HC Deb 29 May 1952 vol 501 cc1754-72

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

I wish to take this opportunity to raise several questions affecting the Development Areas. If, by way of illustration, I refer only to the North-East Development Area, it is because I am personally acquainted with it, but most of the points which I shall raise refer to Development Areas generally.

It would seem that at the moment there is a good deal of disquiet in the Development Areas. That may be partially unavoidable, in view of our present national situation, and partially inseparable from the present Government. However that may be, it is at the moment being aggravated by the way in which the administration is being carried on. I realise that for a considerable time there have been difficulties over the production tests, but it seers that now the officials are acting with such vigour and enthusiasm in stopping everyone doing anything, that many industrialists are geting the impression that there is nothing to be gained from going into the Development Areas; that in fact there is a good deal of time and patience to be lost in trying.

I consider this unfortunate, because some of the officials who are so vigorous in stopping people going into the Development Areas have done good work in what is the difficult job of persuading industrialists to come to these areas. It would seem also that this is aggravated because many industrialists find that after they have gone through the difficult process of getting approval, every pressure is brought on them to persuade them that they ought not to get any money from the Government. And if they cannot get that money the facts at the moment are that there are real deterrents towards going to a Development Area because of credit restrictions and higher interest rates. I am sure that it would help if we could get a clearer declaration of policy regarding the Development Areas.

In other circumstances I do not think this would be so important. If we had rising employment and decreasing unemployment I do not think this would affect us so much as it does today. I do not want to be alarmist about this, I hope that we can control the rising unemployment, but today we have a trend towards rising unemployment. We have also the matter which I raised by way of Questions that over a period now there has been increasing redundancy in the new factories themselves.

If we take the case of the new factories in the North-East alone, over the past six months we have had redundancy amounting to very nearly 2,000. In other words, 2,000 people have lost their jobs in the new factories; in fact, these factories are now employing up to 2,000 less than were employed six months ago. So far as the region as a whole is concerned, this is largely affecting women. To give a further illustration, in the case of my own constituency of Sunderland, in the new factories alone, for the past six months 800 people have been paid off, and that includes a substantial number of men.

This, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, must be a very disturbing fact to us in the North-East. Indeed, the position is worse than I have given, because these factories are employing far short of their potential. I think I am right in saying that these factories, which are today employing about 42,000, were estimated by the Board of Trade to employ, when fully in production, some 90,000 to 100,000 people.

So that there has not only been a fall in employment, but it has taken place against a background in which it was estimated that there would be increased employment. That is why I think the Parliamentary Secretary is very wrong in referring to the position 12 months ago, and saying that from an employment point of view, although we have had a set-back over the past six months, at any rate it is better than 12 months ago. In fact, the estimate was that these factories would today be employing at least 5,000 more, and it was hoped some 10,000 more than 12 months ago.

We must therefore feel seriously concerned about present developments in these areas. Against this background I feel that the Government ought to do more to ensure that the Development Areas get a larger share of Government contracts. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is receiving strong pressure from other quarters. I concede at once that the Minister of Supply has revealed that 10 per cent. of the orders are going to the Development Areas. But, in the circumstances which I have described, I feel that that is not enough to assist these areas and help them over what is, after all, a very serious set-back.

I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can assist me about this, but we in the North-East feel that we ought to have had more engineering and electrical works. I cannot assist the Parliamentary Secretary by particularising, but I have had this complaint from several quarters that we ought to have had more assistance from Government contracts. In fact, we are rather disappointed at the progress made in the engineering and electrical field.

Having said that, it may appear a little illogical to criticise the Government cut in capital expenditure in the Development Areas. So far I have criticised the Government because we are not making fuller use of the factories already built; and I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman may make the debating point against me that if this is so this is a wholly inopportune moment to criticise the Government for cutting down building in the Development Areas. But the whole case I am making on the question of redundancy is that we must take more vigorous and resolute steps to ensure that we step up production in the factories.

Quite apart from that, I feel we cannot yet think that we have solved the problem of the Development Areas. We are far from it. We are disturbed today that we still have a much higher incidence of unemployment than the rest of the country; that we have this general background of rising unemployment, which I hope can be contained, and we still have the fundamental problem of some further and fairly substantial redundancy in some of the basic industries.

Against that background I think the decision to cut by very nearly £3 million the capital expenditure in the Development Areas, very nearly half the expenditure on new factories, is deplorable. I hope that the Government will have another look at this problem and that they will try to restore the previous position. The hon. and learned Gentleman has already mentioned the difficulties. I fully appreciate the difficulty about steel and the dilemma of exporting at the cost of capital development at home. It is not the first time that we have been up against difficulties on the question of steel for capital construction. I had hoped that the extra supplies of steel that we expect to obtain this year would have enabled us to hold the position as it affects capital development in these areas.

On the main difficulty of paying our way, again I feel that the Government have acted in panic. I concede that the Government face a difficult dilemma, but we must realise that perhaps within the next 12 months, and certainly within the next year or two, we shall be up against much more acute competition than that we have faced in the last few years. This will demand further re-equipment in industry and, especially, re-equipment in the Development Areas. I appeal to the Government to look at this matter again to see what can be done to avoid this drastic cut in capital expenditure for the Development Areas.

I have mentioned the future position of some of the basic industries. I am specially concerned with ship-building. I need give only one figure to show the grave problem which that industry presents. In 1932 in the United Kingdom unemployment in the industry over the years was no less than 64 per cent. That means that anyone in the ship-building industry is naturally apprehensive even today. We are most fortunate that this vitally important national industry has enjoyed a high level of prosperity since the end of the war.

It is an achievement that over those years we have had a substantial run-down in the number of employees in the industry. About 50,000 people have left the industry in those years. It is much to the credit of the industry that it is maintaining its present high output with 50,000 fewer workers than it employed in 1945. I hope that we can maintain this prosperity. But I have some fears, not so much on the ground of competition but on the ground that the present unfortunate dislocation in world trade will reflect itself sooner or later in freight rates.

When we get a lack of confidence in freight rates, that will express itself directly on ship-building orders. In spite of the prosperity which we are happy to enjoy now, we must recognise that this industry cannot keep in continuous employment its present 200,000 workers. There will be perhaps soon, but if not then certainly within a reasonable time, a fairly heavy redundancy. That is a dilemma which faced this country in the years of the depression when it was a heavy burden.

I have previously argued that the only effective way to prepare against such a redundancy in these basic industries is to provide alternative work of a nature suited to the skilled people in those trades. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I have argued for specialised factories equipped to provide work suitable for these excellent workers.

I have argued that, instead of the old advance factories, industrial premises should be built for specific purposes. In fact, two projects of that nature were agreed on the North-East Coast—one at Jarrow and one at Sunderland. These were to be special factories, and I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will say that these projects were deferred by the Labour Government. While I at once concede that, I would point out that these projects were deferred in very different circumstances. They were deferred when we, on the North-East Coast, had already reached a record low level of unemployment, and what might have been appropriate in such circumstances cannot be justified in present circumstances.

I have also argued in the past that we should go a step further with the only solution to the industrial problem of the Development Areas, now that we have provided a fair diversification by means of what we generally call light industries, and the only way to tackle the problem is by a deliberate endeavour to introduce particular industries and build the premises in integrated units to serve this purpose.

I realise that this is presenting to the hon. and learned Gentleman a very difficult problem, because he will probably feel like telling me of all the difficulties which the Government are up against regarding capital construction. I should have thought, in fact, arising out of our present difficulties, there is an opportunity of doing this. I may be right or wrong about this, but I presume that the present demands of the defence programme on this country are calling for an expansion of particular forms of industrial capacity from the defence point of view.

If that be so, I plead for the Development Areas to have particular consideration in the provision of this extra capacity. I welcome the fact of the Bristol Aeroplane Company having come to Sunderland, and I think it is an excellent thing for us in the town, but, so far as I am aware, over the whole of the North-East Coast, the impact of the defence programme in this regard so far has only been a few small additions and alterations to existing premises.

What I should like to know is what attention has been paid to the Development Areas in considering this question of additional industrial capacity. I do not want to be too theoretical, because one can make out a case in theory which will not work out economically. I know that, in the case of one particular Development Area, they have had the great benefit of the defence programme, but how far has that been fortuitous or strategic? How far has the problem of the Development Areas been related to the needs and demands of the defence programme?

This is all important, because it seems to me that we have to look to new industrial development to conclude a solution of the problem of these areas, not only in regard to shipbuilding but to other industries as well. The Northern Industrial Group have estimated that, on the assumption of a high level of activity and prosperity, we in the North-East would have at least 30,000 people redundant.

I feel that we also have to change our view about the location of industry. This is a rather difficult matter to raise, because it always causes apprehension in parts of the Development Areas, but we have got to go a little further than just steering industry into the Development Areas. We have to steer industry into those parts of the Development Areas where they serve the greatest social benefit.

I could criticise the administration of the Board of Trade regarding recent projects which have been approved, and I could say that some are going to parts of the Development Areas where, indeed, there is not such urgent need for new industries. I appreciate at once the difficulties of those administering the Act. After all, this operates on the basis of persuasion, and, while we can persuade an industrialist to go into a Development Area, it is extremely difficult to persuade him to go into that part of an area where the siting of the industry would serve the Development Area best.

I do not think this difficulty can be avoided unless we revise the Schedule to the Act. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade will look at this problem to see whether or not the time has come to revise the Schedule. Incidentally, it would also give them the opportunity of considering the claims now being made by other localities which are alleging that they are hit by heavy unemployment. If the prospect is likely to be long-term unemployment, then there would be a case on that ground alone for considering whether or not there should be a review of the Schedule and of the present limits of the Development Areas.

I also feel, and have for some time, that the time has come to review again—I know it is under continuous review, but, shall I say, sharply review—the functions of the trading estate companies and their relationship to the Board of Trade. After all, these companies are now managing very considerable properties and it is for that reason, as I said to the House when the President of the Board of Trade answered my question, that I welcome the inquiry which has been instituted, and we shall have to await the report of Sir Thomas Phillips and Sir Edward Gillett to the President of the Board of Trade.

Perhaps the Central Land Board might also be inquired into, because I have heard some criticism of that board. I think this is a timely inquiry, and that, in a limited way, it should assist the President of the Board of Trade. I believe the fundamental problem is, as it appeared some years ago to the Estimates Committee, that the choice is really wider discretionary powers for the companies or the bringing of the whole administration under the Board of Trade. I think that the late Sir Stafford Cripps was right in deciding with the Committee that the better choice was to increase the discretion of the companies.

In the case of the North-East, the Board of Trade went rather further and appointed, as we had recommended in the Estimates Committee, a full-time chairman of the Board. That experiment, I believe, has worked well for the North-East and has strengthened the Board. It has also, perhaps, increased local influence on the administration of the Act, which is a good thing. As far as economy is concerned. I remember when I left the Board we were able to show that we were making staff economies amounting to £40,000 a year while at the same time no member of the staff was being discharged without having obtained alternative employment. Therefore, from the point of view of economy it had certainly proved its case.

While I congratulate the Board of Trade in going a long way towards allowing the companies a wider discretion, I still feel that much more could be done and that the Parliamentary Secretary or the President of the Board of Trade ought to consider how much further they should go. My own conviction remains that the best form for the boards to take would be that of small, compact executive bodies. I also think that the procedural relationship with the Department could be simplified. I agree that whatever the procedure was, a case could always be made out for simplifying it, but I think it really could be simplified, particularly on accountability and rental policy. All these are very difficult administrative problems, but they could well be reviewed.

I am convinced that the system of financial control should be radically overhauled. Of course, in speaking of all these things, we have to speak subject to what the present inquiry may discover and comment upon.

But it struck me that Treasury control, and through it Board of Trade control, was really riddled by the maxim that if one looks after the pence the pounds will look after themselves. Generally speaking, I do not think that is a good maxim at all, because if one concentrates on looking after the pence the pounds somehow or other run away. While there was a fairly tight control of small expenditure which was very irritating for those responsible for the management of companies, there was virtually no control of big items of expenditure such as new buildings, specifications, quantities and tenders. In fact, it struck me that those exercising financial control were not equipped to exercise it over such matters.

So we had the anomalous position that while very meticulous control was being exercised in small matters, at the same time large matters of expenditure were not so controlled. So far as adequate financial control goes, my opinion, for what it is worth, is that the best control is that exercised by competent executives responsible to a watchful and knowledgable board.

I know that consideration has been given to it, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the President will again consider the possibility of establishing a national industrial corporation. I think a formula could be devised which, whilst leaving full scope for local initiative, would co-ordinate the seven existing companies within the national corporation. Indeed, I am optimistic enough to believe that such a corporation might well raise its own funds and pay a modest interest. Such a corporation would provide that national planning authority which was one of the cardinal points of the Barlow Report. I believe that that formula would provide a simple form of administration, and would provide for administrative economy and for simple and effective control.

The Parliamentary Secretary may feel that I have been unduly critical, but I assure him that I appreciate very much the work done under this Act. He may feel I have been unduly apprehensive, but I ask him to realise that those of us who live in the former distressed areas have experience of heavy, long-term unemployment and, over the years, have come to put a great deal of confidence in the development that has taken place under the Distribution of Industry Acts. Any steps that he can take to further the work in the Development Areas will have the united support of those who live in those areas.

8.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss)

The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) has always shown a great interest in the Development Areas and, as I think the House knows, he speaks with exceptional knowledge and experience of this subject. At the outset I should like to thank him for his characteristic courtesy in having given me an indication of some of the topics with which he proposed to deal.

I agree with quite a number of things the hon. Member has said. One of them was that it was not certain that everything was perfect and incapable of improvement. Indeed, it would be very astonishing if it was. This most interesting experiment is not very old. The statutes on the subject, which had the support of all parties in the House, are, after all, the statutes of 1945 and 1950. In the course of my remarks I hope to cover some of the points with which the hon. Member wishes me to deal, but I would assure him at the outset that I do not feel the slightest temptation to score any debating points. He has most skilfully suggested the debating points which I could score, but I feel no such temptation.

He made an interesting speech, and those topics with which I cannot fully deal I shall certainly study. There are one or two which I shall study rather than reply to, because they seem to me to require legislation and so would be out of order on this occasion; but that will not stop the consideration of the points which he has raised. One point he made and which I would at once deny is that the Administration, or Her Majesty's Government, are doing everything they can to stop people from going into the Development Areas. That was really a complete misapprehension of the facts.

Let me say at once that I quite appreciate the hon. Member's fears as to the effects of the economies which are necessary as a result of our economic position. He feared the results of cuts in money spent in building as a result of our capital investment programme and the shortage of steel. Sometimes one and sometimes the other is the more immediate limiting factor. The limitations which those factors put on the possibility of building affect the question of building everywhere—in the Development Areas and elsewhere. I should be misleading the House if I suggested that this did not make impossible, in present circumstances, the carrying out of all sorts of projects which would otherwise be attractive; but that is part of the data of the situation and we cannot help that.

I do not wish to enlarge on this subject, partly because I made a previous speech on the Development Areas on 7th December last year and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made one as recently as 20th May. I know that the hon. Member, who follows these things so closely, will not wish me to repeat what was said in either of those debates. Any building project now has to satisfy the most stringent test. It must satisfy the test of advancing production for defence, for exports, or for other essential needs; but, if any project can satisfy that test, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we like to see it established in a Development Area.

I do not say that the test is not a rigid test; it is, and it must be, in present circumstances. But provided that test can be satisfied there is nowhere we more like to see a project established than in a Development Area. I am assuming—and I know the hon. Gentleman, from his knowledge of the subject, knows the necessity for saying this—that the project is free to go there. There may be all sorts of considerations, such as the convenience to other industries, strategic and other considerations, which may make it impracticable. Those who are very knowledgeable on the theory and practice of this subject sometimes talk about "foot-free" industries—industries which are free to go anywhere. Where an industry in that position can satisfy the test, the hon. Member can rest assured that there is nowhere the Board of Trade would rather see it go than into a Development Area.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the scheme for building specialised factories in advance of knowledge of prospective tenants. It is true that in July, 1950, the late Administration agreed on a limited programme, up to 15 factories, to go forward in advance of tenants being available in those parts where the risk of male unemployment was greatest. The hon. Member spoke about two in his area. I have a list of three, and perhaps I had better give their names. They are, the factory at Jarrow on the Bede Estate; the Pallion Estate in Sunderland; and the Annfield Plain project in North-West Durham.

Mr. F. Willey

The Greencroft site.

Mr. Strauss

This programme was contemplated but before a year had passed the defence programme and the need for economy caused it to be stayed. I know the hon. Gentleman makes the point that the unemployment position may then have been different, but I think he will agree that I am not being unfair when I state that the motive for staying the project was not that the late Administration ceased to like the scheme, but the fact that the need for economy and the defence programme compelled them. I assure him that the need is no less compelling today. In the case of one of the three projects, in the area which he has in mind, the Ransome and Marles ball bearing factory has done something to improve the position.

The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) both put Questions to the present Government on the possibility of carrying on the scheme which I have described, and I should like to quote the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the two hon. Members on 28th February, when he said: The building of factories in the Development Areas in advance of demand was deferred indefinitely by the previous Government early in 1951 and the present shortage of steel and need to restrict capital investment are such that I do not think that I would be justified in reversing this decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 187.] That accurately states what is the position today. I know the hon. Gentleman has this question at heart and does not wish to ask for something that might do some good in one area by inflicting harm somewhere else. I therefore beg the House to remember that there is a real danger here. Any new project started now may involve stopping some other project already approved. I think that the House will agree it would be indefensible in present circumstances to erect a factory in advance of requirements, without prospective tenants and without knowing the nature of the work to be carried on, when there are so many immediate needs which we would satisfy, if we could, but have reluctantly to postpone.

The hon. Member quite rightly mentioned one of the principal industries in the part of the country with which he was particularly dealing, namely, the ship-building industry, and he rejoiced, as we all do, that that industry is very prosperous at present, and that there are no signs of an early recession. But let me assure him that the problem of a possible future decline will, of course, be borne in mind. Review of the development areas and policy on them is, as I think the hon. Member appreciates, continuous in the Department, and the level of activity in the ship-building industry must always be a most important consideration when we are considering our policy.

On the question of employment and the reduction of unemployment. I certainly do not want to enter into any unnecessary controversy with the hon. Member, because I think that our aims on the subject of the location of industry are similar. I pointed out in my answer the changes in the employment of both men and women that had occurred, and that the total number of employed was more than a year ago, and I think it is worth noting that the rate of unemployment at 2.9 per cent. is below the rate of the Development Areas as a whole, although higher, of course, than in other areas. Dealing for the moment with the Development Area to which he devoted the greater part of his speech. I thought that was a figure which was worth giving in answer to him.

Mr. F. Willey

That means that when we are regarding the Development Areas as a whole, the other areas are in a worse position than those on the North-East Coast. I concede that on the general level of unemployment the North-East Coast is rather better off than many of the other areas. If we deal with the general position that means that there is a more acute problem in some of the other areas.

Mr. Strauss

One would expect the Development Areas to be worse than the rest of the country, and that to a large extent is why they are Development Areas.

As regards the long-term policy, I was going to mention the Bristol Aeroplane Factory at Sunderland, but as the hon. Member was good enough to mention that himself I need not say anything more about it, except to say that as he welcomes it so does the Board of Trade. The hon. Member also talked about the possible simplification of machinery. I shall study what he said, but he must never forget that it is, after all, the Board of Trade and not the estate company who have certain statutory powers and duties in the matter.

The hon. Member asked me about contract figures, and I should like to give him a little more than I did when I last spoke on an Adjournment debate on the subject. I then said that the value of orders placed by the Ministry of Supply in development and unemployment areas in the period from 1st April to 30th September, 1951, was £49.8 million, or over 10 per cent. of the total orders, amounting to £467.5 million, placed by the Department.

I will now carry the story on to the next six months ending 31st March, 1952. In that time £65 million worth of orders out of a total of £376.5 million, or over 17 per cent. has been placed in those areas. There may be an element of chance about that. I know it is a figure which the hon. Gentleman will welcome very much, but we must approach it with caution. The figure is very good, but I should not like to say how this may work out over a longer period.

The changing of Development Areas can be done without legislation, though not without bringing the matter before the House on an Affirmative Resolution. Areas can be removed from the Schedule or added to the Schedule, and it is a matter of constant consideration whether either course is right in regard to different areas.

Speaking the other night, my right hon. Friend gave the House some examples of certain proposals for new areas which had been put forward. It was significant that there was a very great difference of opinion even among the Lancashire Members of Parliament belonging to the party opposite on whether that was a desirable thing to do. The question whether it is good policy to make a certain area a Development Area is one on which different opinions are possible irrespective of a man's political views. It is a difficult question, but it is certainly continuously examined to see whether a change is right.

I was glad to hear the terms in which the hon. Member referred to the inquiry which is being held by Sir Thomas Phillips and Sir Edward Gillett, which will be followed by a report to the President of the Board of Trade. As the hon. Member said, the first thing to do is to await the result of the inquiry. Perhaps I might inform the House—I expect that the hon. Member already knows it—that the investigators have visited each of the estate companies.

Having covered, though briefly, most of the topics raised, I would only add that the subject is as interesting as it is important. It is one on which different views are possible as to the right solution in a particular case, but it is one on which I hope and believe there is no fundamental difference between the two sides of the House.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks (Acton)

I am very interested in this debate on Development Area policy, particularly because my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) has raised this matter tonight, but I cannot say that I was completely satisfied with the answer that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave. I am sure that he will appreciate that the problem that we are now facing in regard to Development Areas is due entirely to unconscious industrial planning, particularly in the years between the wars, not to mention earlier periods.

During that time, when the depressed areas came prominently to our notice, there were large numbers of men without work in those areas; nevertheless, in other parts of the country, new industrial development was taking place where there was a shortage of labour. Many of us thought that it really was most unwise to permit new industrial development in new areas when, in the depressed areas—which are now very largely Development Areas—there was much unemployment because there was no balanced industrial development. They were very largely dependent upon one or two industries, and when those industries fell upon evil days the whole of the population had to suffer.

In view of the knowledge which the hon. and learned Gentleman has of town and country planning, I thought probably he might have said a word not merely about Development Areas but about the over-developed areas. I thought he might have told us how the Board of Trade were trying to link up our overdeveloped with our under-developed areas. I come from a part of the country where we have suffered for some long time now from over-development. When one peruses the plans, such as the Greater London plan and the County of London plan, one discovers that our problem of housing, to mention no other problem, is largely due to the intense industrial concentration not merely in London but on the fringes of the Greater London area.

One-third of the industrial production of our country is situated in the Southern parts of England and one-quarter of the nation's population is within the confines of the Greater London area. Much of the area is completely built up, and there is no land left for housing development and very little left for further industrial expansion. My constituency borders upon what is known as the North-West London industrial concentration, one of the heaviest concentrations in the country. It is a comparatively modern development, which has taken place in the years between the wars when there was much unemployment in the distressed areas. Many of these industries were small when they came and newly-developing. In course of time they have expanded, and the position now in many parts is that there is no further room for expansion.

Some time ago the President of the Board of Trade gave me information about the extent of the consents which he was giving to extensions and new developments of industrial undertakings in the Greater London area. Frankly, I was rather surprised at the extent to which the Board of Trade were giving approvals to further development in areas where there is over-development and where, in fact, the reverse process should take place.

I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman might have told us something of what the Board of Trade is doing in regard to directing the over-developed areas. My hon. Friend mentioned light engineering and electrical engineering, which are a predominant feature of the industrial development of the area I am talking about, where there is constant and continuous expansion as a result of the new way of doing things, and little room for expansion. What is the Board of Trade doing to persuade industries of that type to go to Development Areas and, if necessary, take their undertakings there, rather than giving them permits to go to another part of the Greater London region?

The problem in Greater London is now becoming acute and we have been advocating for a long time for some action to be taken under the existing plans to disperse industry from the over-developed regions. I do not think the dispersal of industry is being carried out sufficiently speedily. It is important for reasons other than those which have been advanced. 1t is a bad thing for our country in the event of an emergency that many of these vital industries should be situated too near London.

I remember during the war years the concentrated bombing attacks on this area, where were situated some of the most vital industries that the country needed. In fact, at one time there was only one factory in our country producing radar, which was responsible for our winning the Battle of Britain in the air; and although the enemy tried on many occasions to destroy the factories round about, there was a time when one well-placed bomb would have destroyed completely our only productive unit of radar equipment. That is one side of the electrical industry which since then has expanded. I believe, therefore, that such vital industries should be taken away from vulnerable areas and dispersed to other parts of the country. I believe that a place can be found for them in the Development Areas.

I know, too, that the housing problem has some bearing upon the dispersal of industry. It is important, if we are to effect better planning in Greater London and really attempt to solve our serious housing problem, that we should make a determined effort not merely to disperse some of our industrial undertakings to the Development Areas, but also to pro- vide more housing accommodation so that some of our people may go there as well.

I feel that my hon. Friend has raised an important topic tonight. It is a matter of considerable interest not only to him and his friends in the Development Areas, but also to many of us in the overdeveloped areas where we are doing as much as we can to effect the opposite trend to that which my hon. Friend is trying to achieve.

We can secure a great advance if the Board of Trade can more closely link up to the development areas those underdeveloped regions of the country where there is over-industrialisation and where there is little, if any, room for expansion except by encroaching upon the limited residential areas. If something can be done by the Department to link up these two kinds of areas, it would be to the satisfaction of all. This debate has been well worth while, and I hope that it will help us to solve our problems.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes past Nine o'Clock.