HC Deb 10 November 1959 vol 613 cc331-53

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision to promote employment, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise:— A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of any Government department incurred in exercising powers of—

  1. (a) acquiring land, erecting buildings, or carrying out works in order to provide or facilitate the provision of premises in any such locality as may be specified in the said Act,
  2. (b) making, after consultation with an advisory committee, grants towards the cost of providing buildings or extensions of buildings in any such locality,
  3. (c) making, in accordance with recommendations of an advisory committee, loans or grants for the purposes of undertakings carried on or to be carried on in any such locality,
  4. (d) taking steps, as respects land in any such locality of which the condition renders it expedient that the steps should be taken, for the purpose of enabling the land to be brought into use or for improving amenities,
  5. (e) making payments in respect of persons coming to employment in any such locality or ceasing to be employed therein, and their dependants,
  6. (f) making grants or loans towards the cost of improving services or facilities on which the development of any such locality depends,
  7. (g) defraying the expenses of any Management Corporation or Co-ordinating Committee constituted under the said Act of the present Session (including remuneration, allowances and pensions for members, officers and servants) and paying allowances to members of an advisory committee,
in completing any exercise of the said powers where a locality ceases to be such a locality as aforesaid, in making any grant or loan for the purposes of an undertaking for the purposes of which a previous grant or loan has been made under the said Act of the present Session or the enactments thereby repealed, or, as respects land acquired or vested under the said Act of the present Session or the said repealed enactments in preserving and maintaining the land and any buildings or works on it, in erecting buildings or carrying out works on it, in acquiring other land for extensions, or in providing means of access, services and facilities. B. The payment into the Exchequer of the receipts of any Government department under the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Maudling.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin (Paddington, North)

It is not uncommon as this stage for hon. Members to rise and put certain questions to the Treasury Minister, or whoever is in charge of the Money Resolution, to assure themselves that the Resolution is not too tightly drawn to prevent certain desirable Amendments, which may have been mentioned during the Second Reading debate or on which promising replies have been obtained from Ministers, from being incorporated in the Bill.

On this occasion, on looking at this Money Resolution, I am struck by the fact that it seems to me to be unusually widely drawn, and I am wondering who drew up the Resolution—whether it was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury himself or whether there was a little advice from the Minister of Labour about it. In any case, it appears that this Resolution is sufficiently widely drawn to allow for a considerable modification of the Bill during the Committee stage. It is for that reason that I rise to ask for certain assurances.

It seems to me that the Financial Resolution was drawn by someone who might very well think that the Government, before this Bill reaches its Third Reading, might have second thoughts on the restrictions which it places upon themselves. They may have thought that they would like a little more freedom. We are now discussing this Resolution, which refers not only to the Bill which has just been given a Second Reading, but to— any Act of the present Session to make provision to promote employment, It is very desirable that this Money Resolution should cover any such Act. It goes on to say that it is to authorise— The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of any Government department incurred in exercising"— these powers. Therefore, I wish to ask whoever is to reply to this discussion one or two questions.

It is said in the Bill itself that it is to be applied to localities which— in the opinion of the Board of Trade (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') a high rate of unemployment exists or is imminent, and is likely to persist (whether seasonally or generally). We have not had much indication as to how the Board is to make up its mind, but I can tell the Financial Secretary that the Minister of Labour, who has just been replying on Second Reading, will be telling him very shortly that there is seasonal unemployment imminent in the area of London next summer, after the end of the school year, and that it will persist for several months owing to the great difficulty in London of finding apprenticeships and opportunities for training in skilled occupations.

I can also tell the Financial Secretary that shortly the Minister of Labour will be submitting ambitious plans, certainly well-thought-out plans, to deal with this very situation. I can tell him also that the Minister of Labour has been visiting—and I am very grateful to him for doing it—one of his offices which is dealing with a problem in my own constituency, and I am perfectly certain that he is well alerted on this subject.

These proposals will, I suppose, come to the Treasury in the form of draft estimates. I ask whether, on second thoughts, he thinks it would be possible for the Board of Trade, if it is of the opinion that seasonal unemployment is imminent—and it is going to be imminent every autumn as far as we can see—to make use of the powers contained in the Bill.

We are told in the Bill that the Board will have the benefit of an Advisory Committee. That is also mentioned in the Money Resolution. We have to decide before we finally leave the matter whether the members of the Advisory Committee will be paid some allowances. There is little reference to this Advisory Committee in the Bill, which merely states that the Minister will appoint an Advisory Committee, hereinafter referred to as 'the advisory committee'. That sounds very definite, but we have not yet learned how many members it is to have. There is a rather suspicious point that if they are all to be paid allowances, it is to be assumed that they are all coming from outside the Department.

I wonder whether it would be possible for an Advisory Committee to be brought together which would be adequate to meet the needs of the Minister of Labour in dealing with this problem in London. Would it be possible for such an Advisory Committee to consist—as I think it ought, and as I should have advocated had I had the opportunity earlier in the proceedings—of representatives not only of the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade but also of the Minister of Education and the local planning authorities, and, indeed, I might hope, also of the employers' federations and the trade unions?

Such an Advisory Committee might well come to the conclusion that this is a vast problem endemic in the great metropolitan conurbations, whether Moscow, New York or London, and that it calls for a much greater study than it has hitherto received.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

On a point of order. Many of us on this side of the Committee and I think the Minister, too, are greatly interested in what my hon. Friend is saying, but we are prevented from paying it the attention which it deserves, or indeed from hearing it clearly, by what seems to me to be a deliberate conspiracy to prevent it from being heard.

The Chairman

I can hear the hon. Member, but if there was any noise I hope hon. Members will keep quiet.

Mr. John Diamond (Gloucester)

Further to that point of order. As you are apparently not suffering from the same disability as that from which we on this side of the Committee are suffering, Sir Gordon, may I explain that I can hear exactly what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is saying to his next-but-five neighbour, because he is shouting across to him, and that I find it impossible to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington. North (Mr. Parkin), who is on the bench in front of me?

The Chairman

I hope that hon. Members will keep quiet.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

I said it sotto voce.

Mr. Parkin

I am perfectly happy if you can hear me, Sir Gordon. If my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has not understood me, I will talk to him about it at some other time. I have been very careful to be heard by you, because I realise how important it is at this stage of the procedure to keep strictly within the rules of order and the terms of the Money Resolution.

I was seeking an assurance that such an Advisory Committee, hereinafter referred to as 'the advisory committee'", might well consist of representatives from other Departments and organisations such as I mentioned. I hope that it would be possible for such a Committee to tackle the whole problem. I suggested that it might well come to the conclusion that this problem of the great conurbations needs much greater study. It might come back to the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister of Labour and report that a fresh approach was required to the problem of the location of industry in such areas. The Government might therefore themselves have second thoughts and feel that in the long run they would have been happier with the Title of the Bill had they stated that it was "to promote a better balance of employment." Such an Advisory Committee might report—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Member is going far beyond the scope of the Money Resolution.

Mr. Parkin

I am sorry to have taken so long, but I want to ask many questions about the powers of such an advisory Committee, as well as about its constitution. I hope I have made myself clear in asking about the constitution of such a Committee. I am now passing on to consider what would happen in a hypothetical circumstance. The discussion is bound to be hypothetical, since the Resolution is hypothetical, starting with the words: That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session … We do not know what Act may yet be introduced by the Government in the present Session to deal with the problem of promoting employment.

Such a Committee might come back with the observation that the problems of London, like other great conurbations, are connected with the fact that great cities require, demand and receive successive waves of immigration of semi-skilled and unskilled people to take up unskilled jobs. Great cities have large numbers of unskilled and semi-skilled servicing jobs. That is, therefore, a very cogent reason for trying to prevent the undue expansion of semi-skilled and unskilled work in factories in their areas. It is equally a cogent reason for inviting into such areas types of industry offering a high level of skill and providing the children of the unskilled workers with apprenticeships and training in skilled trades. I know that that is a problem very much occupying the heart and brain of the present Minister of Labour. It is a problem in which we all wish him success.

The Chairman

Order. It would have been more appropriate for that to have been discussed on the Bill.

Mr. Parkin

I could not agree with you more, Sir Gordon, but circumstances were against us and who are we amongst so many? Therefore, I must content myself with a few questions now. I hope that you will allow the Minister sufficient latitude to give me an indication of the Government's point of view.

I have one last question in the hypothetical field, if you will allow me to continue. I have no doubt that the Minister of Labour is at present engaged on this. I take him as an example, because he comes within the category of "any Government Department" concerned in this, although the Bill refers only to the President of the Board of Trade. I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister of Labour is very much worried about co-ordinating into a scheme the numbers of existing firms which can offer skilled training in London. If he were able to offer them some kind of incentive through the áegis of such an Advisory Committee as is mentioned in the Money Resolution, I have no doubt that one of the first things that these small firms in a large city would say would be, "Yes. We would be delighted to provide such training, but our premises are not large enough".

The Bill and the Money Resolution provide that the Minister may acquire such premises out of moneys provided by Parliament. The Explanatory Memorandum says: The grant is to be at a flat rate of 85 per cent. of the difference between the estimated cost of a suitable building and the estimated value of such a building when completed". Value for what? That is the important question. It is not value for the particular activity of the owner of the premises. However, the Bill refers later to the value of such premises if put on sale in the open market.

That is a very serious matter. I am thinking of the owner of a factory at present who is asked to extend his premises to provide training for apprentices and acquire land for the purpose and is deprived of any subsidy, if it is possible within the terms of the Resolution to envisage such a subsidy. It may be that the Minister has thought of this already and has it in a memorandum on one of the Treasury desks. That is one of the results for which it might be implemented. I have no doubt that he is getting requests from the owners of factories in these great areas for help to extend in those areas so that they can train apprentices. And that, Sir Gordon, is about all that I can say at this stage on this great London conurbation.

10.15 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling)

It is for the Chair, of course, Sir Gordon, and not for me, to interpret what it would be in order within the terms of the Resolution to discuss in Committee. I did particularly ask that the Resolution should be drawn in the widest possible terms, because I feel that it is appropriate to a Bill of the nature of that which we have been discussing that opportunities for debate should not be unduly restricted.

I must confess that when I approved this particular Resolution in its wide form I did not realise that it would enable the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) to make the Second Reading speech that we would otherwise have missed. It may be that, had I foreseen that, I would have acted differently.

The hon. Member dealt with several points that have been dealt with during our two-day debate. Seasonality of employment I have myself dealt with, and I also said that I hoped that the existing Advisory Committee would continue. I also dealt with the valuation of properties. However, this Resolution is concerned to authorise the payment of moneys to meet the expenses of Government Departments incurred in exercising certain powers. The question, therefore, is whether the money should be provided for Government Departments to exercise the powers contained in the Bill.

What I think the hon. Member was discussing was what those powers should be, and I suggest that the discussion in detail of what those powers should be is more appropriate to the Committee stage of the Bill. What he rightly asked was whether the terms of the Money Resolution were such as to permit that discussion, and I would most certainly say, so far as I can interpret it, that these matters can be discussed fully in Committee within the terms of the Resolution.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

The President of the Board of Trade has said that he specifically asked those who drew up the Resolution to do so in terms wide enough to ensure full debate in Committee. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it would be very difficulty for him or anyone else, by any such measure, to restrict discussion in Committee. It would limit considerably the power to amend the Bill, but that is a very different thing indeed.

I take a view opposite to that of the right hon. Gentleman. With the exception of one aspect, the Money Resolution is drawn very tightly indeed. After we pass it, we shall not be able to add a single power to those listed, and if the right hon. Gentleman really meant what he said he had better withdraw this Resolution and give us something very much wider.

The Resolution reads: That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision to promote employment, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise:— A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of any Government department incurred in exercising powers of— The powers are set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). In Committee, we shall not be permitted to add a single power. What is here set out is the limit of what we will be able to pass. We may be able to discuss some of the other things; we may be able to vote against the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill because certain powers are not there, but we shall not have the right to add any power.

In today's Order Paper there is another Money Resolution. On page 317 there is one related to the Horticulture Bill, but anyone who compares that one with this will see that in line 16 of the Horticulture Money Resolution there is set out a specific sum of money that is to be spent in connection with the relevant Bill—a sum of £8,250,000. There is no sum of money mentioned in this Money Resolution at all, and I think that I am entitled to ask the President of the Board of Trade why. Was it because he wanted to give the Committee a completely free hand? Has he been given a completely free hand by the Treasury because it has not come to any conclusion as to what amount of money will be spent or what will be the upper ceiling? We are entitled to know why no figure is mentioned and, before we give the Government the right to take moneys for the purposes of this Bill, to be told how much money they think will be spent.

I could go further. I think that I am entitled to ask how much money is to be spent on (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g), but I have no desire to delay the Committee.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members really wish me to be as specific as I should like the Government to be, I will gladly oblige them, but there are one or two questions that I must ask.

During the debate we have had two different interpretations of powers in respect of derelict land and the reasons why money could be voted to bring it into a better state. We had a definite indication from the Secretary of State for Scotland today that the land could be improved for purely amenity purposes, but we had a different interpretation from the President of the Board of Trade yesterday. He said that it had to be related to the provision of further employment. If the right hon. Gentleman examines the Money Resolution, he will see that in paragraph (d) we are authorising the payment of moneys in exercising powers to take steps as respects land in any such locality of which the condition renders"— I do not know who thought that one out, but it would have been much better if it read "if the condition renders"— it expedient that the steps should be taken, for the purpose of enabling the land to be brought into use or for improving amenities". What does that mean? I should like a specific answer from the President of the Board of Trade. Is it tied to the words in the first line: Local Employment [Money]: That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session … The "purposes" of the Bill are stated in Clause 1, which states clearly: The powers conferred by the six next following sections shall be exercisable for the purpose of providing, in any such locality as is specified in the following subsection, employment appropriate to the needs of the locality". Does that mean that the amenity improvement can be made only if it is for the purpose of providing employment in a certain locality? If so, the Secretary of State today was wrong in saying that derelict land could be improved purely for amenity purposes.

I wish that Ministers had sorted the matter out a long time ago. They should get into the habit of reading their Bills and trying to understand them before tying us up in Committee with a Money Resoluton which, if we pass it, will mean that what was stated by the Secretary of State for Scotland was quite wrong. He said that it would not be possible for any local authority to get a grant purely for amenity purposes to remove a slag heap or pit bing and that it has to be related to the purposes of the Act which are clearly stated as exercisable for the purpose of providing … employment appropriate to the needs of the locality. I should like that to be cleared up. I should like to know which is the correct interpretation—the interpretation of the President of the Board of Trade yesterday, or that of the Secretary of State for Scotland today, neither of whom, I would add, was very clear. However, that would be the fault of the brief rather than of themselves.

Now I come to (f).[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to murmur, but some of us take our duties seriously. If more Members would take these matters seriously and raise these questions the better it would be for the life of Parliament.

Mr. S. Silverman

Especially when they deal with money.

Mr. Ross

Yes, particularly on matters of money. People everywhere are asking what the cost is to be and whether we can afford it. After all, all this money is going to private interests. This is all begging bowl subsidy cash.

In (f) we see that we are providing money in the exercise of powers of making grants or loans towards the cost of improving services or facilities on which the development of any such locality depends. Could the Minister tell me what is meant there by the word "development"? If he looks at the Bill he will find an entirely different explanation of "development" and, indeed, of "services". Here we are limited to basic services. We are given a very definite definition. In the definition we are given strange words, and I think we shall come to discuss later whether they should be there at all: … in particular of industrial undertakings … That is how "development" is defined in the Bill.

The Chairman

The hon. Member must confine himself to the Money Resolution.

Mr. Ross

I agree, Sir Gordon. That is exactly what I am doing. I am asking what is the meaning of "development" within the Money Resolution. After we pass this Resolution with the word "development" defined in it, we have to lie it up with what is in the Bill.

The Chairman

The hon. Member may discuss matters mentioned in the Money Resolution but he cannot discuss what is in the Bill, which can be amended later.

Mr. Ross

I hope that I was not discussing what is in the Bill. The question that I am asking is what is the meaning of "development" and what is the scope.

There are all kinds of developments. There is housing development, development of playing fields, industrial development, and so on. The purpose of the Bill relates to employment. I want to know why "development" is so widely drawn here. I would be very glad if we could have this information.

The other point relates to (g): defraying the expenses of any Management Corporation or Co-ordinating Committee constituted under the said Act of the present Session (including remuneration, allowances and pensions for members, officers and servants) and paying allowances to members of an advisory committee. Could we be told what these expenses are to be? There is no indication that Parliament will have much control over them. There will be no Order in relation to this matter. So far as I know, there is only a statement, and statements are not debatable, as we have heard so often. Could we be told what are likely to be the expenses to be defrayed of any management corporation or coordinating committee and what about the allowances for members of an advisory committee? Am I to take it that there is no remuneration or expense to be paid to the members of the advisory committee?

These are all the points that I have to raise at the moment. I will spare the Committee the further points that I have underlined, but I think that these will be enough to be going on with.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman

I am interested in the general point on which my two hon. Friends have taken rather conflicting views. I should like to know whether this Money Resolution is to be interpreted widely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) thought, or narrowly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) thought. I should like the Minister to deal with it a little more fully than he has done.

I may be wholly wrong, but it seems to me that the Resolution, instead of being widely drawn, is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock says, very tightly and narrowly drawn. I am very ready to listen to argument that it is not so, but if it be so, obviously, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago, the Money Resolution will not be the Money Resolution which he wants and which he was recommending to the Committee.

A few minutes ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had specially directed that the Resolution should be widely drawn because he wanted to give a free run in Committee to any ideas for extending or improving or in any other way amending the powers in the Bill. The Minister of Labour, in winding up the Second Reading debate, made it almost a reproach to my right hon. Friend that he had not himself proposed any additional powers which the Government ought to have although he was arguing in his speech that the powers were too limited.

If it really is the mind of the Government—we should all be very grateful if it were—that they want a Committee stage in which nobody shall by a limited Money Resolution be inhibited and the Committee itself shall not be inhibited from giving the Government further powers above those which are in the Bill now, it would be very important indeed that the right hon. Gentleman should take back the Money Resolution which, on that hypothesis, clearly is not the Resolution that he wants, and see to it that his craftsmen obey the instructions he says he gave them, to draw a wide Resolution instead of a narrow one.

If one looks at the Resolution itself, the conclusion is almost irresistible that it is extremely tightly drawn. Suppose that it had not contained the series of lettered sub-paragraps (a) to (g). It would then read: That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision to promote employment, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise:— A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of any Government department incurred in exercising … or completing the exercise of the said powers … If the Money Resolution had stopped there, then it would have been widely drawn. It would have been open to any one of us in Committee, on either side, who had a good idea for giving the Government further powers than they had already to persuade the Committee that it really was a good idea, and, perhaps, persuade the Government that it was a good idea, without the Chairman in Committee saying, "The Committee may think that this is a very good idea, and everybody may want it; but you cannot have it. It is out of order because it imposes an extra charge not authorised by the Money Resolution". That is the reason for having a wide Resolution instead of a narrow one.

The Money Resolution does not do that. It specifically sets out the powers for which the money is authorised under it. These things are sometimes a little difficult to follow, especially in our early years in Parliament, but it is important that the matter should be understood. If we pass the Resolution as it now stands, however unanimous the Committee may ultimately be in wishing to give the Government a useful further power which, ex hypothesi, could not be one of these, it would be out of order because no money had been voted by Parliament for the purpose. It would be out of order because it imposed an extra charge for which no authorisation or Royal Recommendation had been forthcoming.

I said at the beginning, and I repeat it now, that it may be that the argument I am offering to the Committee is wholly fallacious, and I am very ready to believe that it is if someone will kindly point out to me what the fallacy is. But it seems to me to be absolutely plain, at any rate prima facie on reading the Money Resolution, that if we pass it as it stands the Committee will not be able to add a single power to the powers which the Bill gives to the Government so far as they are authorised by the Money Resolution.

If that is what the Committee wants, what the majority wants, no doubt it will vote for the Money Resolution as it stands. If that is what the Minister wants, no doubt he will stand to his guns and insist on getting this Money Resolution and no other. But only a few minutes ago the Minister told us that that is not what he wants, that a wants a wide Money Resolution. If the right hon. Gentleman wants that, then, plainly, he has not got it, and the only thing that he can do is to withdraw this Money Resolution and submit another one. He can do that tomorrow.

Quite clearly, on the argument so far as it has gone, the right hon. Gentleman has recommended to the Committee that we should adopt a Money Resolution which is the opposite to the one he wants to have. It seems to me that it would be quite wrong for the Committee to be frivolous or contemptuous about arguments of this kind or impatient because they arise late at night. It may be that we shall have to do many things late at night during this Session.

I hope that I have satisfied right hon. and hon. Members opposite that there is no question of being obstructive or mischievous over this matter. I do not deny that I have been obstructive and mischievous in my time, and I do not deny that there may be occasions when, if I can keep within the bounds of order, I may wish to be obstructive and mischievous again. But I ask them to believe me and to appreciate that there is nothing obstructive or mischievous about (his. It is a plain question of Whether the Money Resolution as it appears on the Order Paper is wide enough to enable the Committee, if it chooses, to add to the Government's powers or is so drawn that the Committee will not be able to add to them.

I say that as the Money Resolution is drawn we shall not be able to add to the powers. The Minister said he wanted a Money Resolution that would enable the Committee to add to the Government's powers. If I am right, it is quite clear that this Money Resolution is not the one he wants. Whatever the party divisions may be, surely when we are dealing with a point of this kind we can forget party differences one way or another and look simply at the facts of whatever on the Order Paper we are being asked to pass.

It seems to me that unless the Minister or someone else can explain that these paragraphs are not restrictive of the power of the Committee to extend the scope of the Bill then the time has come to make sure that they are not.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)

I have been much impressed by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and one or two possible examples come to my mind of things that we might genuinely want to do in Committee on the Bill and which we might not be able to do as the Money Resolution stands at the moment.

Let me give what I think are one or two possible examples. The Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) pointed out, is a device for handing out public money, whether by grant or loan, to private persons. We have no objection to that, because we recognise as well as members of the Government recognise that we have to do that nowadays to make private enterprise work. But it might occur to some of my hon. Friends during the Committee stage of the Bill that, in addition to doing that, circumstances might arise in a particular area in which it was desirable for a Government Department not merely to make grants or loans or to build premises, or sell or rent them to some private firm, but actually, in addition to setting up the building, to conduct a business enterprise itself in such manner and in such area.

Reading paragraphs (a) to (g) of the Money Resolution, it is not clear to me that if a new Clause were put down to enable that to be done, it would be in order in terms of the Resolution as it is drafted. I do not propose to argue now the merits of such a possible new Clause. It seems to me right that if it appeared proper to hon. Members to put down such a Clause, we should be able to discuss it, but I am doubtful whether the Resolution as it is drafted would enable us to do so.

There is another possibility. The Bill gives power for the making of loans. I presume that these would be loans of the ordinary kind on which a fixed rate of interest would be paid and provision would be made for repayment. Suppose, however, that it occurred to some of my hon. Friends that it might be desirable for the purposes of the Bill to have a somewhat new form of loan of public money whereby the return would be proportionate to the productivity of the enterprise to which the money was lent. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition. If a new Clause or an Amendment to that effect were put down to the Bill, would it be possible, as the Resolution is now drafted, to discuss it? On reading the Resolution, the answer to that question appears to me to be "No." It is a great pity and unreasonable that it should be "No."

Both the suggestions which I have made—that one might want to give Government Departments power actually to run productive enterprises themselves, or that we might wish to lend money in a manner that would enable the public to get a proportionate share in the profits of the enterprise to which the money was lent—are not unreasonable propositions. I trust that even hon. Members who, at first sight, do not like them will agree that it is at least reasonable that in Committee we should have the opportunity of discussing them. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us beyond doubt that we could discuss suggestions like that or, possibly, other suggestions that hon. Members might think of. Or, if he cannot give us such an assurance, will he take the Money Resolution back and bring us one drafted rather more widely?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Maudling

I will do my best to reply to the number of points which have been raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) complained that a sum of money is not stated in 'the Money Resolution.

Mr. Ross

I did not complain.

Mr. Maudling

At least, the hon. Member said it in a complaining voice. Perhaps I am not so accustomed to his voice as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I shall get to know it better in Committee.

The hon. Member pointed out that a figure was mentioned in another Resolution concerning horticulture, but that a sum was not mentioned in this case. The sum mentioned in the Horticulture Resolution, however, is a ceiling. I thought the complaint of the party opposite was not that we were spending too much, but that we were spending too little. It is a little illogical for hon. Members opposite to complain that we are not putting a limit on the amount we can spend.

Mr. Ross

How could we possibly complain that we are spending too little when the right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to assure us that he would not tell us what we would spend?

Mr. Maudling

Hon. Members opposite cannot logically make that complaint. That is why the first point made by the hon. Member was a bad one.

The hon. Member's second point concerned amenities. He rightly interpreted paragraph (d) of the Resolution. It is clear that the bringing of the land into use or improving the amenities is conditional upon the words the condition renders it expedient that the steps should be taken". This means, expedient for the purposes of the Act, as I said in my speech on Second Reading. If the hon. Member reads our speeches, he will see that there was nothing inconsistent in what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said. The improvement of the amenities must, for the purposes of the Bill, be designed to increase the attractive power of the area for the purposes of creating employment. I hope that I have made the point clear.

On grants and loans, the hon. Member asked what was meant by the word "development" in paragraph (f). I would say that it meant a development of the employing capacity of the locality. That is the best definition I can give him. The whole Bill is designed for the purpose of increasing or providing employment, and in that context the word "development" covers the development of the employment capacity of the district concerned.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to paragraph (g) and questioned the amount of the expenses of the Management Corporations. He will find that, under the First Schedule, the Board will have to lay before the House a statement of the remuneration and allowances payable to the members of the Management Corporations. This is common form in the setting up of statutory corporations of this kind. Those are the four points made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. I have endeavoured to answer them clearly, as they are relevant points.

The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) made a rather more discursive speech, on the question whether the Resolution is loosely or tightly drawn. I thought that the answer to his speech was given clearly in the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was putting the point that there should not be a Money Resolution at all, but that discussion in Committee should range as far as possible, with no limitation. The point of a Money Resolution is surely to enable discussion to be wide, but not to be wide beyond the basic purposes of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Fulham asked about the nature of the loans to be made, and the terms upon which they would be made. He will observe that in Clause 4 (2) it is laid down that the advisory committee, in recommending the terms and conditions on which the loan or grant shall be made, shall act in accordance with general directions given it by the Board of Trade. Subject to what you, Sir Gordon, may say, I would have thought that Amendments on that subsection would be able to raise the point that the hon. Member has in mind. That is an example of the way in which the Resolution is drawn widely. But when it comes to the question of setting up Government enterprises, the expansion of Government enterprise is wholly out-with the purposes of the Bill, and it is, therefore, rightly not within the terms of the Money Resolution. The examples quoted by the hon. Member have proved my case. The Resolution is wide enough to be reasonable, but not so wide as to permit debate to go beyond the basic purposes of the Bill.

Mr. S. Silverman

I apologise for delaying the Committee further, and I can assure hon. Members that I would not do so if I did not think that I have a substantial point which the Minister has not answered.

I have been in the House a long time, and I can assure the Minister that I know the need for a Money Resolution. It is a reasonably elementary point that one learns fairly quickly when one comes here. My argument was not designed to state that we did not need a Money Resolution; nor would it follow that if we had no Resolution we would necessarily be able to add provisions to a Bill which were outside its purposes. We would still be subject to the terms of the Long Title.

Where the Minister has gone wrong is in confusing Amendments which are out of order because they are outside the terms of the Title, and, therefore, outside the scope of a Bill, and Amendments which are within the scope of the Bill—that is to say, within the terms of its Long Title—but, nevertheless, are out of order because the Money Resolution has been so drawn as not to provide the necessary finance for them. That is a very clear distinction, and if the Minister makes an effort I am sure that he will understand it.

We are not dealing with Amendments which are out of order because they are outside the scope of the Bill. The Long Title and the Chair will take care of that. We are dealing with another set of Amendments altogether, a set of Amendments which are within the scope of the Bill. I do not know whether the one mentioned by my hon. Friend is within the scope of the Bill or not. It seems to me that it might well be. But I am not concerned to argue that at this moment, because if his Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, and out of order for that reason, then, no matter how widely the Money Resolution is drawn, it will still be out of order and the consequence that the Minister feared would not arise.

On the other hand, if we consider the new powers which are within the Long Title, within the scope of the Bill, but which are not covered by any one of these lettered paragraphs, then we shall be out of order with any Amendment, not because it is outside the scope of the Bill but because the Money Resolution does not provide the necessary finance. If that part has been understood, perhaps hon. Gentlemen, and right hon. Gentlemen, too, will go on to consider the point I made, which no one, so far, has attempted to answer.

What the Money Resolution does is to define narrowly, strictly and specifically, one by one, the powers for which money can be spent. It is absolutely certain that if anyone moves an Amendment to give the Government a power which is not in one of these lettered paragraphs, that Amendment would be out of order, not because of the scope of the Bill but because of the money. The right hon. Gentleman must know that perfectly well. It is not too much—I hope he will not think that I am being unnecessarily offensive—to ask him to be perfectly honest with the Committee.

Does the right hon. Gentleman want the Money Resolution limited, as this Resolution is limited, to providing money for those specific powers and no others, or does he—as he appeared to be saying in his first speech on the Money Resolution—want a wide Resolution which would enable new powers to be added to the Bill if the Committee thinks fit without being ruled out of order on the ground of the financial limit imposed by the Money Resolution? If he wants the second, this Money Resolution is no good to him. If he wants the first, then the Money Resolution is admirably drawn for that limited and restricted purpose. The right hon. Gentleman must make up his mind which he wants.

It would be quite wrong, as I am sure he would agree, to mislead the Committee into giving him this Money Resolution on the basis that, if we accept it, we shall be able to add to the powers, if the fact is that when we pass this Resolution—if we do—we shall not be able to add to the powers. This is not the electorate. These are not the hustings. These are not the placards. This is the House of Commons dealing with its most important, its most fundamental job, namely, the control of public finance. We must not cheat about it, we must not be ambiguous about it.

This Resolution, as drawn, will prohibit the giving to the Government of any powers other than those specified here. The Minister must say whether that is what he wants or whether it is not. If it is, I hope that we shall vote against it. If it is not what he wants, then he should take it back and have it redrafted and then presented in a form which really carries out the purpose which he has recommended. At present, there is a complete dichotomy between what the Resolution will effect and what the Minister says he wants. It is not right that this new House of Commons, dealing for the first time with such a constitutional question, should be left in any ambiguity or doubt.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

I had not intended to prolong these proceedings any more, but the right hon. Gentleman made a rather extraordinary remark in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). The President of the Board of Trade said that the financing of or assistance to any public enterprise in these areas would be entirely outwith the purposes of the Bill. I hope that he did not mean that. I should have thought that not merely would it not be outwith the purposes of the Bill, but that it is not even outwith the terms of this Money Resolution, because in one of the paragraphs of the Resolution it says: making, in accordance with recommendations of an advisory committee, loans or grants for the purposes of undertakings carried on or to be carried on in any such locality. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman is not telling the Committee at this stage that those undertakings would exclude public enterprise.[An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) apparently thinks that they do, so we had better have this cleared up.

I should like to ask for further elucidation of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). This relates to the powers for clearing derelict sites under paragraph (d) of the Money Resolution. My hon. Friend, I think, was perfectly right in saying that the words, "for improving amenities" are governed by the general purposes of the Bill. The general purposes of the Bill are to promote employment in these areas. The President of the Board of Trade said—and this appeared at first sight to be rather narrower than what the Secretary of State told us—that improving the amenities would make the area more attractive to industrialists for the purpose of promoting employment.

I should like to be clear on this specific point. I take it that it does not mean improvement of the amenities to make them more attractive for a specific project, which would be very narrow indeed, but that the right hon. Gentleman accepts the implication that the area would be made more attractive generally in relation to any project which might help to promote employment.

Mr. Maudling

I agree with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on both points. If I may, I shall take them in reverse order. He is certainly right in his interpretation that if we want to clear up a slag heap we can do so not only to provide a factory on the spot, but also because doing so would make the area more attractive generally to industry.

On the first point, the right hon. Member is also right, but he perhaps did not quite get what his hon. Friend said. I listened very carefully. He did not refer to statutory bodies or nationalised bodies, but Government Departments, which is quite a different thing. I said that any proposal to extend the manufacturing or industrial activities of Government Departments would, to my mind, be quite outwith the purpose of the Bill. The best interpretation I can give is that the undertakings would include public as well as private undertakings.

Mr. Jay

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his own Bill defines "undertaking" as any trade or business, or any other activity providing employment"? Surely a Government Department is providing employment.

Mr. Maudling

A Government Department is not normally thought of as carrying on any activity; normally, it is accused of doing the opposite. The guiding word is "undertakings," and that certainly would cover nationalised industries.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.