HC Deb 09 December 1959 vol 615 cc689-91

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

Mr. Grimond

I wish briefly to ask the President of the Board of Trade two questions. As I understand it, while in future a certificate will be required if it is proposed to change a building which is not designed as a factory to use as a factory as defined in Clause 22, no certificate will be required for the change of use of a building designed as a factory, even though it is not in use as a factory. This seems at first sight illogical. The Board of Trade wants to take wider powers to direct industry into some areas and prevent them going into others. I would have thought that if the authorities are to take these wider powers to stop a man acquiring an existing building and setting up some business in an area where they think it undesirable for more industry to congregate, it might also be as well to take similar powers over buildings designed or used as factories.

Secondly, while I appreciate the importance of this set of Clauses, and I am not in the least arguing against this Clause, there has also to be considered the position of the individuals affected. This is a very considerable power over individuals, and Clause 19 is a considerable extension of existing powers. The last thing I want to do is to delay the process by which the certificates are given or refused. but I would like to be assured that within the Department there is some system by which disputes are carefully considered, and some right of appeal given to the person who feels aggrieved by the refusal of a certificate.

Mr. Mandling

The purpose of the Clause is to stop a loophole. I gather the position has been that a building, for example a warehouse, was liable to the I.D.C. procedure because it was a building which, though not intended for industrial purposes, was suitable for it. I gather that in practice the Board of Trade has found it impossible to refuse I.D.Cs. to warehouses, because it had to operate on the basis of whether it was consistent with the proper distribution of industry, and, as it was not an industrial building, it could not be refused on that basis. Therefore, it was possible for people to get permission to erect a warehouse, and then convert it to industrial use.

A much more practical way is to put the control at the point where the building initially becomes an industrial building used for industrial purposes, and that is the point of the provision. It is right to close this loophole. I agree about the importance of considering extremely carefully before any I.D.C. is refused. The Parliamentary Secretary—I am glad the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) referred to him—is suffering from jaundice and will be away for a little while. It is a physical jaundice, not the mental jaundice from which some hon. Members suffer. My hon. Friend considers many of the cases himself, as I am sure is right. I assure the hon. Member that we appreciate entirely what he says about safeguarding the rights of the individual.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.