HC Deb 09 December 1959 vol 615 cc614-37
Mr. Charles Mapp (Oldham, East)

I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, to leave out "three" and to insert "five".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arbuthnot)

I think it would be convenient to the Committee if with this Amendment we were to discuss also the Amendments in page 5, line 31, at end insert "North-Eastern". In line 32, after "England", insert: the Industrial Estates Management Corporation for North-Western England, the Industrial Management Corporation for England (General) The two Amendments in line 34, after "respects", insert "North-Eastern", and after "England", insert: North-Western England, such part of England as is not comprised in North-Eastern England or North-Western England". In line 38, at end insert: and the boundaries of North-Eastern England and of North-Western England shall be specified by an order of the Board, which shall be laid before Parliament", and in line 43, at end insert: (3) The principal office of each Management Corporation shall be situated within the area in respect of which that Management Corporation is to exercise its functions.

Mr. Ellis Smith

On a point of procedure, Mr. Arbuthnot. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) will be speaking to these Amendments, but I wondered whether you would consider that we could take at the same time the Amendments to Clause 9, page 6, all in line 34, and all seeking to insert a new subsection as follows: (5) The Industrial Estates Management Corporation for England shall consult with the Cumberland Development Council in matters affecting Cumberland. (5) The Industrial Estates Management Corporation for England shall consult with the Staffordshire County Council and the Newcastle-under Lyme borough and rural district councils, and a direction may be given under subsection (1) of this section requiring the management corporation to consult with these councils. (5) The Industrial Estates Management Corporation for England shall consult with the Trafford Park Estates, and a direction may be given under subsection (1) of this section requiring the Management Corporation to consult with the Estates Limited. (5) The Industrial Estates Management Corporation for England shall consult with the Stoke City Industrial Sites Committee, and a direction may be given under subsection (1) of this section requiring the Management Corporation to consult with the Sites Committee. These Amendments are similar, and I feel that if we do not discuss them at the same time there will be some overlapping in the discussion. I feel that we could have a broad discussion within reason, provided that our right to divide later on is safeguarded, though I do not suppose that necessity will arise pro- vided the Minister is as generous as he was on the last Clause. I feel that this procedure would facilitate business and save a great deal of time.

The Temporary Chairman

I am sorry, but I cannot agree to the hon. Member's request to go that distance.

Mr. Mapp

In moving the Amendment I feel that I should perhaps make plain that I am not particularly wedded to the word "five" or even to a greater number. It may be that some hon. Members have in mind other figures. and their comments will be helpful.

If we consider the various Ministry of Labour areas, we find that in terms of population there are roughly 5½ million in London and south-eastern England; in eastern and southern England, 2 million; south-western England, 1 million; the Midlands area, 2 million; north -Midlands, 1½ million; East and West Ridings, 1¾ million; northwestern area, 3 million; and the northern area, 1¼ million. This amounts to nearly 19 million insured or employed people who will be covered by this one management corporation, and in addition we shall be legislating for a little over 2 million in Scotland and something like 1 million in Wales.

When we consider the Development Areas we find that the great problem facing us will lie in the North of England. The purpose of the Amendments is to separate or break down the entity of England and to divide it into at least three divisions. The figures generally support that proposal, and I feel that there would be a measure of injustice if the great area of England were left under one management corporation.

I have heard from time to time, when there has been some form of injustice, people casually saying "That is another injustice for Scotland." However, in our endeavour to allay any such feelings with regard to Scotland or Wales we must not overlook the claims of England. The number of employed people in the North-Western area are considerably in excess of those in Scotland and three times in excess of those in Wales.

Mr. G. Roberts

If my hon. Friend looks at the figures again, he will see that proportionately they are less misleading than would appear from his remarks. He will find that we are not so well off in Wales.

Mr. Mapp

I was dealing with the number of employed people, and the figures are largely as I indicated. In terms of unemployment, it is clear that Scotland and Wales are at the head of the table. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the areas mainly in the north of England, on the northwest and north-east sides, and to a lesser degree in Yorkshire, should have adequate attention. We feel that these areas cannot properly be covered by administration or direction from one centre, wherever it may be, in England. We feel strongly that there should be at least three management corporations. I am prepared to agree that there should not be one management corporation for each of the divisional areas under the Ministry of Labour. That would be asking too much, but I feel that a case could be made out for at least three in England.

I hope that the Minister will be as forthcoming on this Amendment as he was a few moments ago. I would stress that in the main the problem is in the northern part of England, and it is likely to continue. I am not married to the geography in the later Amendments. They are designed largely to stimulate thought on the part of the Minister. If he can see his way to meet the demand by the provinces that they should have some flexibility and regional outlook in this matter he will be meeting the spirit of the Bill as well as the letter.

If I had time I could quote the feelings of the people on the Merseyside. However, I will content myself by paraphrasing the feelings of the Merseyside Development Association which is asking that in this Bill there should be some elasticity of approach, not necessarily centred in London. One is not anti-Whitehall except insofar as these are local and regional matters, and the feeling and knowledge of the districts concerned would be better reflected if the right hon. Gentleman were to accept the principle of these Amendments.

Mr. George Chetwynd (Stockton-on-Tees)

I am very pleased to support the Amendment moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp). It seems to me that one corporation for the whole of England is not only much too big but it is also much too remote. I am asking that it should be based for administrative purposes on London. To have five people looking after the whole of the distribution of industry policy for England seems to me ludicrous when we bear in mind the number of bodies which up to now have been dealing with it. One of the great strengths of the present arrangements has been the local influence, local example, local initiative and pride which have moved the local development boards in their different areas in going out of their way to attract industry to the present Development Areas.

I make a plea for the retention, under the Bill of North Eastern Trading Estates Ltd. I make it quite unashamedly, because I believe that the record of this company justifies its claim to continue in the future. I have no idea what kind of personnel the Minister has in mind to staff his new administration, but I hazard a guess that he will go to North Eastern Trading Estates Ltd. for the chairman. I should not be at all surprised if that were so. We may, therefore, have a friend at court in the new body, but, even so, I would much rather that the existing company remained.

The reason is very simple. Until, perhaps, the recession of the last year or so, North Eastern Trading Estates Ltd. has been one of the most successful public enterprises that there could be. It covers the whole geographical county of Durham, the county boroughs of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Tynemouth, a large area of Northumberland, and a considerable part of the North Riding.

8.30 p.m.

The important fact is that this company has been the pioneer. It came into existence twenty-three years ago. It has been a model for the development of all other trading estates companies in the country. It has done a tremendous amount of valuable work, particularly in the early years, to attract new industries and produce diversification in the North-East. It has by its example and effort been able to provide excellent facilities for factories. It conducted a first-class advertising campaign, with tremendous publicity. All along, it has been an acknowledged success.

There are now about 53,000 people employed in the factories under the control of North Eastern Trading Estates Ltd. Naturally, we should have liked to see that figure very much increased. It was not the figure the company originally set out to attain. The original target was something like 100,000, an extremely optimistic figure at the time, but, throughout the years of its existence since the war the company has maintained its level of employment at well above the 50,000 mark. In the ancillary industries which have accompanied the development which the company has encouraged, it has provided additional work for, perhaps, 100,000 people in the North-East, many of them women who have come into industry for the first time.

North-Eastern Trading Estates Ltd. now controls over 300 factories on its estates and individual sites. Its great virtue is that it has not been a rent-collecting device. It has not been an estate or factory management device. On the contrary, it has deliberately gone out of its way to encourage new industries to settle in the North-East, both large firms and small, covering the whole range of manufacturing activity, electrical goods, clothing, and so forth.

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

I do not know whether I am right, but I think that there is some confusion here. The existing development companies, as I understand it, will still continue, while the corporation provided for under the Bill will be entirely distinct from the local corporations. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I put this point because I want some clarification.

Mr. Chetwynd

It is not so.

Mr. Loughlin

As I read it, there are certain functions laid upon the corporations by Clause 9. Sir William, may I continue with this point?

Mr. Chetwynd

If it is an interruption, I should like to reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) is not right. If he looks at the Second Schedule, he will see that the individual industrial estates com- panies, including North Eastern Trading Estates Limited, the one with which I am particularly concerned, are to be abolished. The actual physical set-up, as it were, may remain at a lower administrative level, but the boards or companies themselves will be abolished, and the five industrial estates companies are to be centralised under one body consisting of a chairman and four members. I hope that that makes the matter quite clear.

The fact that almost every type of product is included in the list of products from the 300 factories to which I have referred shows clearly the success of the development area policy pursued energetically by the Labour Government and not quite so energetically by Conservative Government. It has brought diversification of industry into the North-East. As I say, developments in the North-East have proved to be a great success. The trading estate conception now occupies a prominent and, I hope, a permanent place in the industrial and economic life of the North-East and of the rest of the country.

North Eastern Trading Estates Limited is no small concern. It administers 14 separate trading estates. Anyone who has seen a modern trading estate knows what kind of business that is, with centralised services and so forth. It has eight group sites and 14 individual sites. The 300 tenants occupy a total factory space of over 12 million sq. ft. It is responsible for capital assets totalling over £17 million. Altogether, it operates in an area of more than 1,260 square miles. So we are not dealing with a small organisation but with a major concern.

In my view it would be wrong to sweep away this body and to centralise control in five people who will be no more than rent collectors, who will merely see that buildings are painted and the business is kept ticking over, who will not go out of their way to attract new firms into the area. The plea I make for the retention of this trading estate is that in the past it has been not just a commercial landlord but has been concerned to help the tenants to expand and make progress in their enterprises and it has shown personal interest in the wellbeing of the firms. There has been a period of great enterprise which, however, has been regrettably curtailed in past years.

More important still is that North Eastern Trading Estates Ltd. has identified itself with the public life of the north-east. It has given a corporate character to its endeavours, which I am sure applies to all the other trading estate companies. It has linked up with the North-Eastern Development Industrial Association in publicity. It has fostered a corporate spirit in an economic unit spread over three counties, and it would be a great tragedy if all this were now to be lost and a mere rent collecting agency put in its place.

On its board there have been representatives of all forms of civic life—industrialists, trade unionists, people who have given voluntary service, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for some time. These people have done a good job in inducing industry to come to the northeast, and I am sure that all the firms who have come there have had no cause to regret their decision.

The demise of this trading estate at this time is to be greatly deplored, because the problem we are now facing is just as acute today for most of the area concerned as when it came into being. The basic industries on which the north-east depend—coal and shipbuilding—are in a serious economic plight, so we cannot say that the work of the trading estate is finished, successful though it has been. It has a great future if it can be left in being, so I hope the Minister will see fit to go back on his idea of one all-embracing company to deal with the entire country and will give us back again our local interest. After all, the Tory Party prides itself on the fact that the gentleman in Whitehall does not know best. I should have thought that the gentlemen of Tyneside, Wearside and Tees-side know better how to go about these things than a body sitting in London.

What about the future of the factories and, above all, of the employees of the company if this proposal should go through? Are their jobs secure? Have they got pension rights if they are put out of employment by this Clause? I suggest that the best thanks the Minister can give to the voluntary efforts of the many public-spirited people who have served the Board in the past few years, and who had such signal success in the early days, would be to show confidence in them in the future by allowing them to carry on in the difficult days which face us.

Mr. Ellis Smith

I wish to associate myself with all that has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) and Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). I will dispose first of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees because I want to concentrate on the area I know best. It has been my privilege to visit the area on several occasions and I know the public spirit that prevails amongst the men who have been responsible for administering that estate. It has done very good work and has fostered a certain civic pride which should be cultivated rather than discouraged as it will be if our interpretation of the Clause is correct. I was very pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East speak in such a knowledgeable way about the area that he represents, and it is about that area that I want to make a few observations.

In that area, as is too often forgotten. is the oldest and most successful trading estate in this country. It is the best organised, with the best sidings and railways, and it has produced millions of pounds. In the Trafford Park estate there are some of the most efficient concerns in the world. It is bounded on one side by the Manchester Ship Canal and on the other by the Bridgwater Canal. The passenger service and the sidings are most efficient. We should like to know how they will be affected, because if some areas are to have the benefit of national finance this area is also entitled to it.

I hoped that I might have been able to make my contribution to facilitating business on an earlier Amendment, but we were prevented and I accept that decision. I would have thought that one would have been able to deal with this as one issue instead of being forced into making two speeches. That, however, is not my responsibility. I propose to dwell upon this matter for the time being.

The area about which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East has been speaking is within a 50-mile radius of Manchester and 11 million people live there. In that area 68,000 people are unemployed, which is twice as many as in the whole of Wales.

We want Wales to continue to have its development encouraged. We want, however, to know where we come in. According to the official figures published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for November, there were in the area, about which my hon. Friend has spoken so well, 68,626 unemployed compared with 86,617 in Scotland and 32,297 in Wales.

When we come to the Development Areas, we find a tragic situation is hidden behind the teeming millions in Lancashire. On Merseyside—and I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) will listen to this because his area is considerably affected—4 per cent. are unemployed, which is higher than in any other Development Area with the exception of Scotland with 4.7 unemployed.

In order to avoid controversy I will give the latest figures of unemployed in the Development Areas so that we may approach this problem in a correct perspective. According to the official figures the rate of unemployed in the North-East is 3.2 per cent.

Mr. Chetwynd

It is 3.8 per cent.

Mr. Ellis Smith

The figures I am giving are the official figures in the last Ministry of Labour Gazette for November. If any hon. Member wants to check up he can run into the Library while I am speaking and do so.

Mr. Ede

We are listening to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Chetwynd

I was quoting the November figures which show an increase.

Mr. Ellis Smith

I do not want to differ from my hon. Friend because we have too much in common, but there is a slight difference. He is quoting the very latest figures and I am quoting from the Ministry of Labour Gazette for November.

The Deputy-Chairman

It will be helpful if the hon. Gentleman will address the Chair as well as his hon. Friends.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith

We all need to be corrected at times, Sir William. If my wife were here she would add that nobody needs it more than I do.

I am quoting the latest unemployment figures for the Development Areas so that those who subsequently contribute to the debate can do so against this background. The figures are: North-Eastern 3.2 per cent., West Cumberland 3.8 per cent., Scottish 4.7 per cent., South Wales and Monmouthshire 3.2 per cent., Wrexham 3.7 per cent., South Lancashire 2.8 per cent., North-East Lancashire 1.5 per cent. and Merseyside 4 per cent.

I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. I quote these figures not with a view to raising differences between us but so that we can approach the problem in the correct perspective. We all want to bring about the best results for all the areas. No matter what the percentage happens to be, anyone which is unemployed through no fault of his own deserves a sympathetic approach from us all. All that we are asking is that there should be equality of treatment and national uniformity in administration. If it is right in accordance with the Bill when it becomes an Act to give the very best treatment to one area, then we ask that the very best treatment should also be given to our own areas.

Mr. Maudling

I think I can help the Committee, because there seems to be a certain amount of misunderstanding about this matter.

There are two points that I wish to make. First, it seems to me to be assumed that the English headquarters will be in London. I think that is most unlikely. It is almost certain that the headquarters will be somewhere in the North of England. I am sure that everyone will agree that that is right. Secondly, the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) talked about five men looking at the policy for the whole of England. This is not a matter of policy. It is a matter of administration. In a moment or two I will make that clearer.

Much as I should like to help in this respect, I feel that it would be running contrary to most of the things that we are doing by means of the Bill if we were to accept the Amendment. I am much fortified by what was said by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), who was making a point which I in my turn might wish to make. We must look at this matter as a national problem and not a regional problem. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), who talked about the desirability of a regional outlook.

One of our purposes in the Bill is to get away from the concept of certain areas being given special treatment and to ensure that the same benefits should be available to all areas which qualify by reason of their unemployment conditions. It is consistent with that that we should seek, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, national uniformity in administration. However, I admit that we are not being wholly logical, because we have separate arrangements for Scotland and Wales, but I should have thought that this was—

Hon. Members

It is still a national matter.

Mr. Maudling

Exactly. Illogicality is accepted as a matter of policy on some occasions.

In the case of England, we feel that the new concept of the Bill can be served only by having a single corporation. We are thinking not in terms of two or three special areas but of a number of areas, some possibly co-terminous with existing Development Areas and some smaller, areas which will be changing from time to time. We think there is a considerable case for uniformity in administration. That is what we are seeking through the provisions in the Bill.

The misunderstanding has arisen because people have assumed that the functions of these corporations will be not only management, but "missionary" work, the work of promoting the areas where the factories are established. That is not our view. It is our view that they should concentrate on management. It is important to draw distinctions and to prevent too much overlapping.

I was struck in Scotland last week by the view of an American who is running a firm in Lanarkshire, which is doing very well, and who said that it was a mistake for too many people to try to put forward the claims of an area. He said that we should not have confusion and overlapping, and I think that that is important.

It is our view that there are three functions to be performed. First, there is the policy of trying to get firms into particular areas—by using I.D.C.s on the one hand and by employing all the inducements contained in the earlier Clauses on the other. That must remain a matter for the Board of Trade. Quite clearly, that is our responsibility and our duty.

Secondly, there is the function of general promotion of the virtues of a particular district. I should have thought that that was exactly the function of the development councils and development associations, such as the Scottish Council, the Welsh Council, the Cumberland Council and the North-Eastern Council. We hope that those organisations will continue to do their work.

However, there is a third and we think quite separate function, managing Board of Trade properties and factories in these areas.

There is another point, possibly a small distinction in the minds of some people in Scotland, that the men who are to run these corporations should be able to understand the needs of industrialists and not be merely technical men. I accept that. We will aim to get on the boards of the corporations people who will be able to talk to industrialists so that when we get industrialists and induce them to consider certain areas, the people running the factories in that area will be able to talk to these industrialists in terms they understand. That system has worked very well in Scotland and it will continue to work well because we will invite people of that capacity to serve on the corporations.

While I appreciate that there is a great deal in the arguments in support of the Amendment, I think that it would be a mistake to accept it.

Mr. Mapp

The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the members of the management corporations will be expected to have certain commercial aptitudes. Immediately before that, he said that the local agencies ought to continue, to undertake the public relations work. Will he be good enough to make clear who will be responsible for public relations development? Will it be done locally? If so, through which agencies will it be done? Will they be voluntary agencies, or will it be done through the management corporations, the personnel of which we shall be discussing shortly?

Mr. Maudling

I repeat what seem to be the three separate functions. There is the general selling of a district, which is a job for bodies such as the Scottish Council, which has done it extremely well. Such a body will be responsible for the public promotion of a district to industrialists not only in this country, but in America and in other parts of the world. Secondly, there is the job of the Board of Trade, to try to get industrialists to consider factories or sites in areas where there are Board of Trade powers. Thirdly it will be the job of the management corporations to explain to the industrialist when he comes to the area what sort of factory he will get. The corporation will have to be generally able to understand the needs of the industrialists going to the areas.

Those are the three separate functions and it is important that we should try to get away from overlapping. I am convinced from what I have seen and heard that overlapping is a mistake. There are three separate functions, and I think that I have described everything that needs to be done and will continue to be done. At the same time, we shall get a national uniformity in administration, which I think is desirable.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Mapp

I beg to move, in page 5, line 41, to leave out "four" and to insert "six".

The Deputy-Chairman

It would be convenient also to discuss the Amendment in page 5, line 43, at end, insert: local government or the organisation of workers".

Mr. Mapp

Having heard the Minister a moment ago, any suggestion that the management of these corporations would have some forward progressive view seems to me to be unfounded, because I have little confidence in the type or qualities of the people suggested as members of the corporation. I do not wish to denigrate the skill, knowledge or integrity of accountants. They are people who have a rightful place in management, but if the problem that we are facing is one of looking at the harsh realities of the industrial world, of trying to get contacts in 1960, and trying to judge the tempo of business and the developments of the future, the accountancy world is one that we should not consult. The accountancy world is one that we should bring in after the major policy decisions have been made.

The Amendment seeks to bring into these management corporations an expression of crvic and industrial life. The fresh air that will be brought into the management corporations by the kind of people that I have in mind, and which the House will understand, will be of benefit to them. The Board of Trade itself would benefit by the initiative and virility of thought that might emanate from the inception of such fresh blood into the management corporations.

The precedent that I have in mind is D.A.T.A.C. I gather that the Committee is composed of an accountant who is the chairman. I do not disagree with that. There are three representatives from industry, a representative about whom I am rather uncertain, but he is probably a man with local government experience, and at least two men nominated by the Trades Union Congress.

I am not complaining about the weighting of that Committee. What I am suggesting is that in that D.A.T.A.C. arrangement there is a healthy arrangement and not half a dozen people looking at the problem from one purely functional point of view, namely, accountancy.

I realise that these management corporations will to a large extent deal with the proper deployment and management of these estates, but they will not do that exclusively. Because of that I am asking for the inception of fresh blood into these management corporations. That can be done by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

I desire to say a word or two in support of the Amendment. The only purpose of amending the figure from "four" to "six" is to provide room without cutting down the representation foreshadowed in the Bill; four representatives of local authorities, on the one hand, and, on the other, representatives of organised workers. 9.0 p.m.

With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), D.A.T.A.C. is a suitable analogy to illustrate the point he made, because it is clear that the D.A.T.A.C. Committee had policy functions to perform which are outside the functions of these management committees. It decided, for instance. whether aid should be granted at all, and, if so, how much. Any assistance received from the Government was on its recommendation. The Minister has now made it quite clear, although it was doubtful before, that this is not to be one of the functions of management corporations. Although 1 make that point, I would go on to say that it is perhaps for that reason that the Amendment might commend itself to the Minister. As at present drawn, the Bill provides that: Each of the Corporations … shall consist of a chairman and four other members appointed by the Board, and the members shall include persons appearing to the Board to have adequate experience in accountancy, building or estate management. One can infer from that subsection that accountancy, building and estate management will cover the bulk of the scope of the functions to be performed by management corporations.

In his answer on the previous Amendment. the Minister pointed out that it was necessary to avoid overlapping, and if one is to avoid that, one must have some continuous liaison. The very purpose of avoiding overlapping in the various functions performed by the various bodies would be assisted by having, on the corporations, people who are used to the problems of local government and also of labour and personnel.

Nothing could possibly be lost by it. I agree that it would be a mistake to extend the membership of the corporations so as to make them unwieldy debating assemblies instead of small executive and administrative bodies, but I suggest that no danger will be run by merely increasing the number from four to six. A body of six is still not unwieldy. It is quite as easy to arrive at quick, practical and workmanlike decisions with six members as with four, and it would allow for constant and continuous contact with the local authorities concerned by people accustomed to the kind of problems with which local authorities will be concerned.

It seems to some of us that in the whole spirit of the Bill there has been rather too much playing down of local authorities' connection with, and interest in, these matters. Local authorities are vitally interested in the matter, and in many cases they know very much more about it than anybody else concerned with it, including the Board of Trade. For those reasons, I commend the Amendment to the Minister and hope that he will be able to accept it.

Mr. Maudling

I have listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments put forward by the hon. Members opposite, and I can say that my mind is not made up on the question. I wanted to hear the arguments put forward. Two separate points are involved. The first concerns the number and the second the composition of the corporations. I would like to keep the number at five—a chairman and four members. I think that it is a question of the smaller the better for the job of management, but keeping it at that figure does not preclude having a representative of local government or the organisation of workers.

Turning to the second point, I should have thought that a trade unionist would probably have more to contribute to the sort of work the corporations would do than would a representative of local government, and certainly in the case of England it would be difficult to obtain a representative of local government over such a wide area. I agree that that consideration would not necessarily apply to Scotland or Wales.

I should like to think over what has been said. I do not necessarily disagree with any of it, although I am doubtful about the local government representative. I do not want to appear to be writing down local authorities, or to be derogatory of them, but it would be a pity to bring people with a local authority point of view into a sphere where it is not appropriate. It would only waste their time and, possibly, lead to a corporation with more people than are needed.

I should like to think it over if the Committee will give me leave to do so. I should like to consider once again the size and composition without, I must make clear, committing myself, because my mind is not yet made up on this question. But I will consider the matter between now and Report stage and see whether I can go some way to meet the arguments which have been put forward.

Mr. Ross

I hope that when he thinks about this matter the right hon. Gentleman will do so not only in the light of the suggestions already made regarding organisation, labour and the question of the local authorities, but will also bear in mind that he has already suggested he was impressed by what was said to him when he was in Glasgow last weekend.

There has been considerable concern in Glasgow about the complete change in the make-up of these corporations. The Glasgow Chamber of Commerce "went to town" on this matter, and it reached the ear of the Minister. He said that he was impressed and felt that he could get someone connected with business who would be able to speak to business men. If he does that and sticks to the language of the Bill, and has not a particular member connected with accountancy, building and estate management, but members, he will leave himself little room if he ties himself to the idea of a chairman and four members, or even a chairman and five members. If he wishes to do the right thing by the Amendment, which obviously impressed him, and by the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, whose representations equally impressed him, he had better change his mind about the figure of five and think of accepting the Amendment as it stands.

Mr. Mapp

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Mr. Frederick Lee (Newton)

We were disappointed with the answer of the Minister to several of the proposed Amendments to this Clause. I am not commenting on the last Amendment because the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to look at that matter again. We hope that he will do so in the light of the arguments addressed to him by my hon. Friends.

The right hon. Gentleman agreed that it was illogical to have only one corporation to look after England as a whole. I think it right that there should be one corporation for Wales and one for Scotland. They will do a job of vital importance having regard to the high figure of unemployment in the two countries. Geographically they are smaller areas. I think it a pity that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to accede to the spirit of the Amendments moved by my hon. Friends. We are justified in saying that here we have a Government who wish to centralise things to an unnecessary degree. The concept of the gentlemen in Whitehall knowing best stands out a mile when one considers the approach of the Government to this Clause.

We on this side of the Committee like to see authority diversified and men and women regarding these things from a local point of view. In many of the areas which may be designated as Development Areas a number of the people who will lose their jobs represent a certain type of labour which uses certain processes in its work. I should have thought that had we some authority in the locality which understood the nature of the labour to be displaced it would know far better than a centralised authority what type of work would be appropriate, so that the people displaced would not need the same amount of industrial training in order to fit them for new jobs. Surely that kind of thing could be done more effectively and efficiently by people with a knowledge of the locality.

It is very illogical, as the Minister admitted, to say that merely because England happens to be a unit on a map, irrespective of its size, as compared with Wales and Scotland, it must have only one authority looking after it. The conditions in so many areas differ enormously. In one area problems may arise because of the closure of pits, as in Durham and in other parts of England, and, indeed, in Lancashire, whereas in other parts, and even in Lancashire itself, problems may arise because of redundancy amongst textile workers.

I should have thought that it was a vital thing for anyone who is to try to draw new industries into these areas that he should have a fairly expert knowledge of the types of labour that will be available and place special emphasis on bringing certain types of industry into that area. That is the kind of thing which my hon. Friends have very much in mind in asking the Minister to review the question of having merely one authority looking after England as a whole.

I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the authority itself would not necessarily be based on London. I think it would be very appropriate if it were based in the North, but, nevertheless, despite what he said, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look again at this matter. I hope he will agree that there is such a wide number of trades and industries in the North of England, requiring so many different types of skill and different types of operatives that he will not put any sort of industry into a given area because it happens to be available without consideration of the amount of public money which will be necessary in many instances to retrain the people concerned. He would defeat the object of some parts of the Bill by doing that.

One is very disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman is not seized of the importance of this point. I think my hon. Friends made a first-class case for reconsideration of this matter, and I

hope that even now the Minister will say that his mind is not closed on the subject. I do not want to cover the whole argument again. Merely to say that because England is a unit it is not meet for him to look at its size, as in the case of Scotland and Wales, and merely because it comes within the confines of one country, irrespective of its size, it must have only one authority seems to me to be illogical.

The diversity of industries which are in trouble in the North is very wide, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I hope he will look at the matter again and that he will agree to give consideration between now and Report stage to the point made by my hon. Friends. One does not want to prolong the discussion unnecessarily, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the principles that we are here arguing bite very deeply indeed so far as our opposition to various parts of the Bill is concerned. For my part, I hope he will go some way to meet us on this point, but if he will not I shall advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to register their disapproval of his attitude in the Lobby.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 213, Noes 155.

Division No.17.] AYES [9.14p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Cooper, A. E. Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Allason, James Cordle, John Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Alport, C. J. M. Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Ashton, Sir Hubert Critchley, Julian Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Balniel, Lord Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Harvey Anderson, Miss
Barlow, Sir John Cunningham, Knox Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Batsford, Brian Curran, Charles Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Beamish, Col. Tufton Currie, G. B. H. Hiley, Joseph
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Deedes, W. F. Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) de Ferranti, Basil Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Berkeley, Humphry Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Hirst, Geoffrey
Bidgood, John C. Drayson, G. B. Hocking, Philip N.
Biggs-Davison, John du Cann, Edward Holland, Philip
Bishop, F. P. Duncan, Sir James Holland-Martin, Christopher
Black, Sir Cyril Duthie, Sir William Hollingworth, John
Bossom, Clive Elliott, R. W. Holt, Arthur
Bourne-Arton, A. Fell, Anthony Hopkins, Alan
Box, Donald Finlay, Graeme Hornby, R. P.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Fisher, Nigel Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Boyle, Sir Edward Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Braine, Bernard Gammans, Lady Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Brewis, John Gardner, Edward Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Bryan, Paul George, J. C. (Pollok) Hughes-Young, Michael
Bullard, Denys Gibson-Watt, David Iremonger, T. L.
Burden, F. A. Glover, Douglas Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Butcher, Sir Herbert Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Jackson, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.) James, David
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Godber, J. B. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Chichester-Clark, R. Goodhew, Victor Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Gower, Raymond Joseph, Sir Keith
Cleaver, Leonard Green, Alan Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Cole, Norman Gurden, Harold Kerby, Capt. Henry
Collard, Richard Hall, John (Wycombe) Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Kershaw, Anthony Noble, Michael Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Kitson, Timothy Nugent, Richard Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Lambton, Viscount Orr-Ewing, C. Ian Storey, S.
Langford-Holt, J. Osborn, John (Hallam) Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Leavey, J. A. Page, Graham Talbot, John E.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Tapsell, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Patridge, E. Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Litchfield, Capt. John Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Longbottom, Charles Peel, John Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Longden, Gilbert Percival, Ian Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Loveys, Walter H. Peyton, John Thorpe, Jeremy
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Pilkington, Capt. Richard Turner, Colin
MacArthur, Ian Pitman, I. J. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
McLaren, Martin Pitt, Miss Edith Tweedsmuir, Lady
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.) Pott, Percivall van Straubenzee, W. R.
McLean, Neil (Inverness) Powell, J. Enoch Vane, W. M. F.
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
McMaster, Stanley Prior, J. M. L. Wade, Donald
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Maddan, Martin Proudfoot, Wilfred Watts, James
Maginnis, John E. Rawlinson, Peter Webster, David
Maitland, Cdr. J. W. Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Wells, John (Maidstone)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Rees, Hugh Whitelaw, William
Marshall, Douglas Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Marten, Neil Ridsdale, Julian Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Roots, William Wilson. Geoffrey (Truro)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Wise, Alfred
Mawby, Ray Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick
Milligan, Rt. Ho n. W. R. Russell, Ronald Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Mills, Stratton Scott-Hopkins, James Woodhouse, C. M.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Seymour, Leslie Woodnutt, Mark
Montgomery, Fergus Sharples, Richard Woollam, John
Morgan, William Shepherd, William Worsley, Marcus
Morrison, John Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Nabarro, Gerald Smithers, Peter
Neave, Airey Spearman, Sir Alexander TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Nicholls, Harmar Stanley, Hon. Richard Mr. Edward Wakefield and
Mr. Brooman-White
NOES
Ainsley, William Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Manuel, A. C.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Galpern, Myer Mapp, Charles
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) George, Lady Megan Lloyd Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Awbery, Stan Ginsburg, David Marsh, Richard
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Gooch, E. G. Mellish, R. J.
Bence, Cyril (Dunhartonshire, E.) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Millan, Bruce
Benson, Sir George Greenwood, Anthony Moody, A. S.
Blackburn, F. Grey, Charles Morris, John
Blyton, William Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Neal, Harold
Boardman, H. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Oliver, G. H.
Boyden, James Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Oram, A. E.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Padley, W. E.
Brockway, A. Fenner Hamilton, William (West Fife) Paget, R. T.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hannan, William Parker, John (Dagenham)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hart, Mrs. Judith Paton, John
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hayman, F. H. Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Herbison, Miss Margaret Peart, Frederick
Carmichael, James Hilton, A. V. Pentland, Norman
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Holman, Percy Popplewell, Ernest
Chetwynd, George Houghton, Douglas Prentice, R. E.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Proctor, W. T.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hunter, A. E. Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Cronin, John Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Rankin, John
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Redhead, E. C.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Reynolds, G. W.
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield) Rhodes, H.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Roberts, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Deer, George Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Delargy, Hugh Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Dempsey, James Kelley, Richard Ross, William
Diamond, John Kenyon, Clifford Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Donnelly, Desmond Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Short, Edward
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter King, Dr. Horace Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Lawson, George Skeffington, Arthur
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Evans, Albert Loughlin, Charles Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Fernyhough, E. McCann, John Snow, Julian
Finch, Harold McInnes, James Sorensen, R. W.
Fitch, Alan McKay, John (Wallsend) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Foot, Dingle MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) Spriggs, Leslie
Forman, J. C. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Steele, Thomas
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield,E.) Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Stonehouse, John Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)
Stones, William Thornton, Ernest Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John Wainwright, Edwin Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith Warbey, William Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Swain, Thomas Watkins, Tudor Winterbottom, R. E.
Swingler, Stephen Wells, Percy (Faversham) Woof, Robert
Sylvester, George Wheeldon, W. E. Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Symonds, Joseph Whitlock, William Zilliacus, K.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Willey, Frederick
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline) Williams, D. J. (Neath) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Mahon and Mr. Howell.