HC Deb 02 February 1960 vol 616 cc881-910
Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, after "there", to insert: (whether or not any such undertaking can be identified at the time)". I hope that it will be appreciated that the intention of the Amendment is to provide that the Board of Trade in carrying out its functions under Clause 2 of the Bill when it becomes an Act will be enabled, if it so desires, to build advance factories. These are complicated words to use when we are discussing advance factories, but as Clause 2 stands at present it appears that the Board of Trade may only acquire land or put up buildings for undertakings that are identifiable or are already there. The Clause reads: For the purposes of this Part 'of this' Act the Board shall have power, in order to provide or facilitate the provision of premises in any such locality as is mentioned in subsection (2) of the foregoing section for occupation by undertakings carried on or to be carried on there or for otherwise meeting the requirements of such undertakings… That gives the impression that at present we can identify the undertakings.

In the Act of 1945 it was made abundantly clear that Her Majesty's Ministers at that time envisaged the need to build factories in advance in areas of high unemployment. Section 2 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, says: The Board of Trade may with the consent of the Treasury make loans to trading or industrial estate companies (whether incorporated before or after the passing of this Act) where the Board are satisfied that the loans will further the provision of industrial premises in development areas in such a way as to induce persons to establish or expand industrial undertakings in such areas. It was made abundantly clear that one of the prime purposes of the Board of Trade at that time was to enable the industrial estate companies to build advance factories. Millions of square feet of advance factories were built in the years immediately after the war. At the present time, under the existing legislation, I believe that the Board of Trade has three advance factories going up in all the Development Areas of Great Britain. For a long time no advance factories were built in any part of the country.

Some of us believe that the problems of some areas will be solved only if the Government authorise industrial estate companies, or the management corporations, as they are to be called, to go ahead and provide accommodation for industry in advance. We have plenty of experience of the advantage of having factories available in an area where unemployment has already developed or is about to develop.

On previous occasions the Parliamentary Secretary has explained why advance factories could not be built, but the Ministry has now agreed to build three advance factories in the Scottish Development Area. That area is the largest Development Area, with the largest number of people and the largest number of unemployed among all the Development Areas in the country.

In that Development Area, particularly in the part where there is a large number of people totally unemployed—and I am referring to the area around Hillington and a good part of North Lanarkshire close to Glasgow—a factory does not stand empty waiting for a tenant. On a number of occasions I have listened to the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary listing the number of empty factories in Development Areas. The whole of my constituency is in the Scottish Development Area. I know of one or two buildings in the area that are empty, but I do not know of any modern factories that have been built by the Government.

I have had correspondence with the Parliamentary Secretary about accommodation that is becoming available on the Blantyre Estate in my constituency. I thought that it would be a good thing to let that accommodation to an employer not already on the estate. I was delighted at the end of the day to learn that instead of the industrialist who was already on the estate being allowed to take over the factory, we were getting another employer—an engineering employer—from another part of the world to take over this factory. If a factory had not been available at that time we should probably have missed him and he would have gone to the Continent.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment and so provide in the Bill the power to build advance factories if the President of the Board of Trade is minded to do so. If he does not accept the Amendment and take the power to build advance factories he will be going back on the existing legislation, and it has been the boast of the Government that this Bill is an improvement on the 1945 Act.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not only accept the Amendment but that he will give us an assurance that it is the intention of his right hon. Friend to exercise his power to build advance factories in those areas where there is a lot of unemployment. We have heard a lot about the ability of the President of the Board of Trade to anticipate accumulating unemployment in an area. If the Minister does not accept the power to build factories in those areas where unemployment on a massive scale is likely to arise—because of pit closures and the like—he will not induce industrialists to go into those areas and ease the situation.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment and, in taking power for the Board of Trade to build advance factories, will give us an assurance that his right hon. Friend will exercise those powers.

8.0 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward

I could make exactly the same speech as that which has just been made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), with the substitution of the North East Coast for the areas mentioned by him. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us where these factories are being built. I also want to know whether it is true that the Treasury is not very keen on finding money to enable the building of factories in advance of employers being available to occupy them. I cannot help feeling that the Treasury holds the purse-strings and calls the tune of the President of the Board of Trade. It would be advantageous if we could have the assurance for which the hon. Member for Hamilton asked, and also an assurance that in cases of areas of vast or developing unemployment those who give advice to the President of the Board of Trade in connection with the building of factories will get into their heads all the necessary information, facts, knowledge and "know-how" of the industry with which they are concerned before trying to clip the wings of the Board of Trade.

Certain industrialists are quite numerous on the North East Coast trading estates. We have a very large area, and we want both factories and factory extensions built. The hon. Member for Hamilton mentioned the 1945 Act, so I presume that I am in order in also mentioning it. Are we going to get these factories? If permission has been given for factories to be built in some areas I can see no reason why the same advantage should not be granted to the North East Coast.

Mr. Bence

I support the Amendment because it is a very important one. In 1910 a great friend of mine, who has now passed away, began manufacturing in a very small way in Cardiff with a capital of £53. I remember his telling me in 1946 that if he then had £53,000 he could not start one again. He could not enter into that manufacturing circle. That is a feature of all modern industrial economies, and we ought to do something to help competent engineers and technicians to enter in if they desire.

If Scotland is to benefit properly in this respect we must get into Scotland some units of the motor car industry. The larger units of that industry are assembled together with units which are fed in from hundreds of small factories. Any Midlander will agree that in the Midlands there are hundreds of small factories which specialise in providing components for the motor car industry—for commercial vehicles, tractors and passenger vehicles. If factories can be provided in Scotland at reasonable rents there is terrific scope for young men with financial backing and creative ability to participate in the new industry which will be coming to Scotland. There is plenty of room for them to act as producers for the larger assembly plants.

One of the factors which dissuades light engineering firms from coming to Scotland and Wales is the lack of accommodation for small producer units. That factor was a great handicap to Wales when I was young, but anyone who went to the Midlands even then could find hundreds of thousands of firms, employing no more than 50 or 60 people, making small specialised components for use in consumer durable goods and motor cars. That situation does not apply in Scotland because we have not had suitable industries there. Tie Board of Trade now has an opportunity to build factory space suitable for industrial units.

Mr. Gower

I have personal knowledge of a point that the hon. Member was making. A friend of mine who makes the rubber which goes round the windows of motor cars started manufacturing with very slender capital after the last war. We should not exaggerate the amount of capital needed in these cases.

Mr. Bence

Yes; no doubt that was in 1945 or 1946.

Mr. Gower

My friend started much more recently than that.

Mr. Bence

From the time the war ended until 1950 hundreds of opportunities existed in the Midlands for starting up various manufacturing processes. I could write a little pamphlet concerning some of the people who marched round the Midlands trying to get tool makers and engineers to start up productive processes with them, in order to make some quick money. It was the same situation that existed during the war.

Unless within the next four years suitable industrial accommodation can be provided in Scotland, especially in some of the new Development Areas, the provisions of the Bill will not succeed. We know that Glasgow has overspill agreements and that certain industries are moving out. It may be that vacant industrial space will then be available, but Glasgow will need that space for other purposes. Similarly, some of the older factories have become vacant, but they are not up to modern industrial standards.

If modern light engineering industries are to come to Scotland and Wales the designing and building of factories in both countries will have to incorporate the amenities and the general industrial conditions which are—

The Temporary Chairman

The hon. Member is now going a little beyond the question of where these factories can be built. I do not think that we can discuss the type of factory to which he is now referring.

Mr. Bence

I accept your Ruling, Mr. Blackburn, but I think that this is important. If an advance factory is built by the Board of Trade which has a knowledge of industrial conditions and the amenities to be provided to attract industry, it is more likely that it will be occupied than if it is built for a particular company. A factory built for a specific production or process may be desirable and useful only for that type of production. I can think of cases relating to the motor trade, where it would be necessary to build a factory specifically designed for a particular line of production. Often it would be better for a factory of a more general type to be built by the Board of Trade. That was why I made the point about design.

I agree that in some cases it is desirable for an industrialist to design and lay out his own premises. But it is also desirable that factory floor space should be available for small manufacturers employing perhaps 100 or 200 men and producing something which would be useful to the major assembling units. This is not a new idea. It was done in the Midlands long before I entered the engineering industry. The great assembly plants of the motor industry are surrounded by small factory units. There are some in Birmingham occupying premises which consist of a couple of houses in a back street which have been made into one, where 50 or 60 men may be employed. When I was a young man such units had presses in the bedrooms. I am not suggesting that that happens in Scotland—

The Temporary Chairman

I hope that the hon. Member will not develop his reminiscences, but will deal with the question of advance factories.

Mr. Bence

I am developing my argument and explaining why I am asking that advance factories be provided for these small units. I was illustrating the point by saying that in the Midlands the major industries are surrounded by such small units which have grown up over the years in these sort of higgledy-piggledy places. But it would be far better if, under the provisions of the Bill, the Board of Trade takes power to build factories for these small units. For that reason I support the Amendment. I hope that in Scotland we may have the same pattern as exists in London and the Midlands.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. J. Rodgers

We have heard from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that the object of the Amendment is to make it explicit in the Bill that the Board of Trade shall have power to build advance factories. I am advised by my legal advisers that already that power exists under Clause 2 as drafted. The relevant words are to erect buildings in order to provide … premises … for … undertakings … to be carried on. My first reason, therefore, for asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment is that the powers already exist in the Bill for the Board of Trade to build advance factories if it so desires.

There is a second reason why I think that this Amendment should be withdrawn. The hon. Member asked for an assurance that if we have the powers—I think that he suspected that we might have them—we should exercise them. Although the Board has the power to build advance factories it is not present Government policy to exercise those powers save exceptionally and experimentally. As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, there are at present three experimental factories, one on Merseyside, one in north Lanarkshire and one in North Wales, which is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who asked where the factories were.

I think it significant that up to date little interest has been evinced in these factories. It is true that they are not yet completely constructed and that may be the reason. When we said we would build these factories we hoped that there would be a positive reaction which would show whether this was what industry was looking for. Our experience to date, and I can only quote our experience up to the present, is that industrialists have shown little interest.

Mr. J. Griffiths

May I ask whether the Board of Trade undertakes any other form of advertising to make known the existence of these factories, other than calling the attention of industrialists to them? Is any other form of advertising undertaken to make it known that these factories are available?

Mr. Rodgers

We do not make any special arrangement regarding these factories any more than for the existing factories on trading estates. But they are well known to industrialists. Regional controllers know that they are available and they have been referred to in the Board of Trade Journal. A great deal of publicity was given to the erection of these advance factories as a result of Questions and Answers in the House. But it is significant that little interest has been evinced in them and so we regard them as experimental. I should not like to mislead the Committee by giving the impression that it is the intention of the Government to go on building such factories.

The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) referred to the desirability of making factory space available for skilled engineers operating in a small way so that they could gain entry to a particular industry. That is covered by the powers in the Bill. We hope to build premises for people in the right areas and under the right conditions. There is no limitation on the size of premises, but our experience is that people prefer custom built factories rather than advance factories.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes (Anglesey)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been three or four inquiries about the advance factory at Holyhead and that his Department in Wales is convinced that an industrialist will be interested in a factory which may be adapted to his needs?

Mr. Rodgers

I am interested to know that. My official information is that so far there has been no offer to take over the factory when it is completed. But we shall review this experiment.

I take it that the hon. Member for Hamilton will be willing to withdraw his Amendment, since we have powers in the Bill to build advance factories. Whether or not we exercise them can be determined later in the light of the result of the experiment.

Mr. S. 0. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil)

Could the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will build a factory of about 75,000 sq. ft. in Merthyr Tydvil, because I know of an industrialist who would be very glad to get such a factory, and there are 1,100 unemployed there?

Mr. Rodgers

If the hon. Member knows a manufacturer anxious to have premises we are very willing to meet such a manufacturer and discuss terms on which we would build premises.

Mr. C. Hughes

Would the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if these advance factories in North Wales, in Lanarkshire and on Merseyside are tenanted within a reasonable time, certainly if they are tenanted before they are finished, further advance factories will be built elsewhere in areas of high unemployment?

Mr. Rodgers

No, I could not give that assurance, but we shall be guided by experience.

Mr. Boyden

I was very surprised to heard the Parliamentary Secretary say what he has just said, because Dame Alix Meynell, former Under-Secretary of the Industries and Manufacturers Department of the Board of Trade, writing in the journal Public Administration, said: to the question, which inducement is the most powerful, I answer without hesitation, the offer of factories to let, both 'tailor-made' and those which are 'off the peg'; for experience has shown that both have their attractions to industry large and small, rich and poor. I am inclined to wonder why the Parliamentary Secretary is talking in this way.

Dame Irene Ward

As everyone else is asking questions and I am very interested in these advance factories, I wish to ask a question. If my hon. Friend is so busy having these factories built and looking for tenants, why, when there are tenants available on the North-East Coast—if I may refer to that, as Scotland has had a good go—cannot we go ahead there? Could I have an answer to that, because it is very important?

Mr. Rodgers

If the hon. Lady will write to me on those specific points I will look into them.

Mr. T. Fraser

The Parliamentary Secretary said that there is provision for the building of advance factories. He advised us that the words in the Clause give that power. The words are: for occupation by undertakings carried on or to be carried on there … If the Amendment is not proceeded with this evening, would the Parliamentary Secretary consider carefully, with his legal advisers, whether there is provision here for the building of advance factories? I am advised that it would be possible for someone who objected to expenditure of taxpayers' money on the building of advance factories to challenge the President of the Board of Trade if he were so to do with the powers as written in the subsection. I am advised that it would be possible for a lawyer to argue that the undertaking to be carried on must be an identifiable undertaking. If a factory were being built with no particular industrialist in prospect, the President of the Board of Trade would be having a factory built without having an undertaking" to be carried on there".

If that is so, there would not be power to build advance factories. If the Parliamentary Secretary gives me an assurance, as I think he does, that he will have a look at the question between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place, and, if there is the possibility of that kind of challenge going to the court, the Minister will adjust the Bill so that he does not find himself in the position of being challenged in the court—

Mr. Rodgers

I certainly give that assurance. If my legal advice is not right and if the interpretation of the hon. Member suggests could be placed on these words, a change will be made.

Mr. Fraser

I am, none the less, disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary was so reluctant to make any promise about the building of advance factories in future. I have never ceased to be amazed at his insistence that the three factories being built, one in Wales, one on Merseyside, and the other in Scotland, are experimental factories and that we shall have to wait to see how the experiment works out before deciding to what extent further advance factories are to be built in future.

Advance factories have been built by Governments since the first Special Areas Act was passed in 1934. We have had twenty-six years' experience, but now the Parliamentary Secretary says we shall have to see how the experiment works out and how we get on with the three factories under construction. He is not being very bold; he is being unduly cautious.

However, there will be other occasions in future when we can press him and his right hon. Friend to exercise the powers they are seeking in this Bill. On the understanding that the Parliamentary Secretary will secure that power is included for the building of advance factories without any ambiguity—that he will have further conversations on the legal aspect to make quite clear the intention of the Bill before it becomes an Act—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lee

I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 3 to 6.

We are now approaching a new subject, the question of office accommodation. The words we are proposing to delete are: Provided that the Board shall not acquire under this section any buildings other than industrial buildings except for redelevopment or as part of a larger property which in the opinion of the Board would be incomplete without them. A little later we shall come to a new Clause in which we ask, on a much wider basis than in the present Amendment, that office building shall be included in the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade said on Second Reading, when speaking of Clause 2: … we shall have power to build for non-industrial undertakings. That is an important power, because there may be many occasions when it will be as useful to provide for employment in a commercial undertaking as it is to provide employ- ment in an industrial undertaking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 37–38.] 8.30 p.m.

Office accommodation is not within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade, nor, I think, is commercial building as such. I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's words on Second Reading that in this Measure he is taking power in respect of commercial undertakings. We approve of his intentions in that respect, but we find it most difficult to understand why he wishes to enlarge the scope of the Board of Trade's power in that direction without at the same time taking power in respect of office accommodation.

While we are dealing with the more limited point of the provision of premises and sites, it is important that we should ask the right hon. Gentleman to be consistent with his arguments and aspirations and to give himself powers—which, if he does not at the moment possess in the Bill, we shall certainly seek to give him in the new Clause—to acquire not only commercial buildings but also office buildings.

One can well appreciate that unless the right hon. Gentleman takes powers which are outside the scope of what are now construed to be industrial buildings he will land himself in a lopsided position. It is almost inevitable that, if he takes such powers as are in the Clause, he will need to be able to acquire office premises as well as industrial premises if he is to have a viable undertaking. It would be a ridiculous situation if, office premises being available, he had no power to take them and the people setting up an industry had to erect their own office premises.

The Amendment asks the right hon. Gentleman to delete from the Bill the words which I have quoted in order to give himself powers which are legitimate and sensible if he is to achieve the objects which he has in mind, and certainly the objects which he pointed out in his Second Reading speech.

The right hon. Gentleman accepts the principle that the Board of Trade should enlarge its powers. We are suggesting that to be consistent he should enlarge his powers beyond those dealing with industrial or commercial undertakings, as at present defined, to include powers to produce a viable undertaking by acquiring office accommodation too.

It is a rather limited point within the Clause and I am not trying to argue the wider implications which will arise later. I hope that the Amendment commends itself to the right hon. Gentleman as a sensible enlargement of the powers which he is seeking in other directions.

Mr. Maudling

As the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) pointed out, there is an important question to be discussed later on the new Clause about control of offices, and I will not anticipate that. This is a different and very much narrower point. The provision in the Bill, which was included as a protection of the Revenue and the public interest, is sensible. It is only a small limitation of our powers, and it is wise that our powers should be so limited. In general, it is a good thing to limit the powers of Government Departments to what are necessary. It is sometimes a protection to the public, too, because if the Government have no power to do certain things, they cannot be pressed to do them. I will explain in a moment what I mean by that.

The purpose of the Clause is to give the Board of Trade power to acquire premises. In the proviso we say that we should not acquire non-industrial buildings, for example, commercial buildings, houses, shops and offices, save in two circumstances, either when they are part of an industrial property which we are taking over, or where we intend to redevelop.

I will give examples of those two exceptions. The first is the question of a complete property. If we are acquiring a factory building, there may be a night watchman's cottage, which is residential, and it may well be sensible to include that in the acquisition. There would be power to do so. It would also be possible to take over existing industrial or other buildings to redevelop and to create something new, including new offices.

The only thing we are prevented from doing is acquiring houses, hotels and shops and continuing to lease them for their existing use. That is a sensible limitation. I cannot imagine that, in practice, there are likely to be many cases where a substantial amount of employment would be created by taking over a hotel or office building already in existence and leasing it to another tenant.

Mr. Lee

I follow very well what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. If there were a factory the industrial part of which was a whole and there were office blocks which had been run in conjunction with the factory, but were quite distinct from the industrial building—this could be the case in many areas—would the right hon. Gentleman have powers in respect of the office block?

Mr. Maudling

Yes, as I read the Bill, because it is a question of the opinion of the Board. If we thought that a factory was not complete without the ancillary offices, we have power to acquire the offices, also. It is important that we should have that power.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

Would "industrial buildings" cover dock undertakings? This question is important, as the right hon. Gentleman will have learned from an earlier speech.

Mr. Maudling

Questions of interpretation are more proper for the courts than for the Minister. Speaking subject to reference, I should have thought that dock Undertakings—dockyards, cranes and the like—would be industrial undertakings and fall within this provision.

Mr. James Boyden (Bishop Auckland)

In that case, can the same principle apply to mining other than coal mining?

Mr. Maudling

Yes. All these things are certainly industrial undertakings. Non-industrial undertakings are shops, offices as such, hotels and such buildings.

The point I was making was that I cannot see that the acquisition and re-letting of such premises for their existing purposes are likely to create in many cases a substantial amount of new employment. On the other hand, I can see great pressure being brought to bear on the Board of Trade from time to time by the owners of hotels, shops and offices, not doing so well, for us to take over antiquated property as part of the use of our powers under the Bill. It would subject the Board of Trade at any time to pressure of a kind which is probably better avoided. There is a difference between providing new commercial premises and merely taking over and re-letting existing premises.

What we have in mind, as the Committee has discussed on previous occasions, is the need to have some assurance of continued operation and the continued provision of employment. When we talk about providing commercial premises, the sort of thing we have in mind is to persuade a big insurance company to take over a big office block. In that case, we can have some assurance of continued operation just as one can when an industrial undertaking takes over a new factory. If one is merely taking over a commercial building already let and letting it to another tenant, the assurance of providing continued employment is very small indeed.

Therefore, we thought, on balance, that this provision, which is a limitation of our power, would not, in practice, in any way impede us in our main purpose of providing employment. On the other hand, it should be retained as a proper limitation of our powers and a proper protection for the Board of Trade, which otherwise might be subjected to pressure to acquire at public expense many premises which we should never acquire.

Mr. T. Fraser

The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the Committee, perhaps unwittingly. He says that he merely wants the power to acquire the properties that it is essential or desirable to have for the purpose of furthering employment. He must know full well that it is highly desirable in certain circumstances for the Board of Trade to acquire houses for key personnel. He cannot do so if he does not take power to acquire the land. The buildings mentioned in the proviso are surely on the land to be acquired under Clause 2 (a).

Mr. Maudling

There are two categories. We certainly have power to acquire, for example, a watchman's cottage or a cottage or house which is already part of the industrial property and used as such. Apart from that, the movement and housing of key workers, as the hon. Member knows, is dealt with by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as I explained during our previous debates.

Mr. Fraser

Yes, but my trouble is that I have seen this thing working. I am sorry to say it, but I have probably seen it working at much closer quarters than has the right hon. Gentleman. I am not here dealing with the industrial workers who are provided for by the local authorities. I am dealing with the managerial personnel, who have never been accommodated by any local authority in the country.

What has happened in the past is that the Board of Trade has found the accommodation. Sometimes, it has built the houses specially and at other times it has, by agreement, acquired the houses; it has not bought them compulsorily, but has acquired them. Here the President of the Board of Trade is denying himself the right to secure those houses, the possession of which by the Board of Trade to pass on to the industrialist who is to come to the area is fundamental to the success of his scheme to repopulate, or to bring new industry into some of those areas that are so badly denuded of industry at present.

The right hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) that if some office acommodation was necessary as part of the scheme for bringing in an industry he could acquire it. Could he? The wording is … the Board shall not acquire under this section any buildings other than industrial buildings except for redevelopment"— that is one thing: or as part of a larger property which in the opinion of the Board would be incomplete without them. If the industrial buildings are in one part of a town and the administrative offices are three or five miles away, are they part of the larger property? Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that his legal advisers would tell him that an office property three or five miles away is part of an industrial property elsewhere? If that is what he has in mind, I must say that he has chosen very strange language to express it.

In any case, were he to accept our Amendment and so take away this limitation on his powers he would still have the power to acquire the industrial buildings that he needs, and he would have power to acquire the houses that are essential for the industrial development that he so much wishes. He might be under some pressure here and there to acquire hotels that are losing money, but I hope that he will not give way to such blandishments. There can be few hon. Members who would submit to the President of the Board of Trade that the only way to help in the solution of unemployment in their constituencies is for the Board of Trade to acquire some existing hotels. That is not a very likely claim; the picture is a bit far-fetched.

The position in relation to office buildings is quite different. An office block, which is not part of an industrial undertaking in the town but which is purely and simply an office block—and offices provide a lot of the jobs nowadays—might, in an area of heavy unemployment, cease to be used as offices. If there is not a purchaser, and the owners of the block are not willing to let another occupier have it on a tenancy basis but want to sell it instead—and there are many bidders for such accommodation—then we say that, in an area of heavy unemployment, the right hon. Gentleman should have the power to acquire that block if he so wishes. Having taken it over, he would perhaps find a good and useful tenant to provide much-needed employment in that area

8.45 p.m.

Why should he deny himself the right to do these things? By refusing our Amendment he is denying himself that right. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that if an office block is becoming vacant or has become vacant and is available, it is not the building of something but the acquiring of the building. There are already far too few jobs in the areas of high unemployment. If there is a further drain on office accommodation in the congested areas of high unemployment and an office block is standing empty, why should not the right hon. Gentleman have the power to acquire it and then look round for a suitable tenant?

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that it is desirable to have this power. The acquisition is not for purposes of redevelopment. The block I referred to earlier is not part of a larger property; it is an office building no longer being used for the purpose, and it happens to be unoccupied in an area of high employment.

Let us think of what I have said concerning these houses. They are not three, four or five bedroomed houses of local authorities, but seven, eight or ten roomed houses which one would find in the market in Scotland at values of £3,000, £5,000 or £7,000. These are the kind of places which are already occupied by the top people who will be coming in to run these much needed industries in those areas. The Committee should realise that if they cannot have such houses they just will not come. If they have houses like those in the London and Midland areas and they are invited to go to Wales, Merseyside, the North-East and Scotland and cannot get similar houses they will not go there.

It has been found necessary in the past for the Board of Trade to acquire suitable houses for such people, and I cannot see why the President of the Board of Trade should not continue to enjoy those powers. We do not want him to exercise powers which are not necessary in the interest of employment, but we should like him to take these powers where that is desirable and necessary in the interest of employment in the difficult areas.

Mr. Manuel

I hope that the President of the Board of Trade has been impressed by the very strong arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). I put it to him that he should not deny himself powers which he may find later would become very necessary in order to attract good industry into areas needing it.

These powers might be necessary in the case of a large hotel which was not paying and which had come on the market. The owner might be wanting to dispose of it. That hotel could be easily turned into an industrial building or offices, or, as many big firms have, a place where they put up for short periods such people as visiting technicians. I.C.I. has a huge hotel where people are accommodated in connection with the carrying on of the business in the Stevenston district. The hotel is in Ardrossan, which is a good many miles from the factory at Stevenston. If a big combine could be attracted to Scotland, and if it asked the Board of Trade for help in acquiring properties of that kind which come on the market at reasonable prices because of their size, would the right hon. Gentleman have power to acquire them? Could he, for instance, acquire an hotel, although it had not been an industrial building hitherto, if after acquisition it were to be used exclusively for the purposes of an industry extending its activities in a particular area?

Mr. Maudling

We can, of course, acquire buildings which are to be redeveloped and change their use. I think that that may cover the point raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). Housing for management is, I agree, very important. The answer is that there are powers under Clause 4. Under the D.A.T.A.C. system, loans can be made to undertakings, and that can cover the provision of houses for key personnel and so forth. I think that that would be the better way, rather than the Board of Trade becoming the landlord of a series of managing directors, which might give trouble here and there.

As to the proximity of the offices to industrial buildings, I agree that three miles is quite a long distance. I cannot imagine that that would happen in practice. One wants to see whether the owners of the existing property are treating it all as one property used for a single purpose. In that case, we can acquire it and use it as a single property. I do not think that, in practice, those difficulties will arise very often. As I understand it, that is the best interpretation one can give.

The provision of housing for key personnel is of immense importance. Housing, through local authorities, as hon. Members know very well, is dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government who has those powers. We say that the rather more expensive type of house should be dealt with under the general loan-making powers rather than under the general acquisition powers of the Board of Trade.

Mr. T. Fraser

What about the example I gave of an office block, which is not part of a local industry, standing empty in an area of high unemployment? Let us say that it happens to be a block built and used for the purpose of offices and it has provided, perhaps, hundreds of jobs. Those jobs are sucked away to the congested areas. This has happened very often. Why should not the Board of Trade have power to acquire such office premises?

For instance, there are towns where the Ministery of Food had offices some years ago. There are places where the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance has offices. It has offices in the North East of England and also in another part of the country. There might be a pulling back by some of the big Ministries and even Government offices could become available.

Mr. J. Griffiths

As one who had the privilege of taking part in the siting and developing of the offices of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance at Newcastle, I should like our friends in the North East to be assured that there is no intention of removing them.

Mr. Fraser

I am sure that none of us would wish to remove those offices from Newcastle, but there are, for instance, offices of the former Ministry of Pensions in other parts of the country. Those offices might be closed, taking work from there and concentrating it in the premises at Newcastle, and empty office space might be left.

I realise that the Government could sell these office blocks in certain parts of the country, for instance, to I.C.I., or to a big combine which is willing to buy offices. But, if there is no purchaser readily available, why should not the Board of Trade be enabled to acquire such office blocks and then look for a tenant? It might not necessarily be a Government Department's office which became available. A private company might find itself with office accommodation surplus to requirements, and those offices might be situated in an area of severe unemployment. If no other purchaser was readily available, why should not the Board of Trade, which is anxious to provide employment in the area, have the right to acquire the property, even by agreement, so that it might be used to induce another employer to come to the district?

Mr. Maudling

The answer is that there is really a basic difference between industrial building and the business of providing office accommodation. A factory, normally speaking, is provided for a specific person who takes the whole of it. Office renting is a very speculative matter, and, generally speaking, a large number of tenants are in the same building. It would be a bad thing if the Board of Trade were to take over office buildings, which are not attractive by definition, because they are not being used, and hold them in the hope that tenants will be obtained for them.

Clause 4 says that loans can be given to people to develop in particular areas. It is the distinction between becoming a landlord in the highly speculative business of the provision of office accommodation and becoming a landlord to someone whom one knows will stay in a building which we have in mind.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Some businesses will find in future that there are decided advantages in decentralising some of their administrative clerical work. This has worked very successfully indeed with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. Suppose an insurance company or a company with an enormous staff says to the Board of Trade, "We should like to decentralise. Some of our work can be done 250 miles away without any injury to the general organisation and indeed with some advantage to it. Would you be able to provide us with office premises in an area which you want to develop under the Measure? If you are, we may transfer a section of our work to those premises." This Clause would prevent the President of the Board of Trade doing that.

May I speak from my own experience. Here, I am sure that my friends in the North-East will agree with me. One of the difficulties in the older areas is that a growing number of young men and women, particularly young women, with qualifications for commercial work tend to go into the big cities. It is an enormous advantage to have work of this kind available in an area like Newcastle-upon-Tyne or Cardiff.

It is important that the President of the Board of Trade should realise that we must have a more sensible distribution of work of all kinds, commercial as well as industrial. I think that there are safeguards against the dangers which the right hon. Gentleman fears. Why cannot the Amendment be accepted? Why should not the right hon. Gentleman avail himself of the help which it would afford should the occasion arise?

Mr. Willis

Surely it is becoming increasingly evident to people concerned with planning that we must make a start on decentralising offices because of the intense congestion in the centres of our cities. There was a very interesting programme on the T.V. last night, "Searchlight", which dealt precisely with this matter and with the necessity for decentralising office accommodation. The problems which are now very urgent in the centres of our cities can be solved only by the dispersal of work. It seems to me that the President of the Board of Trade must take this factor into consideration.

The second point that I want to make is that we have areas all over the country—it is certainly true in Scotland —to which industries have gone since the end of the war. The most pressing problem in those areas today is to find office work for girls and others. At present, there is a terrific traffic problem all around Edinburgh because of the number of people who have to travel into Edinburgh to work in offices. Would it not be more convenient and better socially and industrially if office accommodation could be established outside Edinburgh in some of the Development Areas, especially when people from some of the Development Areas travel daily to work in Edinburgh? I am certain that within a few years some of the large insurance office people and others will be thinking in these terms.

At a time when thought is being given to this matter, when the problems are so urgent and pressing and we already know that there is a shortage of this type of accommodation in a large number of Development Areas, why should the President of the Board of Trade say to himself that he does not want power to take any office accommodation that might be available?

9.0 p.m.

Let me give another example. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) knows, there are in Edinburgh Government offices, which are supposed to be temporary, out at Sight-hill. It might be some time before the Government finish with them. If these offices had been in a Development Area and not in Edinburgh, surely it would be right that, if necessary, the Government should have power to say, "Let us acquire them. If we can get a tenant, it will be a good thing for the area. We can offer the other inducements under the Bill for people to come to these areas." That is the kind of distribution that both sides of the Committee would want.

I cannot understand the President of the Board of Trade saying that he does not want to do that because of pressures on his Department. We know the type of pressure that will be exerted on the Board of Trade. Members will bring examples from their constituencies and come with a deputation to try to convince the right hon. Gentleman to take over accommodation. Most Ministers, however, are strong enough to resist these pressures if they are not warranted or if they are considered to be a bad thing. If the right hon. Gentleman is not strong enough, he should not be a Minister.

Mr. Dan Jones (Burnley)

I should like to ask the Minister a simple but, nevertheless, important question. Will the provisions of Clause 3 (1) be applied so that the financial grants will apply in the case of old cotton mills which are not suitable for alternative industries, which might otherwise be interested in taking over the buildings?

Mr. Maudling

Did the hon. Member really mean Clause 3 (1)?

Mr. Jones

Yes, I think so.

Mr. Maudling

Perhaps I may answer one or two of the points which have been made. I agree that the dispersal of office building is an important problem. I do not want to anticipate what will be said later about the control of office building, but the position briefly is as follows. If a big insurance company, for example, wanted to set up in South Wales, we would certainly have power to provide a building for it, as we could build a factory for it. Secondly, if the company said that it did not want a new building but wanted to take over part of an existing office building, it could, if the D.A.T.A.C. committee processed the application, be given financial help to enable it to go into the building.

What we do not agree to is that the Board of Trade should acquire office premises on the speculative basis that there may or may not be tenants in the future. If a definite tenant wishes to have office accommodation, either we can build for him or we can provide financial help through Clause 4 to go into an existing building. On the whole, therefore, the points raised by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) are covered.

Mr. Lee

By the two provisos that the right hon. Gentleman has told us he possesses, he has more or less given away his whole case. How is it wrong to go the one logical step further and to provide within the Bill the necessary power so that he can take over office building to provide it for people who require it?

My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was talking in terms of office blocks which may be three or five miles away from an industrial building. The President of the Board of Trade inferred that that might be possible but was not very probable. In fact, it is quite common. In my constituency, there is a Development Area. On the fringes of it, the Atomic Energy Authority has now built huge administrative buildings. The whole of the administrative staff has gone to Risley, on the fringe of the Golborne area, a Development Area.

We know from grim experience that the Government change their plans. We have had many Government factories close down. Indeed, in the same area, they contemplate closing an Admiralty depot. This huge new administrative block could, I suppose, be called an office block.

Suppose the Atomic Energy Authority decided on a change of plan and vacated it. In any event, in many instances main industrial premises are not only three miles but hundreds of miles away from the administrative block. Therefore, this matter is not quite so impossible as the right hon. Gentleman imagined when one of my hon. Friends spoke about a distance of five miles. Here is a development which is now attracting many hundreds of people into the area. But, as I have said, suppose that by a change of plan the Authority decided that it was no longer necessary for its purpose and it vacated the premises. How ridiculous it would be if there were a Development Area where there were hundreds of people requiring employment and just over the border from that area there was a huge modern block of office accommodation and the Board of Trade had not the facilities to take over in order to obtain a tenant who could provide employment.

This is an argument which is perfectly practicable in my own constituency where we have suffered from this kind of thing for a long time and where we have had a great number of Government premises, such as camps, which have been simply neglected and allowed to run down. I was not by any means satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's answer that whilst he can provide financial assistance for some tenant to take over certain accommodation, he does not think it right and proper to take the powers which would enable him to assist a tenant to take over office accommodation as distinct from industrial premises.

Those of us who are familiar with the heavy engineering industry know that there is now a tendency for the office accommodation to be situated many miles away from the factory. A number of factories belonging to the same group spring up in a given area, with the office accommodation in the middle of the wide area in which the industrial premises are situated. This is by no means unusual in these days. Why should the right hon. Gentleman take power—with which we agree—to keep industrial premises and yet refuse to take power relating to the whole nerve-centre of the organisation, the administrative block? We on this side of the Committee just cannot understand this. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is conscious of the importance of the matter and if we do not have a satisfactory reply my advice to my hon. Friends would be to put the matter to the vote.

Mr. Ellis Smith

We have reached a state in the consideration of the Bill when the approach to the problems raised is quite different from that which we adopted previously in Committee. Therefore, I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will listen to the reasoning of my hon. Friends so that he may still consider accepting the Amendment. Even if he is not prepared to accept it, at least we are entitled to have an under- taking that between now and Report the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his attitude.

I have in mind a concrete example which is typical of what may happen in some of the Development Areas. One of the most modern hotels in Glasgow was the Beresford Hotel—a lovely hotel as seen from the other end of Sauchiehall Street. I happen to know about it because I knew Hugh Fraser's father who built and owned it. A big proportion of his huge income was derived from the disposal of that lovely hotel. This hotel was sold to I.C.I., which is one of the most efficient concerns of its kind in the world. One does not run a big business like that unless the management is super-efficient, and therefore we can be sure that the management of I.C.I. would never have taken over the Beresford Hotel unless it was a good business proposition.

I consider that the Board of Trade should have complete authority to take the initiative in a situation of that kind. I have been reading this weekend that the unemployment situation in Scotland is far more serious than most of us have realised up to now, and, judging by the trend of developments, it looks like becoming more serious. Farther south, it is becoming mainly an issue between the South and the North. In the South and the Midlands there are hardly any unemployed, but there is a great shortage of manpower. In Scotland, in the North and in pockets of Lancashire and north Staffordshire there is a large amount of manpower available.

This is my approach to the problem. One would expect, when we are considering this Bill, that the President of the Board of Trade, who has great understanding of affairs regarding economic development—and we know that, because that statement is in complete harmony with his life's record of work —would have sought to remove this unbalance in our manpower in order to bring about the mobility which would produce a proper balance. Hence the need to accept the Amendment, to delete this limitation upon the authority of the Board, so that buildings like the one to which I have referred are made available to the Board of Trade and its officials. I know that the officials will carry out 100 per cent. whatever the House of Commons inserts in the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament, and will approach the problem in an enthusiastic manner.

This is a great opportunity for the President of the Board of Trade to make a contribution towards bringing about a better balance both in manpower and in the availability of property during Britain's economic difficulties so that we

can make a better contribution than we have done in the past. Therefore, I appeal to the President, if he cannot accept our Amendment, at least to give an undertaking that he will reconsider it between now and Report.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 236, Noes 175.

Division No. 31.] AYES [9.14 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Forrest, George Linstead, Sir Hugh
Aitken, W. T. Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Loveys, Walter H.
Allason, James Freeth, Denzil Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Alport, C. J. M. Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ashton, Sir Hubert Gammans, Lady MacArthur, Ian
Atkins, Humphrey Gardner, Edward McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Barber, Anthony George, J. C. (Pollok) MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Batsford, Brian Gibson-Watt, David McMaster, Stanley
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Glover, Sir Douglas Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Beamish, Col. Tufton Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Madden, Martin
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.) Maginnis, John E.
Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.) Godber, J. B. Markham, Major Sir Frank
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Goodhart, Philip Marlowe, Anthony
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Goodhew, Victor Marshall, Douglas
Berkeley, Humphry Gower, Raymond Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich) Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Bingham, R. M. Grimond, J. Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bishop, F. P. Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Mawby, Ray
Black, Sir Cyril Gurden, Harold Maydon, Lt.Cmdr. S. L. C.
Bossom, Clive Hall, John (Wycombe) Mills, Stratton
Bourne-Arton, A. Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Montgomery, Fergus
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Morgan, William
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Harris, Reader (Heston) Morrison, John
Boyle, Sir Edward Harvey, John (Waithamstow, E.) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Braine, Bernard Hay, John Nabarro, Gerald
Brewis, John Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Neave, Airey
Bullard, Denys Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward Nicholls, Harmer
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Burden, F. A. Henderson-Stewart, Sir James Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Butcher, Sir Herbert Hendry, A. Forbes Noble, Michael
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Nugent, Sir Richard
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Hiley, Joseph Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Chataway, Christopher Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Osborn, John (Hallam)
Chichester-Clark, R. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Hobson, John Page, Graham
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Hooking, Phillip N. Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Holland, Philip Partridge, E.
Cleaver, Leonard Hollingworth, John Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Collard, Richard Holt, Arthur Peel, John
Cooke, Robert Hopkins, Alan Percival, Ian
Cooper, A. E. Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia Peyton, John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Howard, Hon, G. R. (St. Ives) Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Cordle, John Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Corfield, F. V. Hughes-Young, Michael Pott, Percivall
Costain, A. P. Hurd, Sir Anthony Powell, J. Enoch
Coulson, J. M. Hutchinson, Michael Clark Prior, J. M. L.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Iremonger, T. L. Proudfoot, Wilfred
Cunningham, Knox Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Ramsden, James
Curran, Charles Jackson, John Rawlinson, Peter
Currie, G. B. H. James, David Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Rees, Hugh
Deedes, W. F. Jennings, J. C. Rees-Davies, W. R.
de Ferranti, Basil Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Renton, David
Digby, Simon Wingfield Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Doughty, Charles Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Drayson, G. B. Kerr, Sir Hamilton Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Duncan, Sir James Kimball, Marcus Roots, William
Duthie, Sir William Kirk, Peter Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Eden, John Kitson, Timothy Scott-Hopkins, James
Elliott, R. W. Lagden, Geofrey Seymour, Leslie
Emery, Peter Leavey, J. A. Sharples, Richard
Errington, Sir Eric Leburn, Gilmour Shepherd, William
Erroll, F. J. Legge-Bourke, Maj. H. Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Farr, John Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Skeet, T. H. H.
Fell, Anthony Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Smithers, Peter
Finlay, Graeme, Lilley, F. J. P. Speir, Rupert
Stanley, Hon. Richard Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin Webster, David
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Thorpe, Jeremy Wells, John (Maidstone)
Stodart, J. A. Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) Whitelaw, William
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Turner, Colin Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Studholme, Sir Henry van Strauhenzee, W. R. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Talbot, John E. Vickers, Miss Joan Wise, Alfred
Tapsell, Peter Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Teeling, William Wade, Donald Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Temple, John M. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) Woodnutt, Mark
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) Woollam, John
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Wall, Patrick Worsley, Marcus
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Thompson Richard (Croydon, S.) Watts, James TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Harrison and Mr. Bryan.
Ainsley, William Hill, J. (Midlothian) Popplewell, Ernest
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hilton, A. V. Prentice, R. E.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Holman, Percy Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Awbery, Stan Houghton, Douglas Procter, W. T.
Bacon, Miss Alice Hoy, James H. Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Randall, Harry
Beaney, Alan Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Rankin, John
Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Redhead, E. C.
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) Hunter, A. E. Reynolds, G. W.
Bowles, Frank Hynd, H. (Accrington) Rhodes, H.
Boyden, James Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Janner, Barnett Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Ross, William
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Short, Edward
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Skeffington, Arthur
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stock, N.)
Callaghan, James Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Kelley, Richard Small, William
Chetwynd, George Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Cliffe, Michael King, Dr. Horace Sorensen, R. W.
Collick, Percy Lawson, George Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Ledger, Ron Spriggs, Leslie
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Steele, Thomas
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Logan, David Stonehouse, John
Darling, George Loughlin, Charles
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stones, William
Davies, Ifor (Gower) McCann, John Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) MacColl, James Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Deer, George McInnes, James Sylvester, George
de Freitas, Geoffrey Mackay, John (Wallsend) Symonds, J. B.
Delargy, Hugh Mackie, John Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Dempsey, James McLeavy, Frank Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Diamond, John MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Dodds, Norman Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Donnelly, Desmond Manuel, A. C. Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John Mapp. Charles Timmons, John
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Wainwright, Edwin
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness(Caerphilly) Marsh, Richard Warbey, William
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Mason, Roy Watkins, Tudor
Evans, Albert Mellish, R. J. Weitzman, David
Fernyhough, E. Millan, Bruce Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Fitch, Alan Mitchison, G. R. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Forman, J. C. Moody, A. S. Wheeldon, W. E.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Morris, John White, Mrs. Eirene
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Mort, D. L. Whitlock, William
Galpern, Sir Myer Moyle, Arthur Wilkins, W. A.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd Neal, Harold Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Ginsburg, David Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)
Gourley, Harry Oliver, G. H. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Grey, Charles Oswald, Thomas Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Padley, W. E. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Parker, John (Dagenham) Woof, Robert
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Paton, John Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Pavitt, Laurence
Hart, Mrs. Judith Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hayman, F. H. Pearl, Frederick Mr. Probert and Mr. Howell.
Herbison, Miss Margaret Pentland, Norman

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.