HC Deb 09 December 1959 vol 615 cc686-9

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Loughlin

Many of us are very concerned about this Clause. We appreciate that it is very difficult to start thinking in terms of directing private industry into various areas, although. as I said on a previous occasion, I see nothing morally wrong in saying to a board of directors, "You must go to a particular area". The only valid argument there can be to directions of any kind is the interference with the freedom of the individual. If there is a situation in which, because of lack of jobs in an area, the mere failure to supply jobs there involves the movement of people away from the area through economic compulsion, that is in effect a direction and an interference with the freedom of the individual.

I sought to argue on that previous occasion that it would be far more in keeping with the maintenance of the rights of the individual to direct a board of directors into a particular area—a board of, say, 20 directors, rather than to allow a situation arise where 300 or 400 or more people were directed out of an area because no jobs existed. I am not satisfied that there is a real determination on the part of hon. Members opposite to ensure that industrialists face their social obligations as well as considering their personal interests in pursuance of industrial activity. We have recently had an indication from Ford, Vauxhall, Standard and the British Motor Corporation that they intend to expand their plants considerably in the next few months. It has been stated clearly by at least two of those corporations that irrespective of the wishes of this or any other Government, they are determined to expand in the area in which they already function. One of the corporations—I will not name it—stated that it would have to expand and that it might well consider moving elsewhere. On the following day, I wrote to the chairman of that corporation a personal letter urging him to consider my constituency, and I received from the secretary to the deputy chairman of the corporate a mere acknowledgment. This corporation is prepared to move, but at least two of them have decided not to do so.

I should like to know what will be the attitude of the Government if, when they refuse to issue development certificates to these firms, the firms nevertheless insist that they will not go elsewhere. When the Government needs for social purposes to ensure that industrial development takes place in one area, and the industrialist refuses to go and says he proposes to develop in another area, we have to consider whether we are prepared to say to the industrialist, "If we cannot induce you to go, having made all the necessary arrangements to improve the facilities in the area, in spite of everything we have done to ensure that your development will take place in which no undue economic burden is imposed on you, then in no circumstances will we issue a development certificate for the area in which you want to go. You must go to the area which we say needs industry, or you will not go anywhere at all."

During the last two days, I have developed a respect and admiration for the way the President of the Board of Trade has handled the task with which he has been presented this week. [interruption.] I cannot help offending my hon. Friends—

Mr. Ross

My hon. Friend will not have any now.

Mr. Loughlin

On several occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has tried to meet the wishes of the Committee and has done something. We may not like individuals, but we can say when they do the right thing. The right hon. Gentleman has great ability, and he has shown it in the last few days, whether my hon. Friends like it or not.

I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will consider what his position will be in the next two or three months when he is faced with a determination on the part of companies to stay where they are. If he is not determined to refuse the issue of industrial development certificates to companies which will not be persuaded to go where they are needed, the Bill will not be worth the paper which it is printed on. I hope he will ensure that industrial development certificates are issued only where the needs of the community can really best be served.

Mr. Jay

I take a middle view about the conduct of the President of the Board of Trade, and I hope that that will provoke no one at this time of the night.

I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has said about the use of the industrial development certificate. I thought that this subject was more strictly in order on Clause 18, but, since we have got thus far with it, I will say now what I had in mind. Briefly, although we are not debating the matter at length, we feel very strongly that this is really one of the most important parts, if not the most important part, of the whole Bill. We all said it fairly emphatically on Second Reading, and the right hon. Gentleman is not, therefore, in any doubt about our view.

If the President of the Board of Trade weakens on the refusal of industrial development certificates in too many cases in the congested areas—we all agree that he cannot refuse them all—the whole operation will be a lost battle. On the other hand, if he is firm about it in all cases where he should be firm, he has a good chance, with the help of the inducements, of winning the battle. But I am not satisfied with the conduct of the Board of Trade, even in the past year. We know that in 1957 and 1958 the Board of Trade got appallingly lax about the operation of the whole of this policy. As a result of a great deal of agitation from this side and from other quarters, we had hoped that there had been a tightening up in the present year, as the Parliamentary Secretary, whose continued absence we regret as much as the President does, had assured us there was.

12 midnight.

I asked the President yesterday what was the percentage going to London and the south-eastern region of all the new factory provision in Great Britain up to date this year, compared with the corresponding period last year. The figures showed that the percentage going to London was 21.5 in 1958 and 18.7 in 1959. That is only a slight improvement after all that agitation and commotion and all the various policies which we have. These are the President's own figures. It is not good enough. I do not think he will win the battle if he is no: prepared to be tougher than that. We urge him to look at these figures and resolve to do very much better from now on.

Mr. Maudling

I do not think the Committee would want me to enter at this stage into a lengthy discussion on the principles of distribution of industry policy. I confine myself to saying that I accept what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jay) and the hon. Member for West Gloucester (Mr. Loughlin) about the fundamental importance of the I.D.C. system to the whole success of this Bill. I am sure the Committee would not want me to comment on individual cases which may be submitted to me. That would be wrong. I accept that it is a fundamental part of the Bill and that on the way we administer this matter our devotion to the purpose of the Bill may be Judged.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.