HC Deb 21 January 1937 vol 319 cc481-90

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Lawson

I want to raise the question of which I gave notice this afternoon. The House will remember that a question was put to the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Air concerning a shadow factory that it was reported was to be established at White Waltham, Maidenhead. I saw that announcement myself in the Press, and it seemed to me incredible that there could be any truth in it. The Under-Secretary of State confirmed that statement to-day and explained it on the ground that it was found that the delays and disadvantages of selecting any alternative site would seriously prejudice the success of the enterprise. The House is well aware of the state of things which obtain in many parts of the country known as the Special Areas, and it is most lamentable that at a time when there is supposed to be a boom conditions are certainly not improving in most of these areas. Here is an agricultural area in which is to be established a factory which, we understand, will employ between 3,500 and 5,000 people. That is a town of about 20,000 inhabitants. There is no question that these workers will have to be brought from other areas. It is most significant that at a time when the Government are supposed to be preparing a special Bill which will deal in some extraordinary fashion with these Special Areas a Government Department should take a step which will establish a new community in an altogether new area without any regard to Government policy.

What is going to happen? Houses will have to be built as well as new schools, sewerage and drainage will have to be provided, all the necessary amenities of such a community will have to be created by the local authority. In areas like South Wales, Durham, Lancashire and Scotland, local authorities have built houses for the people, provided drainage and sewerage, built schools, provided water, and, generally speaking, have gone to a great outlay in order to produce citizens, and just when they are worth anything at all they are to be sent down to this new area where the Government are placing a factory. I have not much time, and as I want other hon. Members to speak I will say just this. What is happening is that a Government Department which is spending State money is doing what it likes without regard to any other circumstances. It is bad enough that private employers should establish themselves in the South, and there has been great disturbance throughout the country about it, but at least they had the excuse that, as far as they were concerned, it was a paying concern. We now have the State actually confirming the action of those who have neglected the Special Areas. The Government have been appealing to private employers to go to the Special Areas, and now they allow a Department to establish a great factory that is not in a Special Area.

Let me say, in conclusion, that there has long been in the Special Areas a suspicion, growing deeper and deeper, that the private employer has not gone to the Midlands and the South because it pays him, but because it meets his social and personal purposes, regardless of what happens in the country at large. I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman cannot on this occasion say that it is because of grounds of vulnerability that this factory is being established in such a place, and he will have to spend a long time in eradicating from the minds of the average Member the feeling that this factory is being established in that area because it suits the personal and social life of those who have to do with the Air Force, because they are nearer to polite society, and that it is more for their own particular social side of life than for the Air Ministry, for Defence or for the wellbeing of the country.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Annesley Somerville

This is a matter which is of essential importance to my constituents. Let me say at once that if my constituents and I were convinced that we had been given any real reason why this factory should be established in a purely agricultural district, we should regret it very deeply, but we should acquiesce. We have received no such reason. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air was asked this afternoon why this factory should be established at White Waltham, and the reason he gave was that it was necessary to have it near the parent firms. What are the parent firms? I understand that one is the Bristol firm, and another is the Hillman firm at Coventry. White Waltham is a long way from Bristol and Coventry. The policy of the Government —a policy which we have been engaged in forming during these last two days—is to encourage agriculture. By putting this factory at White Waltham they are doing the Utmost disservice to agriculture.

It is not merely a question of the 100 acres or 200 acres of fine agricultural land that they are taking and the fact that they are proposing to run a line of rails right along to join up the site with the Great Western Railway—those are comparatively small matters; but anyone who has anything to do with agriculture knows what great difficulty there is at the present time in getting skilled young agricultural labourers. If there is established in an area a factory with high rates of wages, it will be quite impossible to get agricultural labourers, and the whole of the agriculture of that part will be disorganised. I regret to say that that is what the Government are doing, while professing to encourage agriculture. It is also supposed to be an, object of the policy of the Government not to encourage industry to come South. They are encouraging industry to come South. It is also a point of the policy of the Government that it is not their object to enlist at once the whole of industry in the production of armaments. Their object is to secure the production of armaments with as little disturbance as possible to existing industries. Yet they propose to deal a deadly blow at agriculture in East Berkshire by putting this factory in a place which is utterly unsuited to it.

I have only heard one reason given by the Minister for putting this factory on this site. It is that there is already an aerodrome there and that the aerodrome is an essential adjunct to the factory. The aerodrome does not interfere much with the amenities of the place; it does not employ a great many people; but surely there are scores of sites with aerodromes where this factory could be established. In time of war, this factory would be working full blast, and would act as a magnet to hostile aircraft, which would be guided over West London by the Great Western Railway and the course of the river. But the Air Ministry do not seem to think that that is an objection. Apart from these disadvantages, we do not want the agricultural life of the district to be disorganised and disturbed. Furthermore, on this site there is no housing, no drainage, no proper water supply, no lighting. All that is to be provided by the Air Ministry, and that, I deliberately say, is a waste of public money. Surely the common-sense procedure would be to put this factory where the houses already exist, where the supply of labour already exists and where there are the necessary amenities.

With regard to labour, as I have said, this is a purely agricultural district, with the exception of three small towns. In Windsor there is practically no unemployment and, at any rate, it has none of the labour that would be suitable. Maidenhead is a residential town and there is no suitable labour there. Bracknell is a market town which would be gravely damaged by the factory. This site has none of the necessary amenities, and it would be necessary to import the required labour, probably from 3,000 to 5,000 persons, instead of going to where the labour already is and where it would not be necessary to build houses and provide drainage and other facilities There are many other things I might say about this matter, but I conclude by saying to the Government that my constitutents and I are definitely opposed to this scheme, which would force upon us artifically what, as my hon. Friend has said, will become an industrial town of some 20,000 inhabitants, completely change the character of this agricultural district and interfere with the production of food in the area by making it impossible to get agricultural labour. The plan has not yet gone far and it would be possible for the Air Ministry and the Government to reconsider this matter. J plead most urgently with them that they should do so.

11.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Sir Philip Sassoon)

The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has raised this matter with sincerity, and I believe that there is no Member in the House who is not behind him as to the desirability, and indeed the necessity, of doing everything possible for the distressed areas. The subject, however, should be looked at as a whole and not merely with regard to the location of a particular factory. I would like in this connection to state what the facts are with regard to orders that have been placed by Service Departments in the distressed areas over a certain period. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about this factory?"] I think that the orders placed by Service Departments apply very much to this discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The orders placed by Service Departments since 1st April, 1935, amount to £45,000,000. These are direct contracts and do not include subcontracts, about which Service Departments make a point that they should be put by main contractors in distressed areas. [Interruption.] We are discussing contracts placed by Service Departments. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, discuss Maidenhead."] These contracts placed by Service Departments are under continual observation by the Government.

Mr. Mainwaring

On a point of Order. Is it right for the Minister to reply to a question which has not been put to him?

Mr. Speaker

The Minister must be allowed to make his own reply.

Sir P. Sassoon

I have been dealing with contracts in distressed areas, which are relevant to this question. What is the situation about this factory, and why has this particular site been selected? As the House knows, it is an essential part of the Shadow Scheme that factories should be erected—satellite factories—adjacent to the firms which will have to turn over, in this case to aircraft production, during a time of war. It is, therefore, natural that these factories should be erected as near as possible to the existing works, and erected in places which make it convenient for the managing firms to do what they think necessary. It was, therefore, necessary that we should be in agreement with the managing firm as to where the firm's factories should be erected.

This particular firm is situated in Coventry. If this factory had been built adjacent to the firm's factory at Coventry, not a word would have been said. The firm, Messrs. Rootes, wished it to be erected next to their works at Coventry. There is, however, already a great deal of congestion in Coventry, and it was not thought advisable to allow another factory to be erected there. The aeroplane factory must obviously be near an aerodrome. When the aeroplanes have been built they have to be tested on an aerodrome and flown off the aerodrome, and obviously it would be difficult and uneconomic if the aeroplanes had to be built in one factory and then transported to another, there to be assembled and tested and flown off. The number of aerodromes that are suitably placed for these shadow factories is very limited. Here is an ideal site for an aerodrome of this kind. It is an aerodrome which is at present used for a civil school. It is not a service aerodrome, nor is it a very busy civil aerodrome. It is, therefore, an ideal aerodrome for the purpose.

Mr. Attlee

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the mileage between Coventry and White Waltham? What is the area within which there is no aerodrome which is regarded as suitable?

Sir P. Sassoon

I think it is desirable that the site should be convenient for both firms, and in this case the firms have been consulted and agree that this is a suitable site.

Mr. Attlee

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the mileage between Coventry and White Waltham and between Bristol and White Waltham?

Sir P. Sassoon

I do not know off hand —[HON. MEMBERS: "100 miles "]—but other sites have been examined and that site has been considered the most suitable.

Mr. Lawson

Which is the other firm?

Sir P. Sassoon

The firm at Bristol The site was considered a suitable one by the managing firm at Coventry, and by the parent firm at Bristol, and it is a site which enjoys the advantage of being near a good railway service. It is essential that it should be suitably placed between these two firms, because the firm at Bristol is the parent firm for these aeroplanes which are going to be built.

As I have said this site satisfies the conditions, and was chosen after consultation with the firms responsible for fulfilling the contracts. Various other sites were considered, but this one was ultimately adopted as being particularly suitable, and one of the reasons was that there was this aerodrome available. With regard to the danger area which has been mentioned, unfortunately, with the existing range of modern aircraft, there are very few sites in the country which are not vulnerable. This factory has the advantage, anyhow, of being in an isolated position and behind the defences of London.

With regard to the labour, we know that there are difficulties in obtaining suitable labour for this type of factory in many districts after the period of the industrial depression, but we explored first of all from a technical point of view and then explored what labour can be provided. The firm concerned have had a great deal of experience and are satisfied that they can get the labour that they need for this particular factory. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] That matter is being dealt with by the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Labour.

Hon. Members have just said that there is no unemployment in the district at all and that therefore the labour necessary for this factory will have to be imported.

Mr. A. Somerville

It is extremely limited.

Sir P. Sassoon

I have looked into the figures of Reading Employment Exchange for July and December. I find that in July, for the Reading district alone, the total number of unemployed was over 2,000 and in December was about 1,500, unskilled and semi-skilled labourers. Apart from that, there is a great number of unskilled and semi-skilled engineers who travel up every day from Reading to London and back.

It is obvious that many of these people would sooner have employment near their homes. There is no question of drafting a large force of labour into the district. Hon. Members have also said that we have done a great disservice to agriculture in this district. We have bought 90 acres, of which 70 acres are agricultural land—a narrow strip along the aerodrome.

Mr. MacLaren

How much did you pay for it?

Sir P. Sassoon

Although one deplores that we have had to take this agricultural land, I think the fact that we have taken 70 acres cannot be said to have disorganised the whole agricultural life of the district. We are anxious to get on with the scheme, and we have to get these aeroplanes. We may be criticised for having this place, but if we had taken an aerodrome and factory in another place it would have meant delay in the produc- tion of these aeroplanes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This is far more justifiable. I hope what I have said will have reassured the House.

Hon. Members

No.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.