point of the argument? The argument is, whether it is one, two or three, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be provided with £350,000,000 in order to keep the exchanges steady. The phrase was "to smooth out exchange inequalities." Perhaps the hon. Member will agree that it partakes of the nature of planning by State interference to try to make smooth the business of exchange. The hon. Member agrees?

Mr. BRAITHWAITE

Not entirely.

Mr. ATTLEE

The hon. Member must fight it out with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We hear on the other hand of the refusal of the Government to use large sums of public money for trying to get some planning into our economic life. We have had a good deal of examination of the question of the direction of capital in this country. We have had a number of reports such as the Colwyn Report and the Macmillan Report, and we have had statements made in the House on the very great waste of capital due to its misdirection and loss. I need not labour the very great loss to this country by the non-direction of capital. A friend of mine has made art inquiry. He took a particular year with regard to the issue of capital which we thought was going to British industry, and a careful examination showed that while the Colwyn Committee thought that £200,000,000 a year was being put into industry, as a matter of fact 10 per cent. went in issuing expenses, advertising and so forth, while the greater part of the rest went, not into new capital but in buying up existing plant. Quite apart from that, we have the loss of capital invested. There is just as much cause for careful direction of capital as there is for a careful direction of labour. Unless you get control of capital investment you cannot get the planning of this country. We believe that there should be a National Investment Board. The present system has failed very badly to guide capital into the directions where is is most needed.

The only thing of which I have to complain in the Amendment of the hon. Member is that he seemed to think that everything must be by private enterprise. I do not think that he realises sufficiently the extent to which you will have to interfere with private enterprise if you want to get any real planning. I have spoken of direction of capital. Where should capital be directed at present? That depends upon your national plan. We understand that the plan of this country—or we did understand until a week ago, anyhow—is to have a very big development of agricultural production. I am not so sure now. It does not look as if the President of the Board of Trade is altogether in favour of it. The Minister of Health, I understand, said the other day that there was not any very great need for rural housing, so it looked as though he did not believe in any very great agricultural development. Whether it is right or wrong, assume for the moment that you believe that we have to produce a great deal more from our land, and that all these various methods, quotas, tariffs and so forth are necessary, if they are to be successful, it is clear that a Government which really intended that end would proceed to take steps to see that capital was put into the agricultural industry—the industry that is going to be prosperous. You may say that it is worth while equipping farms, draining land, starting ancilliary factories and other things like that, but you cannot get a change rapidly by merely making conditions and then hoping that capital is going to flow in there. Capital does not flow just where it is socially wanted. It flows where for the moment it thinks it will make the biggest profit. If it thinks it will make more profit in a cinema, it will go there rather than to agriculture.

The next question is that of the location of industry. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough dealt with that question to some extent. I should like the House to recollect what is happening. We hear very often of the extraordinary shifting of industry, broadly speaking, from the north to the south east but nothing is done about it. Figures have been got out with regard to expanding industries during the years 1924–1929. If we mark these figures on a map, we find that the only depressed area where there has been any considerable advance has been on Teesside. If we take all the other expanding industries, we find that they are moving to the south or the Midlands. Take the question of motor cars. In the five years in question 43,000 extra persons were employed in the motor industry, of whom 41,000 were in the Birmingham area, London and the south eastern area. Out of 29,000 additional employés in the silk industry only about 7,000 are employed in the textile areas, where unemployment is so high, and 22,000 in the Midlands and the south east. Take furniture, 15,000 out of 25,000 additional employés are located in London, of engineering expansion, 50 per cent. has come to London; of electric cables and lamps, 70 per cent. has come to London; scientific instruments, 70 per cent. to London; musical instruments, 80 per cent to London.

You can go through expanding industry after expanding industry and you find that all the newer industries are settling in one particular part of the country. If you move about in the London area you can see what is happening. I live in an expanding industrial area in North London, and reside in the Edgware Road. We see new houses, new factories, new industrial regions drawing capital away from the older industrial regions. It may be that it is right that population and industry should come into the southeastern area. It may be that it is right that there should be a decline from Yorkshire and Lancashire and the north-east coast, but, if so, it is obviously futile for the Government to attempt to bolster up the depressed areas. If they were to make a decision they might think it possible to cut the losses in the North and shift the people rather than keep on doling out money here and there to keep the depressed areas going, or they might have a different plan. They might decide that in view of the large amount of social capital sunk in those areas the right thing was to attract new industries there, and to take steps to do it. But at present there is no Government office really dealing with this business comprehensively. The Minister of Transport deals with roads, electricity and so forth. The Minister of Health deals with houses, etc. The Board of Trade is concerned with its tariffs and quotas, and the Minister of Agriculture is concerned with his schemes, but there is no comprehensive plan among the lot of them. The Minister of Labour continues to produce gloomy figures with no power to grapple with the things.

What we demand and what is being demanded increasingly, not merely by Socialists, but by all people who think, is that you should have some plan instead of chaos, and that the Government should take action. I am not concerned to discuss the limitations of State interference, how much the State should do and how much or how little it should leave to private enterprise. That is a matter of degree. The essential point, as the hon. Member has put it in his Motion, is that, first of all, you should have the formation of a plan and, secondly, that you should have a Government prepared to act on that plan. It has been said this afternoon that the Government are waiting to see what is going to be done by other countries, what is going to happen under international agreements, or attempts at international agreements. To-morrow, we are to hear from the Prime Minister, I understand, something about the World Economic Conference, or something of what happened at the meetings in the United States of America. I leave it to hon. Members whether they are sanguine of getting to know much more about the objects of the Government by to-morrow evening than they know to-day. I do not believe that at the present time anything is going to come of very great importance, because I do not think the Government are united on any plan whatever. They are not united as to whether they want this country insulated as far as possible on a comparatively narrow protective basis, whether they want some kind of Imperial zollverein, some large grouping on a sterling basis, or whether they want to work back to Free Trade. You can find traces of all these ideas in the speeches of Ministers, but I suggest that you will not find a coherent plan among the lot of them.—[AN. HON. MEMBER: "Nor among the Opposition either."]—We believe that you must have a national plan and an international plan, but unless you have some clear idea as to what you intend to be the economic future of the country, we do not believe that it is much good going into a conference and talking with a lot of other people who are equally ignorant of what they are doing. You do not get very far by having a lot of blind men meeting together. I do not think they are likely to go very far. Whatever may be the Government's views of the future of this country, they have to come to a clear determination on what kind of society they want in this country. That is probably a point at which I shall find myself diverging from the hon. Member who moved the Motion, and the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings. What kind of industry you desire, what kind of local development you desire, what kind of educational institution you desire, what kind of houses you desire, must depend on what kind of society you expect to see in future in this country. We desire to see a society increasingly equalitarian. We think that you have to look to building up a high standard of civilisation in this country, which we believe you can have, and that you have to do that with an eye to taking advantage of that age of plenty of which the Noble Lord has spoken, and an age of plentiful production which can only be met by an age of plentiful and widely distributed consumption.

To that end, we recognise that the Government are taking certain tentative steps which will be useful in the future. The Minister of Agriculture is gradually putting himself in a position in which it will be only one step for him to control the whole of the importation of our foodstuffs. It will be possible, with the power that he has now, to lay down an organised plan for the rural side of life in this country, and to see that that is carried out. We on this side do not stand for any reversion to laissez faire. If we find that this particular industry or that particular industry is needed in this country, we have no hesitation in securing that it shall be carried on successfully. The disaster of having no plan and the disaster of not acting in the national interest was shown by the deplorable spectacle in this House last week, and we are going to have the same thing again this week, in which arrangements on one side are opposed by one particular interest. I am not saying that the financial interest involved is that of hon. Members, but it is a fact that certain Members interested in certain trades opposed the action of the Government. The Government have made no decision whatever as to whether it is desirable that we should produce coal, or mechanical instruments, or cheap jewellery. This week we are going to have, no doubt, an attack on the Government in regard to the agricultural interests, and again the Government will ride off on something without having made any decision as to the degree of production that we want in agriculture, or from mines or from manufactures. We claim that so long as you go merely on the line of protecting local groups, or certain private capitalist groups, or various separate interests, you cannot effectively deal with the present situation, and you cannot have an effective plan.

One last word in regard to the depressed areas. We have heard a great deal about the depressed areas from the group of hon. Members who do not, however, deal with the depressed areas from the point of view of the sheer waste of their existence. Those very same Members talk about economy in regard to general expenditure, and then they want special expenditure for the depressed areas. The point is, that unless you can have a plan for this country you cannot deal with the depressed areas. The depressed areas are far more wasteful at the present time than all the sources of waste that will be discussed when the Estimates come before us. Member after Member will talk about economy, about pens, paper, telephones, motor cars and all kinds of little things, but the really enormous waste in this country is the waste of the productive capacity of 3,000,000 people and the waste of capital sunk in those derelict areas. In our view the time has come to cease to think that after a period of waiting, somehow or other, there will be some national recovery in those areas. We believe that you have to cut that waste by positive Government action. We say that the hon. Member for Tradeston is right in his Amendment, but we want him to follow it up with the demand that the Government should act, that the Government should have a plan for the utilisation of the natural resources of this country, for the utilisation of the labour of the people and the utilisation of the capital of this country, upon an organised economic basis which would produce the highest possible standard of life for the whole of the people.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. STOREY

The House is indebted to the hon. Member for the Tradeston division (Dr. McLean) for drawing attention to the need for a national plan of development, and I am particularly grateful to him because I represent an area where there is an urgent need for co-ordinated action if something is to be done for our principal industry, shipbuilding, and if something is to be done to find work for the many people in the North of England who are not likely to find employment again in their own trades. The hon. Member for Lime- house (Mr. Attlee) has referred to the appalling waste of the depressed areas, and, therefore, I need offer no excuse to hon. Members for asking them to give their attention for a few moments to the great industry of shipbuilding. It is one of the disadvantages of the shipbuilding industry that the demand fluctuates; in a boom year we build many more ships than we do in a, time of slump. That disadvantage is more marked in shipbuilding than in any other of our great basic industries. Fluctuations in world trade are immediately followed by fluctuations in shipping freights. Orders for new ships follow upon a rise in shipping freights. But ships take time to build, and there is some interval of time between a peak of high freights and the peak of delivery of new vessels. The peak of high freights is passed before the peak of the output of new vessels is reached. The delivery of these new vessels further depresses the fall in freights.

It would be much better for shipping and the shipbuilding industry if a more scientific consideration was given to the demand for tonnage, if a co-ordinated plan for supplying it could so arrange matters that the peak of delivery of new vessels should come before, or at any rate should synchronise with, the peak of high freights. It is difficult for anyone to judge what will be the future demand for shipping. At the present moment we have so many restrictions upon world trade, a great amount of tonnage which is lying idle, and there are still in existence many ships which are over due for replacement. But very careful consideration of the figures of past construction, both for replacement and for new tonnage, lends some belief to an estimate which has been made that for the years 1931 to 1937 we may expect an annual demand for new tonnage of round about one and one-third million tons. In 1931 we only built 502,000 tons, and in 1932 we built as little as 188,000 tons. After two such years we may expect a boom to come soon.

But why wait for a boom in freights? Why not anticipate it? Why not act so that the peak of delivery of new ships shall precede the peak in freights, not follow it? To do such a thing, to plan for that, would be an act of courage, and when we remember the increased efficiency of the modern cargo vessel, and the enormous advantage which will accrue to the nation which possesses it, it would also be an act of wisdom. I do not intend to weary the House with the details of the many schemes which have been placed before it and before the country to help shipbuilding. They all involve the building of new, efficient tonnage. They all involve the scrapping of a larger quantity of old and inefficient tonnage, and they all involve some measure of Government assistance in the way of guarantees of credit to enable shipowners to place the necessary orders. I submit that the schemes which have been put forward are a basis for a serious investigation by the Government of the whole problem of shipping and shipbuilding. Such a plan, if the Government would only produce one, would help to equip our mercantile marine and enable it to look forward with some confidence to the serious competition which it will have to meet in the future.

There is one other reason why I support the Amendment before the Douse. Representing as I do the town of Sunderland we have to face the fact that although we may revive shipbuilding we can never again expect to employ the whole of the people in their own trades. No less than five of our shipyards on the Wear have been closed down, dismantled, and will never build another ship. We are faced with the problem of having to find new industries to employ not only our old tradesmen, who will never again follow their old crafts, but that greater body of young men who are coming forward and who have never had the advantage of serving their apprenticeship to a skilled craft. If we are to get away from the waste of good material in the distressed areas the Government must bring forward some plan which will provide new work, and a new hope, to the people of these districts, which will utilise the great advantage they have in the factories which now exist, and which will give employment to this trained industrial population for the benefit of the country. It is only by a great national plan that such a thing can be brought about and, therefore, I support wholeheartedly the Amendment now before the House.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS

Like other hon. Members who have spoken I am equally indebted to the hon. Member for bringing this question before the House, and except for the last three words of the Motion I heartily agree with it. I could talk at some length about the conditions of the coal trade and the enormous amount of distress that is prevailing, particularly in South Wales, but I want to deal mainly with the remarks made by the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). He hoped that the Government would face the problem that is confronting not only this country but the whole world, and tackle the question of increasing wholesale prices. I would like the Noble Lord to consider the cause of the present trouble, and to realise that the crisis which developed not only in this country but in other parts of the world was a fall in a certain commodity price—the price of labour power. If there had not been such substantial reductions in the price of that commodity, not only in this country but throughout the world, we should not have now the enormous stocks that there are upon the world market. In relation to that I wish to place before the House a few figures which, I am certain, will contradict in every way the statements of the Noble Lord.

We find that in the year 1929 the total productivity of this country in relation to the mining industry was no greater than in the year 1900. In 1900 and 1929, 259,000,000 tons of coal were produced and sold. In 1913, 287,000,000 tons were produced. The total productivity of 1929 represents no greater figure than that of the year 1900. The number of miners producing that quantity in 1929 was nearly 250,000 less. In relation to world trade we find that while in 1913 Britain held 23.3 per cent. of the world trade, in 1929 the figure was 18.8 per cent. Pig iron was 13.2 in 1913, and 7.8 in 1929. Steel was 10.2 per cent. in 1913, and 8.1 per cent, in 1929. Cotton was 18.6 per cent. in 1913, and 10.6 per cent, in 1929.

I wish to mention two sets of figures in order to indicate what I conceive to be really the world problem. There was published in the "Economist" in January, 1932, a supplement entitled "Crisis." It is written by one of the most eminent statistical economists in the world, who deals with the amount of stocks. He places the amount that is necessary to feed, clothe and house and meet the actual necessaries of mankind, at a figure of 100. He shows that in the year 1929 there were surplus stocks in the world representing a figure of 84. Then if humanity had stood still and not one bit of further labour had been expended in the production of commodities, there was in the world a 10 months' supply. That supply had increased by July, 1931, from 84 to 230. In July, 1931, there were in the world sufficient stocks to feed mankind for 27 months. Meanwhile the quasi-economists, the capitalists and financiers, had been advising the Government, and had advocated their scheme of reducing wholesale prices. In the mining industry, for instance, the owners of mines have reduced prices—this is within my personal knowledge as a member of a conciliation board—and have not sold a single ton of coal more.

We do not believe that it is possible for the Government to rectify the position while vested interests prevail. You may bring down prices to almost any figures. You are destroying the only effective market for goods throughout the world, that is the purchasing capacity of the people in the world, and you cannot possibly solve this economic problem in that way. It is admitted on all hands by people with whom one talks quite cursorily, regardless of their political predilections, that the trouble in large and small business is that there is not sufficient money to go round. Ordinary business people in the constituencies say, "Things are at a, standstill, because persons have no means to buy the products that are for sale." That, in the village sense, the town sense and the constituency sense, represents the national and the world problem. Yet we find that the Government do not face the problem with a system of planning. If they faced it they would plan. They would realise that the nation is in absolute chaos at the moment.

In South Wales we have at least 50,000 men who can never be reabsorbed in the mining industry there. It is admitted by people whom one is obliged to respect that at least 250,000 persons who are idle to-day in the mining industry cannot be reabsorbed in mining. Each year the developments of science and technique in mining are such that the output of 256,000,000 tons is becoming a static amount, and is being produced by a smaller and smaller number of workers. We see a reduction of one commodity mainly, and that is labour power. It is destroying the effective market for goods in this country, and destroying what will enable most other industries in time to get hack to their feet and ultimately absorb men.

The hon. Member who introduced this subject dealt with national planning and the setting up of a, regional council. With that we heartily concur. We know that in places like Glamorgan, where the Poor Law rate is more than 8s. in the £. In places like Merthyr Tydvil it is more than 13s. in the £,and bearing in mind that there are areas in the country where the Poor Law rate is not more than 10d., there certainly is need for the Government to face up to the problem from the standpoint of national planning. But the major problem is the problem of unemployment, the absorbing of men in trade and commerce. We do not believe it is possible for that to be done unless the Government reverse the policy of the last 18 months to two years. Instead of adopting a policy of cuts and economy they should set about inflation, not inflation by dabbling with exchanges, but by putting a greater spending, power in the hands of the unemployed and the persons in industry. Enable those people to spend that money and they will be able to purchase all the commodities necessary to help the wheels of industry to turn more speedily and create a general revival of trade.

8.35 p.m.

Major PROCTER

I rise to support this Amendment because I feel that there is at this moment a great need for an ad hoc committee to guide the Government as to the nature of the ebb and flow of the population in this country, particularly in relation to those areas which are to-day filled with men and women desirous of doing an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, but unable to find employment because the new industries upon which the future prosperity of this country depends, have drifted to the South. The National Government must deal with the attraction which London has for the new industries in this country, and, in particular, for those industries now compelled to establish themselves here, and thus provide employment for British workers—it is only by the formation of such a committee controlling, directing and advising that the arrest of this drift of population from North to South can be secured.

If I am asked how it is that industry has been attracted to the. South, my answer is that it is largely due to the fact that London is the financial centre of this country and of the world. When companies are in process of formation their capital is subscribed here. Their directors in many cases live here; and it is natural that directors of new industries living in London should wish to have their works here also. That is one of the reasons why a great office staff belonging to the African and Eastern Company was moved down to London from Liverpool, putting a great number out of work and causing removal of staffs. A second reason for this shift of population is the effect of the Safeguarding Duties. When these duties were put on, new industries were established at the rate of two per week. Along the Great West Road a monument to these duties has been erected in almost every field. Slough attracted many of these new industries. Cheap rents, availability of power, nearness to London, formed powerful inducements for the establishment of factories in that area for those industries which Safeguarding brought to this country.

Another important factor in this gravitation from North to South was the fact that in the North labour was highly organised, under skilful trade union leaders. It was a region noted for its lockouts and also for its strikes. It was natural that those who desired to establish new industries under peaceful conditions should turn from those troublesome areas where there might be strikes, where their men might be called away from work, and direct their attention to places where trade unionism was perhaps not so strong. I do not say that I admire them for doing so but business under our present system is run on a basis of profit and, naturally, the prudent pioneer of industry would wish to see his enterprise kept away from those conditions and influences which might interfere with its progress.

A further reason for the drift has been the banking position in those distressed areas. In Lancashire, and especially in connection with the cotton industry, owing to the over-capitalisation of the factories many banks could not and would not allow any trading or credit facilities, or at any rate very little credit facilities. Take my own division—indeed the whole North-East of Lancashire. At this moment, the banks have in their grasp practically every cotton mill. No cotton mill to-day can expand or find the necessary banking facilities for development. It may be because of the banks being heavily hit as a result of their bad investments in the cotton industry, but whatever the reason may be it is a most difficult thing to-day to find money for new enterprises in the distressed areas. In my own division we have one of the best-equipped spinning mills in this country. If the money were available, it could be run at full-time to-day. The orders are there but it is compelled owing to the curtailing of banking facilities to limit its activities. The result is that the mill is on short time. We in Lancashire cannot get adequate assistance from the banks and we know that new industries have gone to the South because there are greater credit facilities there than in the North.

We have in Accrington a very wide-awake Development association headed by a man who has retired after a very active business life and has devoted himself to the service of the town. In that Development association we have large-hearted and public-spirited men who have done everything possible. We have scoured the whole world; we have gone to the Continent and made contacts in America endeavouring to attract new industries to our borough. We have got two and we would have had a great many more if, on the one hand, the duties had been higher or if, on the other hand, Germany had not put an embargo on exports of machinery from this country. What is the handicap? There is no one to whom these Development associations can go for the capital to resurrect factories which are capable of providing work. An attempt has been made to solve the problem in the following way. An appeal has been made to the work-people themselves, and, with that sturdy independence for which Lancashire is noted, the workpeople out of their savings subscribed in one case £2,500. The leaders of our Development association are trying to get another £2,500. With that £5,000, we could give employment to 300 cotton operatives in Accrington at this very moment, as a start. But there is no committee to whom we can go, and even the Prime Minister has not given us that sympathy that we would expect from him, to, help what we believe to be vital and necessary for the re-establishment of that prosperity that was once the glory of the great working county of Lancashire. I hope, therefore, that the Government will see its way, not only to appoint a committee, but to give that committee funds with which to work. With £30,000 in Accrington to-day, we could establish at least four new factories there and help to solve unemployment in that district.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS

Who would buy the goods?

Major PROCTER

The people who needed them. It is all very well to talk about the buyers, but I am trying to do, what the hon. Member should do, namely, appealing for work for the workers. We want work and wages, and when we get them the workers.can buy, not only their own goods, but the goods from other factories as well. I hope the Government will consolidate the great work of these development associations throughout the country. At the moment what happens? A foreigner wants to establish himself in this country, and he reads in his paper about the south. Psychologically, he thinks that London is England, and he writes to the authorities in London for guidance. Such applicants are directed to London constituencies, but we get some of them. If we had a Central Planning Board that could say to these inquirers: "We advise you to go to this place or to that place," I think there would be coordination of the work of these wonderful associations. I appeal to the Government, seeing that we have on the one hand a development association in every district that is keen and willing to help, to have one over-riding, guiding autho- rity to co-ordinate our work and supply us with sufficient funds, and we in our turn will help the National Government to solve the unemployment problem which is so distressing us all.

8.49 p.m.

Sir F. FREMANTLE

The word "plan" in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for the Tradeston Division (Dr. W. McLean) refers us at once to the Town and Country Planning Act of last year, and that gives me the illustration that I want to bring before the House, of the need of a wider basis for our planning. This morning I was sitting on one of the committees of the Board of Welwyn Garden City. I often feel that this House and the country have not taken enough advantage of the very practical example which they have of thorough-going planning in the garden cities of Letchworth and Welwyn. They differ from the ordinary town and country planning, the geographical planning, because they have been founded upon that wider sphere of knowledge for which the hon. Member for Tradeston is pleading to-day. The garden cities were laid down definitely on the basis of that little book called "To-morrow," by Ebenezer Howard, of fusing the rival interests of the town on the one side and the country on the other, the industrial and the other amenities and necessities of our national life. It was out that idea that grew the diagram for the garden city.

Within 24 miles of this House you have one garden city and within 40 miles the other, and anybody can see what has been the result of this bit of thorough-going development of a properly planned scheme, in the one case for 30 years and in the other for 12 years, each of them at separate stages of development, each reflecting the difficulties of the present time and the terrible troubles of deflation, having been developed on a higher basis of capital value and having now to try to make both ends meet on the deflated prices of the present day. That is a separate question, but the essential thing is the immense value of incorporating there the idea put forward in the Resolution moved by the hon. Member for Tradeston, the idea that you have, first of all, to consider for what life you are planning, to have regard to all the interests concerned, such as locomotion, communication of every kind, industry, shipping, commerce, and the whole needs of the people. They are all put together in those diagrammatic experiments which have been a conspicuous success up to a certain point.

One point has been criticised by hon. Members opposite, who have not been unfriendly to the general idea of planning. Those two experiments are of significance because, although largely supported from the other side, not least from the Socialist side, in society and in politics, they have each of them been the product of private enterprise, not of local authorities. Out of them have grown local authorities in each case to take over such part of their work as is best done by local authorities, but they are a result, and a conspicuous result, of the development of private enterprise. However much we may be anxious to see full value given to authority, either national or local, in this sphere of development, we must recognise that enterprise and ingenuity are essentially matters for individual and private enterprise, and it is only when that crystallises into something more definite that it is possible to get it undertaken, in whole or in part, by some kind of association of individuals, whether by co-operative or Government effort. As long as you can keep private enterprise ripe, free, detached, independent, and able to reap the fruits of its work, whether it be disaster or good fortune, and as long as you keep the way open for the free development of that private enterprise, there is a great opportunity, at the right stage, for the introduction of co-operative methods, whether in the form of large statutory companies, or businesses, or corporations, or Government institutions of one kind and another.

One thing in the garden city movement is the absurdity of those who, thinking little, believed that these new towns could challenge successfully the great industrial towns. We are learning or have learned that their interests are the same and that the need of the nest towns and the old towns is a large-scale development in co-operation to attack, to fight, and to strangle at birth, if possible, the sporadic development of industry, which is doing so much harm and leading to so much waste. An industry wants to escape the difficulties of one region and to go to another, not because of the value eventually of the industry to the region, but because of the immediate escape from danger which the escape affords. On the other hand, an employer may want to be away from all restrictions and to be a law unto himself in his development. He sees a site advertised in some rural district where the council will not have very much control over him, and he goes there regardless of the needs and the development of the district and the housing of the people. The Government of this country were immensely to blame for the way in which they set about developing the Slough Estate, with no regard for anybody except for the transport and munition industries at that time.

Let it not be said by those who criticise this suggestion that those of us who are in favour of it want to plan too far. My hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) gave me that impression. There is a great danger in planning too rigidly for conditions that you cannot foresee. That would be unscientific and the greatest mistake, and yet it has been suggested that we should plan for conditions that cannot be foreseen. Everybody knows that certain conditions cannot be foreseen at the present time. The criticism from the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) of the Government took no account of that fact when he suggested that they should plunge in one direction when it is impossible for them to foresee the development of tariffs or the plans of currency. In Russia the Soviet plan has been a great illustration of that. In certain directions it may have succeeded, but in other directions it has manifestly failed; but even with such powers as we should never think of giving any Government in this country they are planning under circumstances which they cannot fully foresee. That is the danger of having too definitely a national development plan.

We want to bring together all the conditions that are necessary for understanding development. To that symposium of information and fact all could have resort where development of one kind or another is proposed. It should be the means of communication between the different areas concerned. I want to ask the Minister who is going to reply for the Government to tell us how far the Advi- sory Committee which the Minister is proposing to set up is able to take on the tremendously wide functions that are included in the town and country circular which the Government have issued. How far is the committee capable of going into all the different avenues of government which are laid down as necessary for planning in this admirable circular? The elasticity which is referred in one paragraph, the consultation of interests which is referred to in another, and the question of industry and commerce which are dealt with in another—all these enter into development on a national scale. We do not want to have each interest making its own investigation and approaching Government Departments separately. We want to have more pooling of information, some office in which information can be pooled. We want a practical scheme for avoiding waste of money and energy, for preventing mistakes arising, and for helping on sound development. In that sense I hope that the discussion this evening has been interesting, and we hope that the Government will find various ways of making use of the various interests.

9.2 p.m.

Commander COCHRANE

I do not propose to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) into a discussion of the advantage of garden cities, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Dr. McLean) will not think I am unfriendly to his Amendment if I venture to suggest that there are very definite limits beyond which mere planning cannot carry us. The single point with which I should like to deal was raised by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams). He drew attention to the fact that in the coal-mining industry the same tonnage is being raised to-day as in 1900 but with a substantially fewer number of men employed. He drew attention to similar conditions in the cotton industry, and we know that that condition exists throughout the country. At the present time increasing production is being carried on with a reducing number of people employed. When hon. Members opposite say, as has been said from those benches this evening, that the solution of the difficulty is some means by which the level of consumption could be brought to the level of production, they are begging the question. If it be a fact that we can increase production with any possibility of immediate consumption by restoring wage -cuts and, if you like, by a general increase of the level of wages, they are giving no answer to the problem; and I submit that if we are going to adopt a system of national planning we must first -of all make up our minds for what we wish to plan, and what purpose—I cannot use the word "principle" because it might be thought I was dealing with ethical or moral principles—do we intend to plan?

What is the conception in this country of the tendency of planning? I do not want to misrepresent the opinions of hon. Members opposite, but when the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) said that his ideal was an equalitarian State, that may mean many things or nothing. It might mean, if the development of it were put in the hands of the party opposite, an equality of misery under a cast-iron bureaucracy. There is much to be said against a disorganised state of society, but a very great deal more might be said against an organised disorder in society, and that would be the danger if the Government sat down and said, "Now, let us plan," without having any clear idea in their own minds of what it was they were planning. On the other hand, I do not altogether turn down the hon. Member's definition. Nobody on this side of the House does turn it down, because we all desire to see a more equal distribution of income and a less degree of poverty; but if we are to bring that about we must first of all make up our minds how it is to be done and on what principle it is to be done. Then, and then only, will be the time to make up our minds that we are going to have a national plan to secure that objective.

9.7 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin)

We have had an interesting Debate, and the hon. Member for Tradeston (Dr. McLean), who initiated it, has I think, every ground for congratulating himself upon the interesting series of speeches which his Motion has evoked. He was courteous enough to let me have considerable notice of the main points he in- tended to raise, and consequently I have been able to confer with the other Departments concerned with a view to making a comprehensive reply. Like many another hunter, the hon. Member has started much game other than that which he was seeking. If I understood his speech, he used the analogy of town planning more as a basis for describing his idea of industrial planning, and I did not at all take him to mean that he desired some national system of town planning of areas so much as a comprehensive planning of industrial possibilities and developments. I think some of the subsequent speeches have rather misunderstood the analogy, and concentrated upon that rather than upon the main purpose which underlay the hon. Member's suggestion. The Government are very intent on having the fullest possible information and making the greatest possible use of it. Any suggestion that there is any lack of plan is one entirely without foundation. I can understand that the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) could not resist the temptation of suggesting that there is no plan here and there, in instances which he cited, but I can assure him that there is planning all along the line, which will be revealed at the right and proper moment.

In dealing with industrial development there are certain basic propositions which must be borne in mind. First of all, it must be the object of the Government to plan the industry of the country as a whole. It would be quite wrong for the Government to think only in terms of the depressed areas or in terms only of the non-depressed areas. The Government's function must be to plan industry as a, whole, utilising the whole area of the country. The Government have very limited powers over the localisation of industry, apart from the provisions in certain town planning schemes of an intensely local character. There is no power at all in any Government body to say to industrialists: "You shall found your industry in such or such an area, and no other," and I cannot see a Government asking for legislative power to direct and control the freedom of industry in determining their sites, their areas, and the nature of the conditions under which they are to operate. That seems to be quite beyond the functions of legitimate Government in present-day conditions. But, the Government are faced also with the fact that unnecessary duplication is the very negation of planning, and if in the industrial and highly developed areas of the North and the Midlands there are great industrial possibilities, with all kinds of services available—labour, sites, factories, power, and public utility companies—it would be the height of waste if they were not adequately and properly used, while in some other area where those services did not exist an industry requiring them was to set itself up. It is the aim of the Government, by its fiscal policy and other means, to endeavour so to direct and coordinate industry that the advantages of those highly-serviced areas are made available to new industries.

There have been statements in the House from time to time of the nature and location of new industries set up here since the change in fiscal policy. One such statement was made in December of last year. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to make to the House within a very few weeks a complete statement of the development of new industries, showing the articles which they produce, the areas in which they are located, and their distribution over the country as a whole, and in order to make the statement complete to show, also, such industries as have closed down. That statement, which is already in draft, will be extremely informative and will be made generally available. I mention that at the outset of the few remarks I wish to make in order that the idea may become widely known that this whole system of planning has the Government's full attention. Planning must be severely practical. In these days in which there are contests between inflationists, deflationists, and reflationists, the Government intend that they should, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Commander Cochrane) has just said, know where they are going before they take action. Vagueness is the very negation of planning. There must be a very definite purpose which is being pursued, and so the Ministry of Health make it quite clear that their conception of planning must be severely practical in character. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), who made what, if I may be allowed to say so, was an extremely practical speech, said that in the Middlesbrough area he did not recollect any survey since the report of 1928.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH

I was not speaking only of my own area; I was saying I remembered no general estimate, with regard to the heavy industries, as to the amount which could be taken as permanent, since 1928.

Dr. BURGIN

I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I had no intention of misrepresenting him, but wished only to call the attention of the House to the extraordinarily valuable series of surveys, five in all, relating to Lancashire, South Wales, Scotland, Merseyside, and the North-East Coast—the volume dealing with the North-East Coast was issued in 1932 and presents a most elaborate survey of the industrial conditions of the whole of that at present unhappy area in a particularly attractive and informative manner.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS

Not by the Board of Trade.

Dr. BURGIN

On the contrary. The Industrial Survey of the North-East Area says, on page 6: By a letter from the President of the Board of Trade we were asked to conduct an industrial survey. The industrial survey was conducted by Armstrong College, Newcastle-on-Tyne, at the request of the Board of Trade, and the information was made available for the world as a whole.

The task of preparing a detailed survey over "the whole of the country on the lines of the surveys for these five particular areas is a momentous one, and the Government would have to be very fully satisfied that the expense, labour and detailed work involved would produce adequate results before they could embark upon anything of that kind. Large areas of our country have not changed in industrial development sufficiently to warrant an investigation of that character, but national development and national planning are in the air. They are engaging attention, and probably one of the secrets of bringing this country back to industrial prosperity will be the discovering of a method by which the progressive development of the lighter industries, in areas where the services available for the heavier industries exist, could be utilised to the greatest advantage. The Government have listened with the greatest interest to the ideas propounded by one who is singularly qualified to put forward reflective suggestions of this character, and with much that he says they are in agreement. The idea of planning is entirely congenial to them, and every possible advantage will be taken of the information which is available to the Department.

Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

1. CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1933.
1. CLASS 1.
c1327
1. HOUSE OF COMMONS. 85 words