§ Where as a consequence of the elimination of excess capacity under a reorganisation scheme premises become vacant and remain vacant for a period exceeding six months the appropriate local authority may, if it considers the premises obsolete for industrial use and has so informed the Board of Trade, issue a notice requiring the owners to demolish the premises and to clear the site.—[Mr. Boardman.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 3.39 p.m.
§ Mr. H. Boardman (Leigh)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I regard this new Clause as of equal importance with any Clause already embodied in the Bill. While the Bill itself is concerned with the controlled contraction of the cotton industry, which, incidentally, means that it is a Bill which will cause some people to lose their jobs, the new Clause is designed to take some practical steps to encourage new industries to enter the areas affected.
Some of the old mill properties have been taken over by other industries. Some have been taken over as warp-houses, which, from a local employment point of view, does not help very much. I think that it is only fair to say that any employer who is contemplating introducing a new industry is entitled to say that he will not put modern, efficient plant into obsolete buildings which have outlived their period of usefulness.
Many such buildings are standing in Lancashire today and have stood there for many years as ghosts of a cotton industry that was. Anyone who has seen these old dilapidated mills will agree that to allow them to remain standing is a major disincentive to any prospective employer in the area, to say nothing about what the local people who have to live with the mills think about them.
Even if we could persuade some employers to introduce new industries to take the place of the old mills. I suggest that it is ludicrous that the Government should be prepared to pour out £30 million from public funds to try to 1034 encourage the cotton industry to attain a reasonable level of efficiency and then expect employers to put modern machinery into mills which, in many cases, are 100 to 150 years old.
There is a special problem in some of the cotton towns; and I am thinking now of the towns which have been dependent upon coal as well as upon cotton. Many of these towns, I think it is true to say, have not a solitary vacant site which would carry the weight of a modern factory building. That is so in many areas, but there is one place which is safe from subsidence, and that is the site on which an old cotton mill stands, because its ground has been protected. It strikes me as very odd that we should continue to allow these old factory buildings idly to occupy the only sound sites in the area.
It also seems to me to be sheer economic madness to allow industry to sprawl into agricultural areas while these factories stand in their idleness surrounded by people whose greatest desire is to work on the sites, in spite of having to pay bus fares to get to them, and so on. These derelict factories have become hideous monuments to a bygone age.
The proposed Clause is permissive. It would allow local authorities to use their discretion, and they would use their own knowledge of local industrial conditions. It seems to me that if we are intent on getting new industry into these areas, a move which has become more acutely necessary as a result of the Bill, this is the sane and sensible way to do it.
§ 3.45 p.m.
§ Mr. H. Rhodes (Ashton-under-Lyne)
I beg to second the Motion.
This is a very important proposal. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), I think that it is about time that something was done to clear up this mess. Last night the House discussed the problem of water and sewage, which, in its own context, is very similar to the problem that we are now discussing. Our forebears, with their dynamism and ability to create, did a very good job of work. The men who built the mills were pioneers in their trade, and the men who built the waterways were pioneers in local government. They made it possible for industry to develop in the areas which they served.
1035 Years ago, the local authority in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was very forward-looking in its provision of reservoirs. These things have brought problems in their train, and, while the members of the local authority were forward-looking, and able to do a job of work well in their day and generation, often what was left behind was a legacy to the following generation to keep up to date in the handling of the commodity and circumstances created by the previous generation. It was the same with sewage, and now it is the same with cotton mills.
These old mills are strewn from end to end of our constituencies. Usually, they are sited on the canals or on the waterways. Most of the mills that I am talking about are in my constituency. I make no apology for putting forward a constituency illustration, but it is not a constituency matter pure and simple. In Ashton-under-Lyne, for two miles—at least, one mile and five-sixths, because I have measured it—cotton mills stretch one after the other. At present, two of the mills in that length are working on cotton. Of all the mills strewn along the waterway, only three have been built since the Crimean War.
I should have thought that that would be rather startling to hon. Members, but it does not seem to have had much effect on them, because they are looking at me in a placid and unconcerned manner. They are probably thinking, "We are only batting out time anyway, so let him keep on talking". I must, however, draw the attention of the Board of Trade to something that needs to be done urgently. It is time that private industry and industry generally cleaned up their own dirt. The habits of private industry in the past, with its sewage, mine slag heaps and now its mills, have much in common with the undisciplined and untrained dog on the pavement.
I said that these mills often were built before the Crimean War. They were certainly built before the railways, and that is why so many of them have their own private wharves, which are magnificent examples of enterprise. They are five, six and seven storeys high. I have compiled a record of the factories on the two-mile length to which I have referred.
1036 Early yesterday morning I went along with a photographer to take views of this length from the east. As the photographer was sweating along with his great big box, he said, "Well, this is the first time in my life that I have had a two-mile stroll through uselessness." I said, "I will tell them that in the House tomorrow, because you have summed it up in a few words."
I wish to hand over these photographs afterwards, but, first, I should like to comment on them one by one. The first one shows a modern mill, about fifty years old, which is now in the hands of the Ministry of Supply. The next photograph is of an area which has on it a disused ruin. In the distance we can see a mill with a smoking chimney. That is one of two mills which are working on this length of one and five-sixths of a mile. But, under the provisions of the Bill, even that mill with the chimney smoking could be one of the casualties without Ashton-under-Lyne having any say in the matter.
We go on and now we come to a picture of the dereliction which goes with old mills—old houses, and the old chapel, long since disused. We notice that a couple of lads are having a bit of a go at one of the windows. Then we come to the site of a factory which was burned down last week. If I were ever tempted to incite someone to commit arson, or if I wanted to commit arson, I would do it in this kind of area and to these types of buildings. Alongside is a railway station which is disused because there is nobody to bring into the factories which are now derelict.
Then we have a photograph of a really "beautiful" vista across the river, the old junk of forgotten years coming up to buildings which were erected before the Crimean War, at a time when the building of chimneys was not within the technical competence of British builders; when it was necessary to bring builders from Germany to build our chimneys. These chimneys, which were built by Germans before we knew how to do it, are octagonal; they are graceful things, monuments. But the things on which their shadows fall are the sort of mills which used to be called very foul names by those who had to work in them. Then, suddenly there is a splash of modern—something from the 1794s.
1037 Then we come to a length of the canal which, had Billy Graham seen it before he went to Hyde Park, would have probably caused him to say something even stronger. We can see over the canal in this picture and there is the employment exchange, a new building, built at the time when there was much unemployment. Surely it should have been clear to the people of those days that the future of industry did not reside in that kind of building and that they ought to have had wit enough to get out. But seeing it emerging over the canal, and recalling all the human problems that went with it, I was reminded of old Joe, who, before the war, was in the queue for the dole. He said to the man in front of him, "Eh, let me come in front of thee, I have got a pain in my stomach." And the man in front said, "Nay, I have nowt in mine."
That sardonic remark is similar to the kind of pictures of old Lancashire which Lowry paints. The President of the Board of Trade is as fond of those pictures as I am. It is not because the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the scene, because he does full well. It is because he appreciates with me the beauty of the sardonic side of that scene.
So we go on, and come to the second of the two mills in operation. It was built in this century and it, too, may become a casualty. So we have two miles of the canal covering an area varying in depth from 100 yards to 400 yards. As we approach the end we notice that there is a modern electric railway line adjoining the canal. The canal is now the home of dead dogs and cats. It is filling itself in with its own growth, rank and stinking. It is part of the general scene which the townspeople want to leave at their back door and forget. It is part of the scene which is forgotten by most of the people in the town and rightly so, too, because do not forget that this is a fine town. Elsewhere, it has built itself out of that kind of scene, but what development could take place if the old buildings were bulldozed away along the whole of that length of the canal.
Then we come to the latest culture, the Oxford Mills, which were built in the middle of the last century. The owner was a Member of this House. He 1038 used to have his workpeople inside doors at 9 o'clock at night, and if they wanted to have a bit of a "gallivant" they used to go past his house in stockinged feet. They used to take their clogs off. He made himself a monument before he died, and inscribed it. He gave orders to the Staffordshire potters to make him pots, with his name on them and extolling his virtues, which he could deliver all round Ashton-under-Lyne. But it did not prevent the generation after the Chartists from burning his house down. It did not prevent the people in Ashton-under-Lyne from remembering him in another way.
A statue was put up and I must say that the ribald in Ashton-under-Lyne still paraphrase what is on the statue.
§ Mr. Rhodes
They say:Here is Henry Mason,Who left"—
§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman described the statement, which he has not yet fully quoted, as one used by the ribald. It would seem to me unlikely to be Parliamentary in its terms.
§ Mr. Rhodes
I respect your judgment, Mr. Speaker. You were able to sense what was coming. But I will nod when I come to the offending word:Here is Henry Mason,Who left men in the lurch,With his face towards the public houseAnd his … towards the church.That is the sort of memory in the minds of people in this district who know these mills and who are desperately anxious about the situation. The question which keeps recurring is, "What is the future for our boys and girls in view of the uncertainty that there is at the moment about the cotton industry?" What are we to do about the buildings which were used for the manufacture and spinning of cotton? I do not know whether this new Clause falls into that particular niche or not, but what I do know is that we cannot afford to neglect this great modern problem of clearing up, whether it is sewage, slag heaps, or the dross and the dirt left for us by previous generations. If we in our day can clear up only a tithe of it, we shall have justified our existence.
§ Mr. Tom Brown (Ince)
I rise to support this new Clause, because I believe that it is of paramount importance. If we are to close cotton mills wholesale within the next few years, as is suggested, there is likely to be even more dereliction in Lancashire than there is today.
Many months ago—and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will pardon me for mentioning this—I discussed this question with him in the corridor, long before it was anticipated that the cotton industry would contract to the degree which it has done and will do. The suggestion which I put to the right hon. Gentleman was that a survey should be made in the industrial North-West of the number of derelict buildings which ought to be cleared because they were of no further use and a danger.
Anyone paying a visit to the industrial North-West of Lancashire cannot help but be impressed by the dereliction that is manifest there. We see it on every hand. Down the pages of history Lancashire has been renowned for its industrial wealth. Today, in addition to cotton mills which have gone out of commission, a large number of coal mines have also gone out of commission, and the two things coupled together have intensified the dereliction.
If one goes through the industrial North-West from Manchester to Preston, right and left, north and south, we see a mass of dereliction which is a legacy left to us by the industrialists of days gone by. We have burning slag heaps, disused quarries, derelict pitheads, disused railway stations, and now we are to have disused factories. In the interests of all concerned, not only of the travellers who travel through Lancashire but of the people who live in Lancashire, this environment ought to be changed. It can only be changed by compulsion, and that compulsion can only be applied by legislation. We are asking the President of the Board of Trade not to demolish factories willy nilly, but, where they have been vacant for a period of six months, to release the site for some other purpose.
Let us examine the matter from another point of view. In many of our mining towns, particularly in Leigh, Westhoughton, Ince and Wigan, we have no sites upon which to build houses. Imagine a 1040 local authority trying to meet the housing situation when there is not a square yard of land upon which to build houses, and when, despite that fact, sites are occupied by mills which ought to be cleared away so that the land may be used to build houses.
I have been making a calculation which may be of interest to the House. I find that we in Lancashire, apart from cotton and all the other things that go with industry, have been giving this country deep-mined coal for 413 years. Let hon. Members try to imagine the dereliction that we now have in Lancashire after having given deep-mined coal to this country for so long a period.
This matter was mentioned when you, Mr. Speaker, occupied a very responsible Cabinet position. You were Minister of Town and Country Planning, I believe, or something of that kind. I forget exactly what position you then occupied, Sir, but you did it very well. [Laughter.] I say with all seriousness that this matter has been constantly ventilated in this assembly from time to time, and yet, despite all that we have tried to do, and all that we are anxious to do, we cannot get the Government to lend an ear to our plea.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) has had this "bee in his bonnet" for a long time. So have I, and so would any other hon. Member who goes through the industrial North-West. Why should we leave these derelict factories standing there, half pulled down, with broken windows, and a danger to the children who live in the neighbourhood? If they have remained unoccupied or untenanted for a period of six months, and there does not appear to be any potential use for them industrially, the owners of these mills ought to be compelled by law to relieve the district of these unsightly ruins.
Furthermore, there is a feeling, particularly in the North-West, that no attempt is being made by the President of the Board of Trade or by the Government Departments which are responsible to show that they are concerned about the environment of the people. After all, that is a very important consideration in their lives. I was always taught that nice, and congenial environments assisted people to rise to a high moral standard, but if we 1041 allow all this dereliction and devastation to be constantly facing the people morning, noon and night, how can we expect them to be able to enjoy beauty? They have no chance at all and this new Clause seeks to give them that chance. It seeks to clear up the mess—the legacy that has been handed down to us by the industrialists of the past.
The President of the Board of Trade is not responsible. Responsibility for this continued dereliction rests with the Government as a whole. They should sere to it that in the industrial areas, when factories have finished producing and there is no further use for these milk, they should be removed, as well as the pitheads and the slag heaps. It has been said that this would cost too much money, and I have heard it said that when the mills have finished producing the owners have no money with which to do it. I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade has made an examination of the Slum Clearance (Compensation) Act, 1956. It is laid down there that when houses are vacated, they should be pulled down. Why should not factories be levelled to the ground when there is no further use for them, after being vacant for a period of six months as the new Clause states?
I strongly support the acceptance of the new Clause, because I live in the midst of the dereliction, which I see every day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. One thing which pains me is to see added to all this devastation the new devastation caused by opencast mining, of which there is so much. I dare not develop that matter now, but I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to listen to this point, and I appeal to hon. Members on the benches opposite to listen to it, too. In one town in my area, Ashton-in-Makerfield, in the last ten years approximately 2½ million tons of coal have been extracted and there is also the dereliction caused by the mining industry—
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member at all, but really the coal question is not affected by this Bill. I allowed the previous references the hon. Member made because he was painting the picture of ruined buildings, and so on, but we must not go into the coal question while considering the Bill.
§ Mr. Brown
I know, Mr. Speaker. I was carried away by the picture which I have constantly before my eyes, and which I cannot forget.
I strongly support the acceptance of this new Clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) have said, let us decide today that we shall not tolerate this any longer. If there is no further use for the cotton mills, as there was no further use for the pits, then they ought to be cleared away and their sites made available for some other useful purposes, such as building houses for the people living in those areas.
§ Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)
I do not want to detain the House for more than a few minutes on this problem which, of course, affects rather differently different Lancashire towns. Perhaps it does not affect Oldham in the sense it does the constituencies of some other hon. Members, but the situation in Oldham has changed, and changed much for the worse, in the last few months.
Our problem a few months ago was that we had no places where we could put a new industry. One of our things which worried us was those factories of which, according to my hon. Friend's factual definition of a new factory, that it is one which is fifty years old, Oldham has a fairly high percentage. A very high percentage were being bought out as useless for further production and let as stores. They were being bought up by speculators working together for people with no direct Lancashire interests, and the space which might have been used for developing our industry was going.
Of course, there is a second serious point, that cotton mills were designed to be cotton mills and that many of them are quite unsuitable for adaptation for some sort of industry, especially heavy industry, and the Bill will not support the coming of new industry.
Unhappily, the Conservative Government have done for industry in Oldham in 1959 what they did for us in housing in 1923. They cured our housing problem in 1923 by driving 20,000 of the population away to seek work in the South. The reduction of the population and in the standards of living had the effect that two or three families would live in one 1043 house, and that left us with empty houses. There is an hon. Member opposite smiling about this. He can get the population figure for Oldham and find that it is still lower than it was in 1923 in spite of the efforts which have been made recently.
This was a very real tragedy for Lancashire. People who have not lived in Lancashire may think that this is a very romantic description, but this was history written in terms of human lives, blood and heartache and waste of endeavour of the decent powers of humanity.
Now we are in a situation in which we have empty factories. We should do well to remember the condition of textile machinery. Platt Bros. Ltd. came to Oldham also before the Crimea.
§ Mr. Rhodes
They did not start there.
§ 4.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Hale
I do not mind where they started. The founder became Mayor of Oldham in 1884. When I became Member they occupied three huge premises in Oldham. Today, they occupy one, and that one is now on a good deal of short time, and there is the greatest anxiety about the diminution in the length of the order book.
I should be out of order if I were to try to develop this, and I would not for a moment wish to get out of order, but, really, the Tory Government are not considering this problem as it should be considered. Here we have an unemployment Bill to reduce employment, and if we are having ancillary provisions further to reduce it in this industry I really cannot see why the Government cannot consider providing for other industries to come in. I have tried to make them understand that before. I tried in Committee on the Bill.
In Oldham now we have a dreadful town and country planning problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) was perfectly right when he recited the facts. We ought to get an examination of them. Here was a town which was built in the country. It must have been intensely difficult before the Industrial Revolution. It was built, as I have said before, on seven hills, and from the main street one can still look out and see a vista 1044 of hills to the north and across the Yorkshire border.
There came a time when it was literally true that there was nowhere to build without pulling down old buildings and clearing the sites. After 1945 we had to wait for our post-war buildings until we got the necessary sanctions to extend our boundaries and take in land adjoining, and then we had to start remaking all the surfaces of the land before we could build the houses; and now that employment is diminishing so much there is not nearly the same demand for houses that there was. Everyone of these things is collectively cumulative in its effect.
There is one small point which, in the very able and moving speeches which have been made already, has not been mentioned. One of the tragedies about a derelict mill is that nearly always there is also left the millpond, and every two or three years a child falls into a millpond and is drowned. Time after time the corporation has taken up the problem with Ministers. First, it was told that nobody had any power to deal with them. Then it was told the powers existed if anyone could find them or knew them, or knew what to make of them. There is a wanton wastage of life, because a millpond is a trap. Naturally, it attracts children, as water does.
Time after time these disasters occur, when people have made fortunes, or lost them, and have left the area and have left their mills to rot. Of course, when they rot sufficiently they can be pulled down under the somewhat elaborate provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. I want provision for these mills, for which there is no use in the industry, to be taken over by the corporation if necessary. I should like to go further and see some reasonable attraction provided for industry to come in.
The situation is serious. No one has sought to over-paint this picture today. None of us concerned with the cotton towns has been anxious to paint the picture any worse than it is, because we know that this can have its own unhappy effect. There is a slight stimulation of demand. Recently, there has been a slight expansion of demand, in the terms of Tory Ministers, made by people who can afford to buy, but no one concerned with industry in Lancashire looks with any confidence to the immediate future.
1045 It would be idle to say that there is very much sign of any real improvement or any permanent improvement in the situation, and it certainly is true that part-time employment is rather tending to cloud the position and perhaps helping to spread the burden over a larger section of the community. I do not want to develop that at all, but I just wanted to speak generally to the question of these mills.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into this question, even if he feels that he cannot accept the new Clause, whose wording, I think, is perhaps open to some criticism because, first, it requires that a factory should be empty for six months and, secondly, does not deal with a factory being used for anti-social purposes. I am not sure that it would effect of itself what my hon. Friends would wish to do. If the Minister would undertake to look into this position from the point of view of Lancashire towns and his own powers under development of industry legislation and discuss this quite narrow issue—
§ Mr. Boardman
Nobody wants the factories to be empty for six months. All we say is that if they are still empty at the end of six months the new Clause should apply.
§ Mr. Hale
I appreciate that. I did not say to the contrary. I said that the new Clause deals with mills of such poor condition as to be virtually unlettable, otherwise one could get round the new Clause by a short let.
I have listened to the arguments with genuine emotion and admiration, but I think that the wording of the Clause leaves so many loopholes that it might not carry out the precise intention that is contemplated. The whole question of the provision, preservation or the replacement of buildings so as to give opportunities for industries to come into an area is a matter still to be dealt with and on which the Minister, if he so wished, could give more assistance.
§ The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles)
The case made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has. I am sure, won the sympathy of the whole House. 1046 I join with them in disliking very much the evidence of decay and death which is to be seen wherever there is an ancient building which has no artistic or historic merit and is useless for industry. I think that such buildings should be pulled down. I am with the hon. Members who spoke so movingly to the new Clause. They have mostly been describing existing derelict buildings, but the new Clause deals with a few mills only, which will become derelict as a result of reorganisation schemes in the industry.
If I lived in Ashton-under-Lyne I could well understand that, although the people are employed and there is new industry about, the site of this line of old mills, of which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has been kind enough to provide us with pictures, would depress the spirit of the whole neighbourhood. It is quite right that the House should pay attention to this and that we should do all we can to get rid of scars of that kind. But I do not think that the new Clause is the answer.
It would not be just to put an obligation to demolish on the owners, as the new Clause provides. To do that would be to single out, first, the cotton industry from other industries for a new type of obligation and then, inside the cotton industry, to single out some of the mill-owners whose mills will be closed, and not others. It would be manifestly unfair. It may be said that we ought to offer more money in compensation to those who are likely to have to demolish their buildings than to those who are not likely to have to demolish them after closure, but that cannot be done under the Bill. It would be outside the Money Resolution.
Mr. J. T. Price
The right hon. Gentleman has now touched upon something which is very closely related to the law as it affects the domestic housing problem. If I own an old house which was certified by the local authority as unfit for human habitation, and I was told to pull it down and I did not do so within the statutory period, the council would do it for me and send me the bill for demolition. I do not see that it is consistent to say that it would be unfair to place a similar imposition on owners of derelict cotton mills.
§ Sir D. Eccles
All the mills that go out of production as a result of the Bill 1047 will receive compensation on the same scale. If we adopted the new Clause, some owners, the lucky ones, would no doubt be able to sell or let the mill for a new use, and so would receive more cash. The unlucky ones would see their compensation diminished by the cost of demolishing their mills under the new Clause. That would be manifestly unfair.
I should like to call the attention of the House, therefore, to the powers which already exist for getting rid of unsightly and useless old industrial buildings. Under existing legislation, local authorities have a general power to acquire premises and sites for redevelopment, by agreement or otherwise. In general, they cannot do this except for redevelopment purposes, nor can they compel an owner to carry out demolition and clearance at his own expense. Nevertheless, nearly 500 local authorities possess wider powers that can be used for acquiring and demolishing derelict premises.
Some of the cotton towns, among them Accrington, Bolton, Bury, Nelson, Colne, Oldham, and Rochdale have these powers. The hon. Member for Oldham, West should be interested to know that in Section 25 of the Oldham Corporation Act, 1925, there are powers whereby the corporation can acquire old mills and pull them down, and it can acquire the site even though it does not immediately have a use for it. If the local authority wants the site for housing, the powers, as hon. Members know, are there. I think that that is known as the "Birmingham Clause," which is in many local authority Bills.
If the borough does not act, there are general powers under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, Section 26 of which provides that the local planning authority may, by order, require the demolition of buildings in the interest of proper planning in its area. That power is wide enough to cover the demolition of derelict mills which have become eyesores. It is not often used because the procedure is rather cumbersome and an inquiry has to be held, but the powers exist and Lancashire County Council could have used them if it had wished and could have taken down the buildings 1048 of which we have been shown photographs.
We at the Board of Trade have certain powers to acquire a site for industrial use in a development area, but these powers are confined to derelict land or buildings and the courts hold that "derelict" means "ownerless" or "abandoned" and we have found that that definition is restrictive.
§ Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)
The right hon. Gentleman will agree that if the building were abandoned the Board of Trade would have power under Section 5 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, to grant the necessary finance to a local authority to do the job if the right hon. Gentleman scheduled the area.
§ Sir D. Eccles
I agree, and I have been thinking that if the owner wrote a letter and said that he had no further use for an old mill, that would constitute an effective proof that it was abandoned, in which case we could act. It is not within the sphere of the Board of Trade that we should pull down buildings for purely amenity reasons. We must stand by the criterion that demolition would improve the attraction of that area for new industry, but that is a fairly wide concept and I would say to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) that it is not a bad idea to consider a survey after the Bill has become law and when we know the extent of the buildings to be closed as a result of the reorganisation schemes.
Perhaps I should end by saying that Lancashire has stood up to this problem very well. It would not be true to say that in spite of the immense contraction of the cotton industry, which we have discussed so often in the House, there is a persistent level of unemployment in the north-western region, higher than that of the country as a whole. That is very much to the credit of Lancashire and to those who have come into the area. When thinking of the difficulty of getting sites—and I am impressed by the fact that subsidence makes things so difficult—I believe that there probably will be found a good case for taking action in regard to some of the derelict buildings. If the House will leave that with us, we will, as time goes on, and we get a clear picture of the position, do our best to make some suggestions and to use some of those powers.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Anthony Greenwood (Rossendale)
We have had an informative and broadly sympathetic reply from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and I am grateful to him for the way in which he has approached this problem. There are only two general points I shall make before we come to the powers we have been discussing.
The first is that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that it is only in areas liable to subsidence that it is difficult to find new sites. In hilly areas, such as parts of the Darwen constituency and the Rossendale Valley, it is extremely difficult to get a sufficient area of level ground which is not subject to flooding. Perhaps I should point out that, although we have an industrial estate in the Rossendale Valley, there are only a few areas which are as favoured as we are.
The second thing I want to say—we cannot say it too often—is that the old mill buildings are not ideal for other industrial uses. Practically every other industry which has come into East Lancashire is now housed in old cotton mills, which are far from suitable for the purpose for which they are now used. If they are weaving sheds, the height of the shed is not great. If they are spinning mills, there are a large number of storeys, and in many industries much greater efficiency could be achieved if it were possible to carry on the whole process on one level, instead of in the up and down way in which it has to be done at present. If we can get away from the old buildings in the new phase into which we are moving in Lancashire, and if we can concentrate upon the provision of new ones, it will be generally welcomed throughout the county.
I thank the President of the Board of Trade for the suggestion that when the Bill has become an Act he might survey the whole area affected, and see the size of the problem and the number of factories which ought to be demolished. We shall do everything we can to strengthen him in that intention.
On the subject of the powers to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I am not quite happy about what he said. It is true that there are local authority Acts, which are well known to my hon. 1050 Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, but I am not sure whether some of the smaller local authorities can be expected to incur the quite substantial expenditure which would be involved, especially bearing in mind the fact that it is not their fault that the cotton mills are to be closed, but that they will be closed by virtue of a decision taken in this House. It would be much more equitable to proceed under national legislation rather than under local Acts of that kind.
The President of the Board of Trade also referred to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and to the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. It seems to me that there is some slight advantage in the former procedure, because, if factories were demolished under it, the expenditure could be charged to the owner of the land, who, presumably, would already have been indemnified by the payment of compensation. However, I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Gentleman in that respect.
I would have thought that the solution to this problem would be for the Government to proceed under the Distribution of Industry Act and to consider making the whole of the textile area affected a development area, so that Government help could be made available, so that no additional burden would be placed upon the local authorities, and so that no injustice would be done to those people who go out of the industry leaving their mills behind them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give us a gleam of hope today that he will consider extending the Development Area to cover those areas which will be adversely affected by this Bill, and to which very little help at present appears to be available.
§ Sir D. Eccles
In answer to the hon. Gentleman, first, may I point out that more mills would close if we did not have the Bill than if we had it. Therefore, it should be remembered that the grant of all this money, and the working out of the reorganisation schemes, will result in a stronger and healthier industry than we would have otherwise.
On the second point, North-East Lancashire is already scheduled, and I would like to see the scale of the problem 1051 outside the Development Area before making up my mind whether anything more should be done.
§ Mr. Rhodes
Will the right hon. Gentleman come and look at it?
§ Sir D. Eccles indicated assent.
Mr. J. T. Price
Before we dispose of this Motion, may I express my own personal view? I hope that nobody in the House will underestimate the seriousness of the problem that we are postulating as Lancashire Members today. I do not want to be unreasonable, but I would prefer on such an occasion, when we have taken the opportunity open to us to raise the matter on the Report stage of the Bill, to register our feelings by voting on the Motion. I will give one or two reasons, without detaining the House for more than a few minutes, to show why I think that we should do this.
As I said in Committee on the Bill. I have taken some interest in the work of the Lancashire Industrial Development Association. In the course of that work we try constantly to attract industrialists with the usual blandishments to establish new industries in the areas that are being deprived of the cotton industry and of the dying coal industry. What do we find? We find that we are not only up against an economic problem, but Also an aesthetic problem.
We find that people who come from London and other parts of the South, who are used to living in rather more congenial places than some of the old, battered industrial areas, bring their wives with them for the weekend trip. Of course, ladies are "choosey" about these matters and there is a great deal of petticoat influence in industry as well as in politics, as we all know. Mrs. Smith, who comes with her husband, looks round East Lancashire or Ashton-under-Lyne, has dinner at the Midland Hotel, in Manchester, after wandering around, and she says over coffee to her husband, "You don't think you are taking me up there, do you?" It has been suggested to me that she says what "My Fair Lady" said, but I am not quite sure what words she used.
Nevertheless, I am making a serious plea today to the President of the Board of Trade and to Her Majesty's Govern- 1052 ment to take serious notice of what we are saying. We need to provide a more congenial background not only for our own neighbours and fellow citizens in Lancashire by clearing away the old dross of the Industrial Revolution, but also to make it more presentable so that we shall have a better chance of attracting new industries into the areas which need them.
This is not a flight of fancy. We have listened today to a number of interesting speeches about the situation, which has been expressed so well by our old friend L. S. Lowry, R.A., in the pictures with which the President of the Board of Trade is so familiar. I do, however, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it just is not sufficient for him to come to the Dispatch Box this afternoon, in the kind and courteous way that he always comes to that Box and in a way which is most ingratiating to the House, because he has not promised us anything except that he will have another look at the problem.
People have been looking at this scene for generations. People who have forward-looking ideas about the development of Lancashire and making it a more liveable place have always been flogging away at this with very little support from any Government. I am not making a party point on this. Hon. Members opposite—I am not speaking of them individually, but of some of those who are often in the Chamber when we are not debating cotton—are apt to "go for" various Ministers of the Crown concerning agriculture. I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I am in order in mentioning this, because it is strictly germane to the point that I am making. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will listen to what I have to say before you stop me.
One of the primary responsibilities of this House is to have regard to the proper use of our native land. The proper use of land is basic to a sound and healthy society, whether for agricultural or industrial purposes. We have set up under the Ministry of Agriculture a massive structure of county committees which are empowered to do all sorts of things to farmers who are found guilty of bad husbandry and of wasting good land. Each time we apply these powers some Tory hon. Members get up and "play Hallelujah" about it.
1053 This is a serious question. I say quite modestly, and, I hope, temperately, that we ought to have similar Government powers, couched in terms so as not to inflict hardship on anyone, to prevent wastage of land and allowing it to go derelict by the presence of derelict industrial premises. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find time to visit Ashton-under-Lyne when he gets a few weeks to spare during the Summer Recess and it might be a good idea if the Prime Minister gave him leave of absence to go to Bagdad. I know that it is a long way off and that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will be asking, "What has Bagdad to do with Lancashire?" I see that you are looking at me with a baleful eye. I went to Bagdad not long ago and I saw the most fantastic things going on there. [Laughter.] I am not going to quote any ribald phrases, or to deal with the sort of things of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) spoke a few moments ago.
The only point I am making when I say "fantastic things" is that one sees people there using highly-developed mechanical excavators, bulldozers and juggernauts of all kinds—the fantastic things used for opencast mining in Lancashire and for other purposes—bulldozing half the town away. Derelict buildings are being swept away into oblivion. One sees thousands of Arabs running round with treasures of scraps of old iron. Yet we in this country, in 1959, with all the advantages of Western civilisation, are pleading, like cripples at a cross, with Her Majesty's Government to do something that the Arabs have done after about five years of modern civilisation. That is perhaps a little exaggerated.
With very great respect and in all seriousness, I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, when he was making his most interesting speech and giving such a graphic picture, boggled for a moment about quoting something. He appeared to be about to quote, if I have the gist of his argument right, the famous reference of our great English poet, Blake, to the "dark Satanic mills", which represented all that was worst in the early days of the Industrial Revolution, and the exploitation, which we now 1054 cannot understand in terms of modern industrial relationships, of people who were oppressed and downtrodden.
In the modern generation, when we talk about the new outlook and the atomic age, we are becoming tired of complaining that we are left with all the dross, the pitheads and broken down factories—the "dark Satanic mills"—which are now very often rat-ridden holes, and which ought to be pulled down, if only from the point of view of public health.
Perhaps I have spoken a little more strongly than I usually speak, but I have spoken from the heart on this, and that is not done often enough in the House. I am tired of all the flim-flam, the soft arguments, and about being so nice to each other—although I hope that I am always nice to everybody. I believe, as a Lancashire Member, in saying forcefully what ought to be said in the face of the situation in which we have a declining industry. We are complaining that the dross of the past must be swept away if we are to have proper use of the land and if we are to have a place attractive enough to bring in new industries to take the place of those which have disappeared.
§ Mr. A. J. Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)
I am sorry to detain the House a little longer before it comes to a decision on this matter. This afternoon a very important discussion has developed out of this new Clause on a very important theme, and I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) on introducing it and giving us an opportunity of considering it.
I felt, when I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and the speeches made by other hon. Members, that undoubtedly we were dealing with a national scandal in certain parts of our country, but I thought that they underestimated the extent to which powers exist to deal with this kind of thing. That point, of course, was, very naturally, taken up by the President of the Board of Trade and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood). These powers are at present in existence and it is for consideration how far particular powers proposed 1055 by the Clause are needed in the situation which exists.
The President of the Board of Trade has gone a considerable way in undertaking that he will be prepared, when the Bill becomes law, to consider making a survey and investigation of the way in which matters are developing, with a view to seeing whether an opportunity will arise of putting into effect, rather more widely than has been done before, existing powers of his Department as to the treatment of derelict land.
I should like him to consider this afternoon whether he would go a little further and make a statement with reference to the more general power to which he referred and which exists under the Town and Country Planning Act. There has been one particular disappointment in the operation of town and country planning legislation. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) will agree with me on this, which is not a party matter, but I should not be surprised to discover that the same opinion is held upon the other side of the House when I say that one of the disappointments of post-war town and country planning legislation is the small extent to which use has been made of Section 26.
Before the discussion is concluded I should like from the President of the Board of Trade an expression, which I do not think he will have much difficulty in giving, of his readiness, after the Bill has become law and when the survey
§ which is adumbrated has taken place, not merely that he will consider a further application of the powers which his own Department possesses under the existing law, but, also, that he will consider the advisability of drawing the attention of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the demands which exist for effective action to be taken by local planning authorities under Section 26 of the 1947 Act.
§ The Bill, creating, as it does, a derelict area on particular premises, calls by its whole nature and content for the kind of action which Section 26 of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act contemplated. It would be appreciated by many hon. Members, I believe, on both sides of the House, if the right hon. Gentleman not only said what he has already said about considering the application of the powers which his Department possesses under the Distribution of Industry Act, but also went further and said that he will draw the attention of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the demands which exist for setting into motion the application of powers under Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act for treatment of the kind of problem which the Bill will create.
§ Sir D. Eccles
I shall be glad to do what the hon. and learned Member has asked.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 247.1059
|Division No. 144.]||AYES||[4.52 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Burton, Miss F. E.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)|
|Albu, A. H.||Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Callaghan, L. J.||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Carmichael, J.||Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Fernyhough, E.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Chapman, W. D.||Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Chetwynd, G. R.||Fletcher, Eric|
|Balfour, A.||Cliffe, Michael||Forman, J. C.|
|Benson, Sir George||Clunie, J.||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)|
|Beswick, Frank||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Caitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Cronin, J. D.||George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)|
|Blackburn, F.||Crossman, R. H. S.||Gooch, E. G.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Cullen, Mrs. A.||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Greenwood Anthony|
|Boardman, H.||Deer, G.||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||de Freitas, Geoffrey||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Delargy, H. J.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)|
|Bowles, F. G.||Diamond, John||Griffiths, William (Exchange)|
|Boyd, T. C.||Donnelly, D. L.||Hale, Leslie|
|Brockway, A. F.||Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John(W. Brmwch)||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Hamilton, W. W.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Edelman, M.||Hannan, W,|
|Burke, W. A.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)||Hayman, F. H.|
|Healey, Denis||Messer, Sir F.||Snow, J. W.|
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||Monslow, W.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Moody, A. S.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Hewitson, Capt. M.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Hilton, A. V.||Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)||Mort, D. L.||Steele, T.|
|Holman, P.||Moyle, A.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Holmes, Horace||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Stonehouse, John|
|Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)||Oliver, G. H.||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Hoy, J. H.||Orbach, M.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Owen, W. J.||Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Padley, W. E.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Hunter, A. E.||Paget, R. T.||Swingler, S. T.|
|Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Palmer, A. M. F.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Parkin, B. T.||Symonds, J. B.|
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Paton, John||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Pearson, A.||Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Peart, T. F.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Pentland, N.||Thornton, E.|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Plummer, Sir Leslie||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Popplewell, E.||Viant, S. P.|
|Kenyon, C.||Prentice, R. E.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Weitzman, D.|
|King, Dr. H. M.||Probert, A. R.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Lawson, G. M.||Proctor, W. T.||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Randall, H. E.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Rankin, John||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Lewis, Arthur||Redhead, E. C.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Lipton, Marcus||Reeves, J.||Willey, Frederick|
|Logan, D. G.||Reid, William||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Reynolds, G. W.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|McAlister, Mrs. Mary||Rhodes, H.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|MacColl, J. E.||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|McCann, J.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)|
|McInnes, J.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|McKay, John (Wallsend)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Winterbottom, Richard|
|MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Ross, William||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.||Woof, R. E.|
|Mahon, Simon||Short, E. W.||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Mann, Mrs. Jean||Silverman, Julius (Aston)||Zilliacus, K.|
|Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Mason, Roy||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mayhew, C. P.||Skeffington, A. M.||Mr. John Taylor and|
|Mellish, R. J.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)||Mr. J. T. Price.|
|Mendelson, J. J.||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Channon, H. P. G.||Fletcher-Cooke, C.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Chichester-Clark, R.||Forrest, G.|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Foster, John|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Fraser, Hon. Hugh (stone)|
|Arbuthnot, John||Cooke, Robert||Freeth, Denzil|
|Armstrong, C. W,||Cooper, A. E.||Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||Cooper-Key, E. M.||Gammans, Lady|
|Astor, Hon. J. J.||Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Garner-Evans, E. H.|
|Atkins, H. E.||Corfield, F. V.||Glover D.|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Glyn, Col. Richard H.|
|Baldwin, Sir Archer||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Godber, J. B.|
|Barber, Anthony||Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Goodhart, Philip|
|Barlow, Sir John||Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Gough, C. F. H.|
|Barter, John||Cunningham, Knox||Gower, H. R.|
|Batsford, Brian||Currie, G. B. H.||Graham, Sir Fergus|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Dance, J. C. G.||Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)|
|Beamish, Col. Tufton||Davidson, Viscountess||Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Green, A.|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Deedes, W. F.||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald||de Ferrantl, Basil||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Gurden, Harold|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Doughty, C. J. A.||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Bingham, R. M.||Drayson, G. B.||Harris, Reader (Heston)|
|Black, Sir Cyril||du Cann, E. D. L.||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)|
|Bossom, Sir Alfred||Duncan, Sir James||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)|
|Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Duthie, Sir William||Hay, John|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. C.|
|Braine, B. R.||Elliott,R.W.(Newcastle upon Tyne.N.)||Henderson, John (Cathcart)|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James|
|Brewis, John||Errington, Sir Eric||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Erroll, F. J.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount|
|Bryan, P.||Farey-Jones, F. W.||Hirst, Geoffrey|
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)||Fell, A.||Holland-Martin, C. J.|
|Campbell, Sir David||Finlay, Graeme||Holt, A. F.|
|Carr, Robert||Fisher, Nigel||Hornby, R. P.|
|Horobin, Sir Ian||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Howard, John (Test)||Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.||Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.|
|Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.||Marshall, Douglas||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Hulbert, Sir Norman||Mathew, R.||Sharpies, R. C.|
|Hurd, Sir Anthony||Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)||Mawby, R. L.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry||Medlicott, Sir Frank||Speir, R. M.|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)|
|Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Nairn, D. L. S.||Storey, S.|
|Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Neave, Airey||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)||Nicholls, Harmer||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Joseph, Sir Keith||Nicholson, Sir Codfrey (Farnham)||Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)|
|Kaberry, D.||Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Sir Allan||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Nugent, Richard||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Kerr, Sir Hamilton||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Teeling, W.|
|Kimball, M.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Kirk, P. M.||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Osborne, C.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Leavey, J. A.||Page, R. G.||Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.|
|Leburn, W. G.||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdate)||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Partridge, E.||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Peel, W. J.||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Linstead, Sir H. N.||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.|
|Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Wade, D. W.|
|Longden, Gilbert||Pitman, I. J.||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby||Pitt, Miss E. M.||Wall, Patrick|
|Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Pott, H. P.||Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Powell, J. Enoch||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|McAdden, S. J.||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold|
|Macdonald, Sir Peter||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||Whitelaw, W. S. I.|
|Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)||Rawlinson, Peter||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|McLean, Neil (Inverness)||Redmayne, M.||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Renton, D. L. M.||Woollam, John Victor|
|Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Ridsdale, J. E.||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Robertson, Sir David||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)||Mr. Hughes-Young and|
|Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Robson Brown, Sir William||Mr. J. E. B. Hill.|