HC Deb 09 December 1954 vol 535 cc1241-52

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

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

I want to initiate for the fourth time in this Parliament a debate upon the North-East Development Area. On this occasion, as upon the last on 16th July, I want in particular to raise questions regarding the Government-owned factories in Sunderland which are at present vacant. This is a matter which affects not only me but the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams).

When I raised these matters in the summer, I sought to afford the Parliamentary Secretary a better opportunity to deal with them than at Question time. As I said then I appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman shares my concern about the position of Sunderland and has been anxious to do what he can to provide work in these factories. I may not be as critical on this occasion as I was upon the last one, but I believe there is all the more reason that I should afford the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity of making a more satisfactory progress report than he was able to do last time. I hope he will take this occasion to explain more fully the reply he gave me on Tuesday last, and I am sure he will be pleased to know that, according to the "Sunderland Echo, "I" expressed pleasure at the answer" he then gave me.

I want first, however, to deal with the general background against which we must discuss the three vacant factories. Compared with the time when the Government took office, and I take this as the period of the Parliamentary Secretary's responsibility, the Government-owned factories could reasonably have been expected—I do not put it too high—to have employed between 2,000 and 3,000 more persons than were being employed in the winter of 1951. In fact, this is a cause of anxiety in Sunderland, because that is not what has happened. On the contrary, these factories are today employing 1,463 persons less than they were in September, 1951, and the major reason for this lack of employment is the redundancy which has occurred in regard to women workers.

If we look at the case of men, and we have been particularly concerned about providing employment for men in Sunderland, we find that there are only 95 more men employed in these factories than there were in September, 1951. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that this is a very small contribution towards the problem which will face us in Sunderland. Moreover, since February of this year, there have been 66 fewer men employed in these factories, and this is a matter which must cause some concern in Sunderland.

Whereas we would have expected, if things had gone well, that between 7,000 and 8,000 people would be employed in these factories, today we have only 4,000 people engaged, which is 1,500 less than the numbers engaged in the winter of 1951. That presented us with two problems, one to take steps to provide more work for women, and, secondly, to make more real and urgent progress in providing alternative work for men. It is against that background that we have to assess the present development.

The questions I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary are these. We have the Bristol Aeroplane Company in Sunderland, and we are very glad to have them. They came during the time of the last Government, but extensions have taken place in recent years and are very encouraging. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us, if he can—and I am trying to see what contribution is being made to our overall difficulties—the number of people employed at present by the Bristol Aeroplane Company and the number likely to be employed in the near future?

We also have, on the Trading Estate, the new Edison-Swan factory, which was mentioned in the last debate, and I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that it is an important contribution to our difficulties in Sunderland. It is a factory which will be over 200,000 square feet in extent, and I should like him to tell us whether he can give us any indication of the completion date, and when we might expect several hundred people to be taken up by this factory.

To deal with the three factories to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred in the answer he gave me on Tuesday, and which we have been discussing for some time, we welcome the fact that a factory has been taken over by Thorn Electrical Industries. The Parliamentary Secretary will realise that this is a firm which was interested in Henderson Brothers, and that efforts were made to persuade them to come in and back Henderson Brothers. We are very glad that they are now in Sunderland and are to take over one of these three factories. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some rough guide concerning the number of men and women likely to be employed in this factory, and particularly the number of men who may be taken on to do similar work to that carried out in the shipyards.

Lamson Paragon are coming to the second factory. I assume that they will engage in work not dissimilar to the work undertaken by Fordhams before that firm closed down, and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some comparative figures and to say whether Lamson Paragon will be employing about the same number as Fordhams employed.

Then we have the case of Brian Mills which are coming in to take over the Price's factory. I understand that they propose to employ more than 1,000 clerical workers. I say at once that this is particularly attractive to Sunderland, because one of the difficulties of a heavy industrial town is that there is little opportunity for people who wish to turn to clerical employment. Rather than be attracted out of the town, it is far better to have this employment provided within Sunderland. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can confirm the estimate of 1,000 as the likely figure for this factory.

But in this case—and at the moment, at any rate, I am not raising it in any hostile spirit—there is a new factor, because the firm is not leasing the factory, but is buying it from the Government. This, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would concede, is exceptional. I do not know whether I can get this information from the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I think that we ought to know at what price the factory is being bought and at what cost it was constructed. We should at least satisfy ourselves that commercially this is a prudent transaction.

The point which, at any rate initially, disturbs anyone who has been interested in Development Area policy is that if factories are sold the Government lose control over them and have no further say in their future use. On the other hand, I at once concede that it might be a good thing for a firm to be willing to purchase a factory outright, thereby showing confidence in its venture in Sunderland. But, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary would agree, this is not an easy problem.

I realise that this is a factory outside the estate. It is not embarrassed by questions of common service, and the like, but, on the face of it, I think it somewhat disturbing, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give us the assurance, firstly, that this action is one which is confined to this particular instance, and, secondly, that this does not indicate any departure from Development Area policy. I mention this because I was not altogether satisfied either with the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary or of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South on the point I made last time about consultations.

I have always taken the view, that the Government and the Trading Estate Company, on which I served for a time, should endeavour to get the closest association with and the confidence of industrialists coming into the Development Area. I do not think it unreasonable to expect the industrialists to share that confidence with the Government. If they have any change of plan regarding production or regarding the closing down of factories, they should consult at once the Trading Estate Company and the Government.

That question did not elicit a very sympathetic reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, and for that reason I hope that the action which has been taken regarding the Price's factory does not indicate any return to laissez faire with regard to the Development Areas. I have always found that almost all the industrialists have been willing—anxious, in fact—to discuss their programmes and plans with the Trading Estate Company. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will encourage this and will not regard it as a matter peculiarly within the province of private industry.

So much for the three factories. Until I get a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, I am not sure, of course, as to the likely employment, but, in itself, this present development does not seem to be nearly sufficient to meet the primary difficulties of Sunderland. I make no apology for once again urging the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a hopeful statement about the proposed Trading Estate North of the river. Pallion is now almost built up; and unless we can show new industrialists a developing estate it is difficult to persuade them to come to Sunderland.

A survey has been made north of the river, the plans have been prepared, and I think that the time has come when we should proceed with that development. Particularly now that the problem of the three factories have been dealt with, we have to be able to offer to industrialists an attractive site on which we may build their factories. The Parliamentary Secretary having now got over his immediate difficulties. I hope that he will be able to give us an encouraging reply about a new trading estate for Sunderland.

A smaller point, which I have previously mentioned, is that of Government contracts. If I may say so, I did not think the Parliamentary Secretary's reply on the last occasion was adequate. I should like him to look at the problem of getting top priority for particular districts within the Development Areas. I know all the difficulties, but we in Sunderland, at any rate, feel that something more might be done.

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's experience is, but my experience is that firms in Sunderland have the impression that the assurance given about Government contracts means very little at all. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take this occasion to allay that suspicion. Quite apart from that, I Should like his assurance that he will investigate the problem of treating differentially different parts of the development areas.

One final point I emphasise what my right hon. Friend far Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said during the debate on the Gracious Speech. In view of the continuing interest we are showing in Development Areas, not only in the North-East but throughout the country, I hope that the Government as soon as possible will prepare a White Paper on their development policy.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams (Sunderland, South)

Unlike the occasion last week, tonight it is not only to be the river which divides the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and myself but the Floor of the House. I think that we have reverted to our normal roles of opposition to each other. Last week we agreed on what should happen to the Port of Sunderland; this week I shall try to cross swords with him on political grounds.

The hon. Member mentioned the Bristol Aeroplane Company, which now operates in Sunderland to an increasing degree. He asked for an assurance about its future with regard to Government contracts etc., and said that there should, at least, be some certainty for civil aviation so that the firm may build engines for its own aircraft. It would be better if we knew that the Airways Corporations were to buy British aircraft, and that we were not to be continually disturbed by news that they were to buy from America. It would be better for the Bristol Company in particular and Sunderland in general if we knew that there was a future for Bristol aircraft and engines.

While the hon. Gentleman was speaking I thought back on some of the things which have happened during the past few weeks and months. I thought that his speech this evening was in particular contrast to the usual trend of his Questions and, more particularly, to his supplementaries. He was, for a change, congratulatory and almost pleasant to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is a role which, I must admit, becomes him for a change.

But there is a certain background to this whole issue, for this matter of trading estates generally and development in the North-East was discussed in some small measure in the county council some time ago. Councillor Youngson asked for some information about an approach by the Durham County Council to, I gather, the President of the Board of Trade, and perhaps I may be allowed to quote from the reply of Councillor McDarby, who is the Chairman of the Planning Committee. He said: The fact that there is a Tory Government at Westminster is proof that we have to send for the people, the only people, who will help us. That is, presumably, the Socialists; I do not know. It is no use our friend"— that is Councillor Youngson— suggesting that the Tory Party will help. Not on your life. That seems to me to be in particular contrast to the moderation and reasonable attitude of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) this evening.

I should like to know whether the hon. Member for Sunderland, North will make up his mind whether he is treating this matter as one of genuine welfare of the people of Sunderland or whether he is treating it as a party political matter. I suggest that this sort of partisan background in County Durham is in particular contrast to the reasonable attitude which we have seen here this evening.

I also understand that there was to be a delegation to see the President of the Board of Trade. What has happened to that delegation? I am told that it was to meet at 3.30 this afternoon, but I received a peculiar message saying that the meeting was off. Why was it off?

Mr. Willey

This is the first time that I have heard of a delegation to anyone at 3.30 this afternoon.

Mr. Williams

That may be so, but there was to be a delegation from the Durham County Council, and suddenly this delegation disappeared into thin air. Has it done so because the delegation would not get any help from the Tory Party? This is partisan politics in County Durham run riot, and it is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to turn up here in this reasonable frame of mine to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on what has been a hard job—and it has been a hard job to get people to come to Sunderland because of the difficulties and criticisms about the trading estates in the last 18 months.

I wish to make only three points this evening. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will use his influence to get the President of the Board of Trade to come to the North-East and visit the trading estates as soon as possible, not because we are uncertain of the future of the trading estates but because we have a first-class show to show to the public. It is a good show partly because of the work of the chairman of the North-East Trading Estates. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me in that. We should pay particular tribute to the chairman who has done a magnificent job.

There is only one question I would ask, and I regret not having given my hon. and learned Friend notice of it. The other day I went round the exhibition of the trading estate at Team Valley. This was the first time I had seen it, and perhaps that is a regrettable admission to have to make. I was more than impressed to see in three dimensions the products of the North-East Trading Estates. I wish all those products could be put publicly on display so that the people who work on the trading estates could see the final product of all the companies and understand the value of the trading estates, so that they could have some pride in the trading estates and so that we could improve the pride in the North-East.

I should like to know whether it is possible to find some way of putting on show publicly in the North-East, and in London as well, if possible, the products of our trading estates so that all may see and realise the value of the work in the North-East.

10.25 p.m.

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

I certainly make no complaint of the friendly attitude of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). Whatever words have passed between us on any other occasion, our personal relations have remained friendly and he has always given me some indication in advance of the topics he would raise.

I have little time, and if I do not deal with everything raised by the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), perhaps we can discuss them afterwards. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North mentioned at the outset a decline in the figures, since a date in the past, of those employed in Sunderland itself. It is only fair to remember that the numbers employed in the factories in the North-Eastern Development Area as a whole have never been as high as at present. I can give him this assurance: when the three factories mentioned in a recent Question, which have until recently been empty but have now been disposed of, are under their new management, and when the new Edison-Swan factory is built and further development in the aeroplane factory is bearing full fruit, all the deficiencies which worry him will be more than made up.

That brings me to his request for statistical information about the numbers employed in particular concerns. I cannot meet him on that, and I would remind him that there is a legal objection to my doing so. In the case of figures obtained by Government Departments—in this case by the Ministry of Labour—such as figures of employment in particular factories, there is a statutory prohibition against disclosure in the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947. As for the estimates of future employment, I do not wish to meet him there either, because these estimates are based on confidential information from tenants and prospective tenants, and we should do harm to the cause which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South have at heart if we disclosed anything of that confidential kind in the House. I therefore prefer to give him a general assurance.

The hon. Member raised the question of the sale of what was formerly Price's factory. Let me say at once that that case is de facto exceptional in the sense that such a sale does not often happen. It has happened before, but I think it is likely to remain unusual, not because it is improper but because the occasion will not normally arise.

He is right in thinking that each particular case must be considered on its merits. In the present case, we are satisfied that the decision is likely to be in the long-term interests of Sunderland. He was right in pointing out that it is not a factory on an estate, and I think he was right to be encouraged by the fact that firms are so certain of their future that they are prepared to buy their own premises. He will also have noted that that does not mean that the Government are not continuing to invest capital on a large scale in estates in the North-Eastern Development Area.

The hon. Member asked me to say a word about the development of an estate north of the river. I cannot give him an assurance about that because, frankly, that would not be a right use of funds available for development; it would not be essential or economic since at present there are a number of prepared sites still available on the Pallion Estate, and there would be no good reason at the moment for developing a new one.

I am bound to say that firms and companies in Sunderland enjoy all the advantages which any firms in Development Areas enjoy in respect of Government contracts. Those will be known to him because they are based on the same principles as were in force when he was a member of the previous Administration. When he suggests that Sunderland should have some special consideration over and above that, I am bound to tell him what will be obvious to him already, that if I were to say "Yes," his own colleagues from other Development Areas would attack and blame me with far more reason than he has ever had to attack the Board of Trade.

The hon. Gentleman said that he was a little dissatisfied with what I said last time on the subject of consultation. Frankly, I do not think he should have been. I am going to do what I very rarely do and that is to quote what I said on the last occasion. Here are my words: An appeal was made that we should ask people who came to the Development Areas to consult us before making important changes in their businesses. Frankly, I believe that to adopt that suggestion would do more harm than good, for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. I say at once that we do our best to keep in close touch with our tenants. They often inform us in advance of any proposed changes. We welcome that, but there is no obligation on them to do so. I think that it is important when we are trying to attract business to a Development Area to take the attitude that I adumbrated at the beginning of my speech. We should say that it is a good place to go and that they will get a good factory and good people to employ. We should not tell them that they will be under any disadvantage or obligation to which they would not be subject if they went elsewhere. They should have the same right to commercial freedom and to privacy as they would in other circumstances. I should not wish to give the impression that they would run any abnormal risk of having their affairs discussed or questioned in the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 952.] I am unwilling to give this House information on these matters because I am considering the interests of Development Areas and I know some of the difficulties of attracting new companies and firms to those areas. If we say, "If you come to a Development Area you will be subject to a prying into your affairs on the Floor of the House of Commons to which you would not be subject if you did not come to a Development Area," that would be the last way in which to get people to come to these areas. I beg the hon. Gentleman not always to assume that because the Board of Trade differs from him it is wrong.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.