§ Mr. Maudling
I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out from "exercisable" to end of line 12 and to insert:with due regard to the proper diversification of industry, for the purpose of providing for the benefit of any development district employment appropriate (having regard to the circumstances of the district generally and of any particular description of persons therein) to the needs of the district.(2) In this Act 'development district' means".The purpose of the Amendment is to meet three separate points made by the 1008 Opposition in Committee. I think that I should apologise to the House for the fact that the Amendment is starred, but we had to change it at the last moment. The Amendment as it originally stood on the Notice Paper referred to providing employment in any development district. We have changed that to the words:providing for the benefit of any development district.A factory might be provided outside a district, but yet give employment within the district. I am sure that the House will approve of the change.
The three points we are trying to meet in the Amendment are these. The first is the question of diversification. Many hon. Members spoke about that in Committee and argued that there will be required within development districts not merely the provision of employment, but the provision of what is likely to be lasting employment. They argued that it was, therefore, a mistake to provide in an area highly dependent on one industry further employment in that industry. I accept that as a valid argument. The Amendment places on the Board of Trade a duty, while providing employment in these areas, to have regard to the fact that the employment provided should, so far as possible, contribute to the diversification of industry and, therefore, contribute to the likely lasting quality of the employment provided.
The second point we are meeting is contained in the words in brackets:having regard to the circumstances of the district generally and of any particular description of persons therein".In Committee, there was much reference to the position of particular categories of people, for example the disabled. It was argued that we should make special provision in the Bill so that the Board of Trade had a clear duty to take account not merely of the number of people unemployed in any given district, but also whether that number contained for example a high percentage of disabled. We certainly accept that obligation, which we thought was inherent in the original wording. However, I accept that there is a need to make it more clear.
At the same time, I argued, and will continue to argue, that it would be a mistake to enumerate particular categories. 1009 Most of the discussion at an earlier stage was about the disabled. In recent weeks I have received deputations, particularly from some of the districts in Scotland, who stressed the special difficulty of school leavers, for example. We should have them much in mind. It would be a pity to select one or two categories. If such a selection is made in a Statute, it inevitably implies the exclusion of other categories which may be in practice equally deserving. Therefore, we have hit on this form of words:any particular description of persons therein.In ordinary, non-statutory English that means that when looking at the situation in any area or district we must look not only at the number of people unemployed, but also whether for example there is a high percentage of disabled; whether there is a high percentage of school leavers; and—which is another important point which has cropped up in one or two examples I have seen recently— whether there are more men than women unemployed. All those factors are most important. The words we now propose lay a clear duty upon us to have regard in every case not merely to the number of people unemployed, either present or prospective, but also to the nature or type of people who will be unemployed. I hope that that meets, as I believe it must, the point of view expressed from the other side at an early stage.
Finally, there is the question of the name to be given to these areas or districts. In the original Bill we talked about "unemployment localities". It was argued very forcibly from the other side that that was a bad phrase, and I accept the argument. The reason why it is bad is the reason advanced by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), that it is a negative concept. The right hon. Gentleman argued that we should have a positive concept and should, therefore, retain the word "development" which was in the original legislation. I accept that we should think of these areas not in terms of unemployment, but in terms of development. We have done so. But I do not think that it would be right to go back to the original words "development area", for two reasons.
First, in the Bill we are endeavouring to change the concept upon which this 1010 legislation is based. We are moving away from the original idea of certain areas specified by Parliament where there are special problems to the concept of a general duty on the Government to aid any locality where certain conditions obtain. Therefore, I think that there is an advantage in marking the break with the old system by getting away from the old phrase "development area".
The second reason why I do not think we should return to the words "development area" is a strong one. "Area" implies on the whole rather a large area. I agree that there is a particular exception to which the right hon. Gentleman can refer; but while we argue, as we have done throughout the Bill, that our powers should cover both small places and large areas, "district" is more appropriate. It can be applied to areas as big as an existing Development Area and to places as small as a single town on the existing D.A.T.A.C. list.
That, not any particular wish on my part to be obstinate, is the reason why I cannot accept "development area", but why after a good deal of thought about it I have put forward the words "development district", which, I think, are consistent with the purposes of the Bill and also the major point of the party opposite, namely, that we should think in terms of development and not in terms of unemployment.
The Amendment meets the three points made by the Opposition, first, the question of diversification within the areas concerned; secondly, the point of having regard not merely to the number of unemployed, but also to the type of people who are unemployed; and, thirdly, the psychological point about the description of the places concerned. I hope that as we are trying to meet the points made by the Opposition the Amendment will commend itself to the House.
§ Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North) rose—
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Jay
I intended to make a brief comment on what the right hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Speaker. 1011 As the right hon. Gentleman observed, he has attempted to meet us on three separate points and he has gone a long way to do so. I thank him for the effort he has made. He has introduced into the Bill the concept of the proper diversification of industry for the purpose of defining areas within which help is to be given. I will not say anything about that now, because we have an Amendment to the new form of words and it will be more logical to discuss that point on that Amendment.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has introduced the words:having regard to the circumstances of the district generally and of any particular description of persons thereinwhich appear in brackets in the Amendment, to meet the point that there are classes of workers, such as disabled persons, whom it is highly desirable to help in certain of these parts of the country. So far as I am able to judge, this form of words will enable the right hon. Gentleman to pay attention to disabled workers and to the possible problem of women workers and to other circumstances of that kind which may arise, and we hope that he will do so.
Thirdly, he has attempted to meet us by introducing the words "development district". I think that he has not been so successful in this case. I agree that the phrase is a great improvement on "unemployment localities", which appeared to be likely to be the name of these parts of the country. However, it is a great pity that, having gone so far, he has not gone the whole way and adopted the recognised term, "development area".
I agree that this is not a major argument. It is an argument about words, but there is some small substance in it. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it was one of the improvements of the 1945 legislation that we got away from the old terms, "depressed areas" and "distressed areas", which were discouraging to industry. Even though it was only a matter of words, there was undoubtedly something in it To continue the idea of Development Areas helped.
It now seems to us to be a pity to fall back in this way. He has met us to the extent of introducing the word 1012 "development". It is a great pity that he should not go the whole way and adopt the now long-accepted phrase, "Development Area", which is familiar in these parts of the country and which, incidentally, is more easily pronounceable and, therefore, more likely to be used than is the phrase, "unemployment areas", which we did not want to have.
The Minister's reasons for not adopting the word "area" were unconvincing. He said that the Bill had a concept different from that of the 1945 Act, but he said that only because he seemed to have the wrong idea of what the 1945 concept was. It was never intended that these should be fixed, permanent areas. Machinery was provided for altering them. I know that the present Government did not do so, which we regret, but it would have been possible to have frequently alterable areas under the 1945 legislation.
Nor is there any substance in the argument that the word "district" applies to a smaller locality—or whatever word is used—or to a smaller part of the country than the word "area". I should have thought that either word could have been as easily applied to Pembroke, which was a Development Area, or to any other area which the right hon. Gentleman might have had in mind. We do not place great emphasis on this matter, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman is rather spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. If he had stuck to "Development Areas", he would have made a cleaner job and I hope that in the remainnig stages of the Bill he will give this matter further thought.
§ Mr. Speaker
I regret having embarrassed the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I had in mind the idea that it would be more convenient to the House to decide the Question of the words being left out, then to discuss the words which are to go in on the proposal of that Question.
The Question I accordingly now propose is, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
§ Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.
§ Question proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.1013
§ Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
Is it your proposal, Mr. Speaker, that we should have a broad discussion on this Amendment and on our Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after "proper", to insert "distribution and"?
I should not mind that, provided that it is recognised that all hon. Members have equal standing—as might have been remembered earlier. Do you prefer that we should have a broad discussion, within reason, covering our Amendment?
§ Mr. Speaker
I will not call that Amendment at once—I have not done so. If the House desires to have a rather wider discussion than would arise on the Opposition Amendment to the Government Amendment, then I propose to keep tie discussion wider, according to the will of the House. I called the hon. Gentleman to address the House, but it turned out that he was rising on a point of order. Does he wish to address the House?
§ Mr. Ellis Smith
I desire to address the House, Sir, but I think that what you have suggested will be the best form of discussion, provided that I can safeguard my right to make a contribution.
§ Mr. Speaker
All I have proposed is the second part of the Government's Amendment. There has been no reference to the Opposition Amendment. Does any hon. Member wish to address the House after all that discussion?
§ Mr. Iorwerth Thomas (Rhondda, West)
I do not know whether I am strictly in order in asking the right hon. Gentleman two or three questions arising out of his Amendment.
§ Mr. Speaker indicated assent.
§ Mr. Thomas
I am grateful for the Minister's response to points which we put forward in Committee. He has seen his way to meeting us on a number of issues, especially about groups of persons covered by the words which appear in brackets.
Having made provision to meet the needs of those areas where there is a high percentage of disabled persons, for example, will the right hon. Gentleman say how he proposes to implement his Amendent? Does he intend to rely on a fresh application of the Grenfell 1014 principles of renting factories, or on an expansion of the work of Remploy? It is very important that we should know that. Remploy has failed to satisfy the requirements of those areas and its expansion has been limited to 6,000 instead of 12,000 personnel, as was the original intention.
In Wales, there is only one Grenfell factory now operating on Grenfell terms and it is very important to know the Minister's intentions about implementing his Amendment.
§ Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)
As it stands, the wording of the Amendment includescircumstances of the district generally and of any particular description of persons therein.Would that wording enable the Board of Trade to take cognisance of the circumstances in some ports?
For example, in my constituency and in Cardiff there may from time to time be many dock workers who are unemployed, but who, for one reason or another, will not technically be included in the general register of unemployed. There may be men who, for one reason or another, are not working at the home port but are working, let us say, at docks elsewhere to which they are conveyed under arrangements which have applied for some time.
Will this wording enable the Board of Trade to take into account circumstances like that, which are of importance, I imagine, in many ports in the country?
§ Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)
There is room for confusion in the minds of many people if we call a particular area, designated at this stage under the Bill a "district", because there are the already well-known district council areas. A district designated according to these provisions might pass right through the middle of a district council's area. Members of the district council and the community generally there might be under the impression that the whole of their area was designated under the Bill. I think that such confusion could be dangerous, and that it would really be better to go back to the former description.
§ Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)
This seems to be the opportunity for saying a little more about what we have in 1015 mind. I hope that we shall learn from our experience since 1945 in dealing with the vexed problem of providing for the disabled.
In areas such as that with which I am concerned, and many others, where heavy industry is the principal source of employment, there are people who have been disabled in industry, but there are, also, those who have been disabled in war service, people registered with the Ministry of Labour on the disabled persons list. They really need special treatment and, for that purpose, Parliament has developed the scheme which we all know as the Remploy factory scheme.
Some years ago, the Government stopped building any new Remploy factories. I think that there has not been one built for many years. Will the President of the Board of Trade now consider, with the Ministry of Labour and other appropriate Departments, including the Treasury, whether it is now time to remove that ban? They said at the time that the ban had been imposed because money was scarce, and so forth. In these days, it seems that money is, perhaps, not quite so tight.
We are here concerned with very many men who have been disabled in industry or in the Services and who are capable of work, but their work must be special work. Quite frankly, it is work which we cannot provide as a commercial venture. We must admit that. It is a public service of immense importance. Very often, such men are in their middle years, 40 or 45 years of age, and we ought not to let them eat out their hearts in idleness when they are still capable of rendering great service although that service is not something which can be treated simply on a commercial basis.
Beyond that, there is the vexed problem of pneumoconiosis, silicosis and other lung diseases. It was my privilege to be Minister of National Insurance and introduce certain changes in the scheme, but the fact is that now, by our present methods, we are seeking to identify pneumoconiosis before it reaches the very disabling stage and bring the men out. That is by far the best way.
The problem is not quite the same now as it was ten years ago when we adopted what was known as the Grenfell factory scheme. As the House knows, 1016 Sir Stafford Cripps set up a Committee to examine what could be done to make special provision for persons disabled by this dreadful disease. The Committee was presided over by our friend David Grenfell and became known as the Grenfell Committee. It recommended that several factories—I think the number was 10—should be established in various parts of the country to make special provision in this respect quite apart from factories which were to be built to deal with the general problem of unemployment in the Development Areas. The purpose was to provide suitable employment for men disabled by pneumoconiosis. As I remember it, the Grenfell factories were to be run under the general condition that at least 50 per cent. of those employed in them should be persons disabled by pneumoconiosis.
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will look at the matter again and consult with the Minister of Power and the National Coal Board to see what should be done now. It is becoming recognised in the coalfields generally that we are entering an age when smaller pits are going out and bigger pits are coming in. As an ex-miner with practical experience of how these things work, I can see what is happening. It will become more difficult to employ as many disabled men in the fewer large pits than it was in the many small pits. The mining industry has a tradition in this matter. Even many of the coal owners themselves behaved in exemplary fashion in providing special treatment for the disabled. Indeed, customs grew up whereby certain jobs were always absolutely reserved, by tradition, for these men.
There will be a new problem now in coal mining and in industry generally. When a pit or a works closes, the disabled men have no chance of going elsewhere and they lose their jobs. Secondly, though I do not want to mention them as a special category, there are the men of about 50 years of age who lose their jobs. All these things call for a fresh approach.
I am sure that the remedy is to secure adequate diversification. This is all part of the trouble created by so many areas being dependent upon one industry, very often a heavy industry. For my part, I 1017 do not want to see too great an expansion of special factories for special categories. Such a scheme has advantages, but it has great disadvantages, too. Disabled people should not all be congregated in the same place. It is better for them psychologically to have work in factories or workshops where they are thought of, and where they think of themselves, as normal people.
We tried the experiment. It was worth trying, and the arrangements still continue. I should not want to dismiss them as something which we ought not to do. There are, of course, the severely disabled for whom we must provide Remploy factories and, inevitably, they will be people seriously disabled. Beyond that, however, we should try to provide work for the disabled where they can think of themselves as fellow-workers and not a special class.
I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade has added these words. They are rather legalistic words, but the message we must send by them is that we regard people who have been disabled in the service of the country, in industry or in war, as people towards whom we have a special obligation. It should be our desire to see that they are provided for in such a way that they can take their place in industry and society as fellow-workers and citizens with everyone else, not recipients of charity. They should be given a full opportunity to serve their country even though they are disabled.
§ Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)
Although the President of the Board of Trade seems to have gone some way to meet many of the arguments advanced in Committee, he has not really gone very far. He would have gone much further if he had put the words not at line 9, but at the point where they would have become the purposes for which the powers could be used. All this means at the moment, of course, is that, in dealing with severe unemployment, consideration must be had to these facts. That is quite desirable, but I should have thought that the Board of Trade would do that in any case.
In previous debates, a great deal of the argument was directed to whether the powers contained in Clause 1 of the Bill should he used for purposes concerning districts which were not covered by the 1018 words "high rate of unemployment". This is particularly relevant in the matter being debated here, namely, the position of disabled men. It is quite possible not to have a high rate of unemployment but to have a hard core of unemployed consisting mainly of disabled men.
I know of mining villages around Edinburgh where, when I was on the local employment committee, there was always a number of disabled men unemployed. The overall rate of unemployment was not high. In those circumstances, nothing could he done about that under the Amendment. That is why I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman would have done something much more effective by inserting these words later in the Bill.
I should like to say something about the use of the word "district". I think that the point was made that the use of the word "district" in Scotland in connection with district councils might lead to some confusion. I imagine that the only real reason why the right hon. Gentleman does not want to use the word "area" is that he wants a change from the previous Acts so that his great fraud which is being put over in the country, that the Government are doing something entirely new, can be carried through and that, therefore, to enable them to carry it through, he wants different terminology. I cannot see any other reason for the use of the word "district". I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am bound to say that his reasons why the word "district" should be used instead of "area" were rather thin.
§ Mr. Maudling
By leave of the House, I should like to reply to the points which have been raised on this Amendment. Hon. Members opposite have referred to the position of the disabled. I hope that I shall not appear to be unduly narrow in my outlook if I say that we must confine ourselves to what the Bill does. I will certainly undertake to keep in very close touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on the question of the employment of disabled people.
My right hon. Friend has the main responsibility for the provision of employment of a special kind for the disabled. In the Bill, we are dealing with a very specific point, namely, the powers of the Board of Trade under Part I of 1019 the Bill, and the Amendment makes it clear that, in exercising those powers, we must bear in mind the possibility of a large proportion of disabled or people suffering from pneumoconiosis in a particular area. We could not go further. We cannot go beyond the purposes of the Bill in any Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) made a point about employment in the ports. I can only say that the basis on which we must work is the registered number of unemployed in any employment exchange area. I do not think that there is any other basis on which we can work, but in looking at the number of people registered as unemployed we shall have regard to all the circumstances of the district—seasonality of unemployment and whether there is a large proportion of women and disabled people, and so on.
Finally, another point which was made concerned the word "district". I see the point that there might be confusion about the word "district", but I still think that it is the best word. "District" connotes something smaller than an area. One can think of urban districts or rural districts which are fairly small places, whereas the area of an electricity board may be large. This is the best solution which I can find. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) does not think that I have given sufficiently good reasons for the use of the word, but I have told the House in my own words why I suggested it, and I cannot add to what I have said.
§ Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)
I want to add a few words to this very important discussion. In mining areas. which will be particularly affected by the powers under the Bill, there is a large proportion of disabled men who have found employment on the surface. I fully appreciate, as my right hon. Friend said just now, that the Bill deals with the powers of the Board of Trade, but that is the difficulty. Whenever we discuss these problems we are always given some reason why the people about whom we are speaking should not be adequately protected.
I know that I cannot deal with the problem of small fixed income groups, but, of course, disabled people come 1020 within that category. The argument which is always used is that it is so difficult to find ways and means of helping them, and that I understand. As I have said before, this problem vitally affects mining areas, perhaps more than any other industrial centres. There is a vast number of them, and they have always been a very great problem.
I was grateful for the sympathetic words of my right hon. Friend. However, sympathy is not all that we want. I hope that this very genuine point will be watched. When, as I hope, I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on Third Reading I shall be able to discuss the powers of the Treasury, because I see that that Department is mentioned in the Bill, and I shall want to know which Minister we shall be able to question, and so on.
Many people who do not come from mining areas have no idea of the problem of disabled people in those areas. It is only people who know about these problems who can talk with authority. I can talk with very little authority, but I belong to my area and I know the problems which we have had in trying to find employment for men who have been disabled in the course of their duties, perhaps, underground.
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's sympathetic words, but to my mind they are not quite enough, and I shall look forward to something more. It is not the Minister of Labour with whom my right hon. Friend should discuss the problem—his powers are limited—but the Treasury and the Prime Minister.
§ Mr. Jay
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "proper", to insert "distribution and".
The purpose of this Amendment to the Minister's proposed Amendment is to insert the words "distribution and" in addition to the words "diversification of industry" in the definition of the areas which are to be assisted. It may appear to be a very small verbal point and that as the word "diversification" has been included there is nothing further to be added by inserting the words "distribution and". I do not think, however, that this is so.
The 1945 Act included the words "proper distribution of industry" for the purpose of selecting areas for positive assistance, and it does not seem to 1021 us that, with the words "diversification of industry", this Clause will be wide enough, although no doubt it would be wider if the words "distribution of industry" were included. We are grateful to the Minister for the word "diversification", which is a great improvement.
As the Bill was originally introduced, we had the anomolous position that, under Clause 18, the balanced distribution of industry for the purpose of granting or not granting an industrial development certificate in areas which it was considered should be restrained from developing was taken into account, but the balanced distribution or diversification of industry in areas which one wanted to help could not be taken into account.
All that could be taken into account was the actual existence of unemployment or the imminence of unemployment. We have certainly moved much further than that, in that an area which might be threatened with unemployment but had not yet experienced it could be considered because it was a one-industry area or, indeed, a one-firm town.
There are two reasons why I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider introducing the words "distribution and". In the first place, he himself said during the Committee stage, when he agreed to consider a concession in this matter, that… we must have regard to the distribution and diversification of industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1959; Vol. 614. c. 1131.]The words which we propose to insert are precisely the words which he used during the debate in Committee.
If the right hon. Gentleman asks, as reasonably he might, in what possible sense the addition of "distribution" could add anything to diversification, I would give two answers. Under the 1945 Act conception—it was inserted, incidentally, in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum at the beginning and I have quoted the words before—in both parts of the operation, the restraint, on the one hand, and the stimulation, on the other hand, one took into account the whole distribution of industry over an area and over the country as a whole. That would enable one to consider 1022 strategic questions as well as pure questions of employment and diversification.
Quite apart from economic grounds, it might well be argued on strategic grounds that it was undesirable to have a high proportion of the production of a key product like, for example, ball bearings too concentrated in one area. I am not saying that this is any more or less important today, but there is no doubt that with the adoption of the word "distribution", that could be taken into account for the purpose of exercising these powers, whereas that could not be done by relying solely on the diversification provision.
There is, however, a second reason which at present, perhaps, is even more powerful. We are all considering the future of the motor industry and the location of its expansion plan. It could reasonably be argued that if the motor industry is to be one of our great exporting industries over the next five years, not merely is it undesirable to have it all concentrated in Dagenham, Luton or Birmingham, but it is positively desirable that there should be motor car production in Scotland, in the North East Coast, indeed, and in Merseyside, and so on. I know that the hon. Lady the Member the Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) would put an eloquent case for part of the motor car industry to go to the North East Coast whether or not she was in order in proposing it.
Suppose that we have simply the word "diversification" and that it was proposed to put motor car production at Tynemouth. The President of the Board of Trade would have to show that in Tynemouth, or, at least, on North Tyneside, there was such an undue concentration of shipbuilding employment that there had to be diversification. He could not argue that it was desirable that the motor car industry should be not merely in Wales, Scotland and Merseyside, but should also be in the North East Coast. This could be a relevant consideration.
I am not saying to the right hon. Gentleman that he should do this, that or the other with the motor car industry, but simply that if he adds these words there is no doubt that the powers would be wider and the wider considerations could be taken into account. That is what we have in mind and I hope that he will not turn down the Amendment out of hand.
§ Mr. Maudling
The wording of the Amendment relates to a fundamental difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. Whether, in practice, that difference of principle would produce very different results in individual cases of development, I am not convinced. Certainly, there is a great difference of outlook between the two sides on this matter.
The right hon. Member for Battersea. North (Mr. Jay) was speaking of what could be called a proper development of, for example, the motor industry, which we should try to seek both by negative and by positive powers to impose upon that industry. I simply do not accept that. I do not believe that such a thing could be devised. I do not know what the proper development of the motor industry is. I think that the best development a priori is the most economic development in the place in which manufacturers can make their cars more cheaply and sell them competitively.
As the Bill is designed, we must make some qualifications. These are twofold. First, we must prevent a growing concentration of industry in certain areas. That is the purpose of the later Clauses concerning I.D.C.s, in which distribution is referred to. I agree that I.D.C.s are, rightly, used to prevent the competitive planning of industry leading to a maldistribution of the kind which one has in mind.
Secondly, one has a duty to provide inducements to get an expanding industry, such as the motor industry, to go into special areas where there is a social problem because of a high rate of unemployment. To tell that industry to go to an area which is contrary to its own interests is, however, fundamentally wrong. I could not accept the Amendment, because it is not something at which we should try to aim.
§ Mr. T. Fraser
Surely, in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which we now seek to amend, we are dealing not with the purpose of the Bill or with the first six Clauses, but with the matters to which the right hon. Gentleman will have regard in giving effect to the purposes of the Bill. Does he now say that he does not think it right and proper that he, as President of the Board of Trade, should 1024 have regard to the proper distribution of industry?
§ Mr. Maudling
I was saying that "proper distribution of industry" may well be a meaningless phrase unless we analyse what is meant. The purpose of the Bill is to interfere quite deliberately with the workings of private enterprise. It is the purpose of the Bill to compel highly competitive enterprises, which often are big contributors to our export trade, to set up in areas where their costs of production are higher than in the place to which they would wish to go. That can be the only purpose of the Bill. If such enterprises would go to the North East Coast, to Merseyside, and so on, without inducements and compulsion, we should not need the Bill. The only reason why manufacturers want to go to Birmingham and the South is because it is economically more suitable to them.
We understand the purpose of the Bill to be twofold: first, to continue and strengthen the powers, to which the party opposite attaches much importance, to prevent a further expansion of industry in the areas where there is already great congestion. That is the purpose of the I.D.C.s, which we are using with a certain amount of effect.
The second purpose of the Bill is to provide at the expense of the Treasury inducements to those companies which cannot expand in the areas of their choice, to go to particular selected parts of the rest of the country. The question is: on what criterion shall we select those other parts of the country to which inducements should apply? My argument is that that criterion should be the social needs of unemployment areas and not the vague concept of a proper distribution of industry.
We are arguing about doctrine rather than about practical effects. As I have said time and time again, let us judge the Bill by its effects. As the motor industry has been mentioned, perhaps we will judge the effects of Government policy over the next few weeks by the number of new jobs created in the unemployment areas, which is what we are aiming at. I cannot accept the Amendment, because, although I do not think it would have practical effect, it would be quite contrary to the principle which we are trying to operate.
§ Mr. Jay
I do not wish to get involved in doctrine, but does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the fallacy in his argument? There might well be an instance—probably there is one now— when, as between two areas in, say, Wales and Scotland, to which he might wish expansion of the motor industry to go, there might be no difference whatever in costs. Between many areas there is often no difference in costs.
There might be some other quite different reasons why it might be undesirable that all the expansion should be concentrated in, for example, Wales. If that were so, undoubtedly it would be reasonable to say that "proper distribution" would cover such a case. If the right hon. Gentleman realised that the effects are as I have suggested, he would recognise that this is a practical point.
§ Mr. Maudling
The first duty is to stop people setting up in crowded areas. The second point is how we should spend Government money to induce people to go to certain areas, and to which areas they should go. We say that they should be induced to go to areas where there is severe unemployment, not where severe unemployment does not exist and where there may be some theoretical basis of need for what is called distribution of industry.
§ Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)
If the right hon. Gentleman has difficulty with the definition of "proper distribution of industry", may I direct his attention to Clause 18, which specifically refers to it? If it can be applied in Clause 18, why not apply it here?
§ Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)
I am not sure that I find very much to quarrel with in what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not understand why what he said caused him to reject the Amendment. It seems to me that from time to time he forgets that this is an enabling Bill. Everything under it, generally speaking, is left to the Board of Trade. Much may be done or little may be done. All that we are seeking to do is to add something which the right hon. Gentleman should take into account when he is making decisions about these "development districts". This phrase, of course, came up when this matter was discussed in Committee.
1026 It was in the course of those discussions that the right hon. Gentleman used the words to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) referred just now. I do not think that my right hon. Friend quoted the right hon. Gentleman in full, and I propose to do so, because it seems to me—and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will agree—that Government pledges given in this way should be carried out fully. The right holt. Gentleman said:… but I would be prepared to consider inserting an Amendment at a later stage in Clause 1, that would make it quite clear that, in carrying out the duties of the Board of Trade under the Bill in areas to which the Bill refers, we must have regard to the distribution and diversification of industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 1131.]Those are the right hon. Gentleman's own words.
§ Mr. Maudling rose—
§ Mr. Mitchison
If the right hon. Gentleman would let me finish what I have to say, I will give way to him in a minute.
This, presumably, is the Amendment. If it is not the Amendment, that is a different state of affairs altogether. Then, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why he has changed his mind. I want to know from him why is it, when diversification and distribution had been under discussion for some considerable time, and he deliberately chose those two words himself, one of them but not the other appears in his Amendment.
§ Mr. Maudling
I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not read carefully enough the words from me which he quoted. I was talking about what happens in a district and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was speaking of distribution between districts If the purpose of the Amendment is to have distribution in a district, I do not know what is the difference between that and diversification. The whole burden of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was the need to distribute industry between different districts of unemployment. That is what I resist.
Because the Amendment appears to mean that—and was taken by the right hon. Gentleman himself to mean that—I 1027 cannot accept it. Distribution in a district, if it means anything at all, appears to me to mean the same as diversification. Distribution between districts is the thing that I cannot accept. What I have been saying this afternoon, the hon. and learned Gentleman will find, is completely consistent with what I said in Committee.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Mitchison
I beg to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. He is now saying that it is impossible to relate the words "distribution of industry" to something within the areas. The only defence that he can put forward comes to this, that when he was speaking in Committee the words used were quite meaningless. He said:… in areas to which the Bill refers, we must have regard to the distribution and diversification of industry.I do not find that a difficult phrase to understand. It seems to me to be quite capable of meaning and I accepted at the time what the right hon. Gentleman said, but when the Amendment appeared on the Notice Paper I asked myself, "Why has he left out the proper distribution of industry?"
I turn from what the right hon. Gentleman said then, and what is offered now, to one observation on the merits of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has already pointed it out and in so doing he was following some remarks of the Minister of Labour at the end of the discussion in Committee. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he himself said. He said that the key point in the action that the Government proposed was the refusal or the granting of industrial development certificates. He took that, quite rightly in my opinion, as one side of the medal of which the inducements to go to an area is the other. If that is the position, then I fail to see how he can introduce into the granting or refusal of industrial development certificates an element which he refuses to consider when we come to the question of inducements.
Let me put it to the right hon. Gentleman in this way. I am sure that he will listen to what is said to him before making up his mind that there is no inconsistency. There is, I believe, an 1028 inconsistency. Suppose, for the purpose of an industrial development certificate on consideration of the proper distribution of industry, an area is considered suitable or unsuitable, as the case may be, then it is possible for that not to be considered when we come to the inducements and that an inducement will be refused in a case where the opposite action would have been taken in relation to an industrial development certificate.
There must be the same standard for the two things, otherwise we shall find that an industrial development certificate ought to be refused in an area where, none the less, an inducement ought to be offered to some manufacturer to go there. I do not say that the number of such cases will be large. If this were a Bill which laid down precisely and to what extent the right hon. Gentleman should exercise his powers, that would be a different matter, but in an enabling Bill we must, I suggest, have consistency between the negative side of the Bill represented by industrial development certificates and the positive side of the Bill represented by these inducements.
If we deliberately refuse to take into account the primary thing that matters for the purpose of industrial development certificates, then we may get into a position of the most absurd contradiction between the two sides of the medal. The history of the matter is very short. In what is called, later in the Bill, the principal enactment, this phrase occurred and it is repeated in Clause 18 of the Bill, as the Minister of Labour pointed out, because it was in the principal enactment, that is, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, but no attempt whatever is made to suggest that when we are considering the question of industrial development certificates anything but a proper distribution of industry ought to be considered as the primary factor.
Yet, leaving that on one side, the right hon. Gentleman deliberately refuses to be allowed to have regard to the proper distribution of industry when he is considering the question of inducements. The right hon. Gentleman has been persistently shaking his head. It seems to me that Governmental obstinacy can go a long way. He has, no doubt, decided to his own complete satisfaction 1029 that there is no contradiction whatever and no difficulty. I ask him to give himself the opportunity of thinking, even later if not now, whether it is not possible that there is some contradiction and that he is wrong to refuse to himself the duty to look at this matter when considering inducements.
§ Dame Irene Ward
I am grateful for the word "diversification." Looking back over a very long period, during which both parties in the House have formed the Government at some time. one can see what a very long way we have been able to go in getting diversification. It is a very important aspect of the whole of our employment policy, and I am not against it. I think it is all right, but what I want to know is how the Board of Trade will interpret "diversification" and how far back in time it is prepared to go to see how diversification has so far taken place and in thinking out how it should proceed.
I have been dealing with this problem of unemployment, and trying to attract industry to various parts of the country where it is necessary, for a very long time, and I am sometimes aware that distinguished Ministers—and ex-Ministers on the other side of the House —are really far too young to remember a11 the difficulties which were encountered when we originally tried to embark on diversification. My right hon. Friend has talked about congestion of the motor car industry in Birmingham, but, so far as I have listened to the debate, nobody has put forward, although it is important, one of the reasons why that congestion has arisen.
My mind goes back to the war, when we were establishing our industries for the purpose of winning the war, whether it was aircraft production or the expansion of production of motor vehicles needed in the desert and other parts of the world, and when strategic necessities, referred to by one right hon. Member opposite, at that time demanded, because not only the North East Coast bat the whole of the East Coast of England were considered most vulnerable to bombing, that they should not get any of the benefit of employment in the new and expanding industries which were being concentrated in the centre of the country. Those industries continued to expand after the war, and that 1030 helped to bring about this tremendous congestion.
Consequently, the East Coast of England —and I am not talking about the North East Coast only but the industrial part of the East Coast—fell behind in the race for getting proper, balanced diversification of industry, or getting balanced industry. It was because in the war we understood, although actually it proved wrong, that we on the East Coast were to be bombed out of existence. Therefore, we were not able to have new industries established in our part of the country, even though we may have had a pool of labour available to put into those factories.
What I am anxious to know is whether the Board of Trade, and all the pundits there now advising the Department, when making an assessment of diversification and the need for industrial expansion, will take into consideration that, quite apart from all the other difficulties of winning the war, the East Coast of England had to make those very great sacrifices, and that consequently, when the war ended, we were not in a position to take advantage of aircraft production expansion, the motor car industry's expansion, and the like. What I want to know about the interpretation of "diversification" is how far we are to be able to argue that we fell behind in the race for getting a proper distribution of industry.
We all talked, and rightly so, about having all our eggs in one basket. The radio industry developed in the centre of England because, as I say, we understood that the bombing would be along the East Coast and not in the centre of the country. Of course, as I say, that proved an incorrect prediction. However, it left the East Coast of England, and, no doubt, the East Coast of Scotland, too, at a disadvantage compared with other parts of the country. That ought to be remembered.
It is no use the generation of my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary just talking about diversification now. Neither my right hon. Friend nor the Parliamentary Secretary was in the House of Commons at the time we were starting trying to have diversification of industry so as not to have all our eggs in one industrial basket. What I want to know is whether 1031 all that aspect of the matter will be taken into consideration.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend sprang up so quickly, to answer the case put for the Amendment from the other side of the House, that he gave me no opportunity to ask him for an answer on this very important point.
§ Mr. Ellis Smith
Hon. Members who were present when Mr. Speaker made the suggestion which he did, and which I readily accepted, will remember exactly what took place. Since then we have had hon. Members coming in making their contributions to the debate and then disappearing. We have learned to take that kind of thing philosophically, but it does take some accepting.
On this issue, approaching our problems within these limits, I find myself approaching them in the same way the Minister did earlier, but from a slightly different angle. It would be wrong of me not to speak on this matter, because, as the Parliamentary Secretary can testify if necessary, no area in the country suffers more than mine does from the issues raised by the proposed Government Amendment and our Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will listen to our reasoning, by which we try to provide him with evidence to show why he should accept our Amendment to his Amendment, or, if he cannot accept it, why he should give an undertaking that the provisions of his own Amendment will be administered in the way we ask.
When I read the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, when it first appeared on the Notice Paper, I thought it a tribute to the work of the Committee on the Bill. I remember the days when Ministers, whether of that party or this, used to listen to debates and the reasoning put forward, and when, if there was any weight in the reasoning, they adapted themselves and their Measures to it, according to the evidence produced in debate. I have seen a great change in the ways of Ministers. This is not a party point, but for many years Ministers have tended to stand tightly to their briefs. They have been unprepared to deviate one-sixteenth of an inch from their briefs. I have often thought that fundamentally wrong, especially in Committees on Bills.
1032 I welcome the present Minister's listening to reasoning, and adapting Bills to conform to reasoned argument in debate in Committee. So I thought, when I first read his Amendment, that it was a big step in the right direction. I join with the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who protested against the Minister's getting up so quickly. There is a certain amount of that done far too often. There is an inclination among some people to think that they know it all.
§ Mr. Maudling rose—
§ Mr. Maudling
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me a moment to explain. I hoped that by intervening early I might help the debate by letting the House know the Government's point of view, so that it could know that as well as the point of view of the Opposition Front Bench.
§ Mr. Ellis Smith
I accept that explanation right away, but the right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that Mr. Speaker had given me an undertaking, which I readily accepted, provided I could retain and safeguard my Parliamentary rights. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that? I thank him. I thought he would. That is the reason why I thought that the Minister was too ready to get up. I shall not carry that too far, but it is a point worth noting.
I feel very strongly on this subject, because no area has suffered more than the one I represent in this respect. I have had recent correspondence with the President of the Board of Trade, which I much appreciate, in which he has reminded me that at present we have not a very large proportion of unemployed. I accept that and I pay tribute to those who are contributing towards maintaining that position. But there are special circumstances in the area and it is for that reason that I feel strongly about both these Amendments.
The circumstances are that in the main the area has only two industries, pottery-making and mining, and that if anything serious took place in either of those industries we should be in a terrible position. It is true that, fortunately, as a 1033 result of the National Coal Board's present policy of large-scale expenditure to increase Output from the most modern mines in the country we are benefiting for the time being. But as a result of having only those two industries, there are more people in the area suffering from silicosis or pneumoconiosis than in any other part of the country.
When it was first my privilege to represent the area one would see a procession of men and women on the streets on the way to the employment exchange. Their faces were white or cream-coloured as a result of the effects of silicosis and they were unable to find work. It is true that since then there have been great improvements in industrial conditions which are reflected in the improved health of the workpeople but we have still a relatively large number suffering from pneumoconiosis because so many are employed in these two industries. It is for that reason, among others, that I ask that there should be greater diversification of industry. I would urge also that the King's Roll should be used more extensively in order to find employment for these people.
I was once employed in an establishment where there were 25,000 workpeople, and because they were mainly engaged in carrying out Government contracts the King's Roll was administered to 100 per cent. A fair proportion of those who, through no fault of their own, were suffering as a result of war injury or industrial disease found employment. I admit that it is not the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade to see that greater use is made of the King's Roll, but he has already said that he will consult the Minister of Labour and that the Government will do all they can in this area where there is a special claim for consideration in any discussion of the substance of these Amendments.
It was my privilege to be as friendly as a man could become with Colonel Josiah Wedgewood. He was a big man who approached things in a big way, as all who remember him would testify. He had his idiosyncracies and eccentricities but he was a big man and when I was a young man lacking experience he took me time after time to every Government Department with which he was in touch and every Department admitted that the 1034 area which I now represent had a great claim for diversification of industry. That was how it came about that we had the two Royal Ordnance factories, one at Radway Green, employing 25,000 people, and one at Swinnerton which during the war employed 50,000. The factory at Swinnerton is now completely closed down. This is another reason why I hope that the House will approve our Amendment.
I pay tribute to the influence which the Minister has exercised over the British Motor Corporation. He and his officials must have had great influence over the Corporation in bringing about the result of which we all know. Now, in addition to his present authority and in the light of the country's economic needs, the Minister will be armed with the powers which it is proposed to give him under the present Bill.
I readily give credit for the fact that we are now to have a new establishment employing at least 1,000 men at Swinnerton, but we need a great deal more. This is only the beginning and I ask the President of the Board of Trade to give an undertaking that he will approach Associated Electrical Industries, English Electric and General Electric in the same way. These concerns are among the most important and efficient in the world. They have great influence in the world and, provided that we avoid world slumps, there is a great future for them. Acceptance of our Amendment will provide an opportunity to do with those great industrial establishments what the right hon. Gentleman has already done with the British Motor Corporation.
The area which I represent is a geographical and economic unit which is largely cut off from the rest of the country. About half a million people live in the area, 270,000 of them in the City of Stoke-on-Trent. Birmingham and Manchester are both about 40 miles away. In this isolated unit 500,000 men and women are mainly dependent on two industries. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, will readily see why I am speaking with great concern and trying to exact from him the maximum undertaking that even if he cannot accept the Opposition Amendment he will take every step to ensure that the Bill will be administered in accordance with the intentions of the House. 1035 I have already paid tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his readiness to accept reasoned argument. This is democracy at work. If the House will function more in this way, instead of our having the personal quibbling and striving and straining of which we see so much, it will help to establish the House in the eyes of the people. It will let the people see that we really mean business and that we are trying to reflect their needs in our day-to-day proceedings. That should go a long way not only towards establishing the House in the eyes of the people but towards giving greater confidence to the industrial areas where people are watching debates on a Bill of this kind.
§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
With the sole exception of the mining point, I do not think the Opposition has a case at all on the Amendment, the mining point being simply that if unemployment occurs the diversification of industry must be automatic. One cannot put more mines down to cater for unemployment that may be arising. This is where the Opposition is hard up against the general or special theory of industrial planning which is so dear to the hearts of hon. and right hon. Members opposite.
One of the most fascinating things is the bobbishness of the Socialist Party. After three successive defeats, one might have thought they could induce themselves to believe that a conservatively-controlled State would not in any circumstances accept a priori theories of industrial planning. Yet we have the hon. and learned Gentleman for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) complaining that my right hon. Friend cannot accept his ideas.
There is a mystique about planning in the Socialist Party, just as there is a mystique arising out of Gaullism in France at present. People do not understand it. It is impossible to tell from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) what he means when he says that it is necessary to have a proper distribution of industry. We have never heard what is the plan. There may be some highminded economist, like Dr. Kaldor, who has a perfect gem picture in his mind of how the motor car factories of Great Britain should be located, but it is not produced in concrete form, and no 1036 reasons are adduced as to why it is necessary to have the various industries of the country segregated and de-centralised.
Not even the strategic argument was brought into the debate today. If any hon. Gentleman opposite had said, "The fear of mass bombing is now so great that we must remove most of the motor cars from Coventry and put them elsewhere", one could have understood that argument. But there is no attempt to justify this high concept of redistribution planning which is so dear to the hearts of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Indeed, I am not at all sure that one of the reasons why they have lost out—I hope I am not being presumptuous and patronising in saying this—in the last fifteen years or so is because they are not putting across to the electorate fundamental and sane and comprehensive reasons as to why they want this aspect of their Socialist philosophy.
I can see no reason, strategic questions apart, why most of the motor car industry should not be in Coventry, why most of the wool industry should not be in Bradford, why most of the cotton industry should not be in Oldham, and so on. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave two justifications for refusing this Amendment, and they are absolutely tenable and understandable. They represent our economic philosophy that, on the whole, industry thrives best when it can go where it likes.
According to my right hon. Friend, there are only two exceptions to that. One is that industry shall not move into enormous conurbations and thus lead to all kinds of other social disadvantages, which were so well put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) earlier in these debates. However, that can be catered for by the I.D.C. procedure, which, incidentally, is not a new one under this Bill. It was caught up from the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and has been in operation for some time. So it has been drawn from the past and is perpetuated by this Bill. I believe that all sections of the country are prepared to see this aspect of negative planning of industrial aggregations of industry.
The other point made by my right hon. Friend is fundamental to the Bill, 1037 namely, that it is right to use State inducements for private enterprise to go into specific areas in order to take up unemployment. That I wholly object to but, and these are my final words, that is a matter for the Third Reading debate.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)
I was rather surprised at the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) leering at the Socialist concept of industrial planning. If he will read the history of railway development in the nineteenth century, he will gather that then the great industrialists who were laying railroads across this country were frustrated, not by the central Government, but by noble gentlemen throughout the land who often made them put their tracks over considerable detours, cuttings and tunnels so that the railways should not go anywhere near their valuable estates—
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. The noble Lord went rather wide, but he is going further still. He should come back to the Amendment.
§ Mr. Bence
I am sorry, Sir Gordon. Having spent a great part of my life in industry, knowing some of the frustrations imposed on us by many owners of land during our industrial development, I could not help being taken along the trail taken by the noble Lord.
The purpose of this Bill is to bring into the distribution and location of industry some planning on the basis of what is best socially and economically for the country. It is no use any diehard Tory getting the idea that the Tory Party now rejects planning. Members of the party opposite do not accept it, but they have proved by this Measure that they do not completely reject it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nationalisation."] Nationalisation in many cases has been a great success. I am sure that if in the 19th century a high cost of capital had not been forced upon the railways—I am sorry, Sir Gordon, but hon. Gentlemen opposite are leading me off the Amendment again—which was in large measure due to the refusal of certain landowners to let the railway developers put the railways where they wished, we would not 1038 find that burden reflected today in the cost of our railways.
I want to plead for distribution as well as diversification. Diversification takes place within British industry itself on a large scale. For instance, many people do not realise that the British Motor Corporation produces many things in addition to motor cars and other internal combustion engines. In fact, the Bendix washing machine is produced by the Corporation and also the Empire typewriter, as well as the moulds of the Marley tiles made in Scotland. So diversification in that sense takes place within engineering plants. The purpose of this Bill is not merely to encourage that type of diversification within one industry. Its real purpose is to bring about a redistribution of economic activity. If it does not mean that, it means nothing.
§ Mr. Bence
There is heavy unemployment in certain areas of the country because there is a lack of economic activity. There is over-full employment in some areas because there is too much economic activity. So the purpose of the Bill is to shift some of the economic activity from areas of over-full employment into areas of under-employment. Is not the purpose of the Bill to redistribute economic activity from those areas where there is too much to those areas where there is too little?
I take the view that the population from the Midlands down is too high and that the population from the Scottish border upwards is too low. Scotland could carry a higher population if it had a higher industrial activity.
May I comment on the word "diversification"? In my constituency we produce ships of all kinds but we also produce domestic and commercial sewing machines, rotary water and oil pumps and electrical switchgear. There is a great diversification of industrial activity in my constituency. The trouble is that there is not enough industry. Diversification alone is not sufficient.
I notice that the B.M.C.'s proposal in respect of its works at Kingsbury Road, Birmingham, where I have worked, is to move the Bendix washing machine works 1039 to Kirkby in Lancashire. The Corporation does not intend to take the motor car manufacturing works there but the manufacturing section dealing with domestic appliances. I wish that such an enterprise would move to Scotland. I would rather the manufacture of consumer durables were moved to Scotland, because we could stimulate capital production in Scotland in this way, and by that stimulation we could develop further pressure in the South on consumer durables. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has heard me stress this point before. It is a well-known point made by economists for a number of years in dealing with regional unemployment.
By all means let us encourage diversification. Beardmore's Porthead Forge, in Glasgow, in the past has manufactured almost nothing but heavy steel castings for the shipbuilding industry, and we should help it to diversify its industrial activity. With the arrival of the B.M.C. a wonderful chance is offered for this firm to augment and diversify its own activity by producing propeller shafts and crankshafts for heavy commercial vehicles. Such diversification is good. If the Government can take action to encourage the diversification of economic activity within industrial plants, so much the better. I prefer to work for a company which has diversified its products. That is why it is a good thing to work for the B.M.C. which does not depend entirely on motor-car production. It is a good thing for any engineer or for any toolmaker, as I was, to work in an industry making diverse products.
But that is not the main purpose of the Bill, which is to redistribute industry. We do not use the word "redistribute", but that is what it means; the purpose is not to create new industries in Scotland but to redistribute some industrial activity from the over-congested areas into the underdeveloped areas of the country.
§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
If that were the purpose of the Bill there would be a lot to be said for it, but as far as I can see the purpose is to pack in more industrialism where industrialism now exists.
§ Mr. Bence
The noble Lord suggests that the purpose is to pack in more industrialism where there is already an excess of it. I cannot see that. If industrial development certificates are refused in an over-congested area and if assistance is given to firms prepared to go to areas with heavy unemployment, surely that is a sound policy. There may have been heavy industrialism in such areas in the past, but because of the changing pattern of industry and because of new techniques and technologies and the nature of world trade, those areas have become under-industrialised.
For instance, I suggest that hon. Members should visit Staffordshire and the Black Country around Ironbridge. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South knows that area as well as I do. This is a town which is overgrown with weeds. Up to the end of the eighteenth century it was a great iron centre, and the first iron bridge ever built stands there as a monument. Today it is derelict. Would the noble Lord call that an industrial area? It was 200 years ago, but it is not today. In the same way, everyone speaks of the "Black Country". Indeed, eighty years ago it was the "Black Country", but today it is a green country. In Lanarkshire and parts of my constituency there were great industrial areas in the past, but if no attempt is made to bring about a redistribution and relocation of industry in the country, those areas will become derelict.
My right hon. Friend's Amendment is justified as an attempt to keep this purpose in the Bill. We must bring about a redistribution and relocation of economic activity in the country. With the new technologies and new techniques which are arising, I believe that in the future most large engineering plants will increasingly create a diversification of products within their own organisation. The British Motor Corporation, one of the most successful motor enterprises in this country, founded by Austin and Sir William Morris, both able and competent men under whom I have worked, found this advisable. Hon. Members may not know that until a few years ago, Lord Nuffield had a lathe in his bedroom and used to do a bit of turning with it for amusement, because he so loved the technique of the engineering processes.
§ Mr. Bence
That was a case of the redistribution of economic activity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South knows that for a hundred years the wives in the Midlands have been used to such engineering processes in their houses. My hon. Friend knows of little hand presses being set up in the bay window of a house. I have seen them, and so has he, and I have taken raw materials to those houses. That is how industry was distributed there forty years ago.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the position again and to include the word "redistribution" in the Bill. It has a psychological meaning and it is more conclusive of the Government's intention to go further than they seem to intend to go under the Bill. The Bill may not prove sufficiently effective. In three or four years we may have to go a stage further, as a Parliament, to deal with this problem. We have a responsibility on both sides of the House.
We shall have to do more planning in this generation; and I mean "planning", because that will inevitably come. Hon. Members opposite may fight their rearguard actions until the cows come home, but there must be some State intervention to plan and locate the industrial activity of our country in the interests of efficiency, housing, good living, good culture and good society.
We cannot afford to have half of the country overcrowded, with the people there rushed, crushed and pushed, while the other half is under-employed and in many cases almost destitute and without hope. We cannot have two nations living geographically apart. We have learned over the years that we cannot have the old concept of two nations; we have almost eliminated Lord Beaconsfield's two nations of poverty and wealth. By unplanned location of industry, however, we have again created two nations, this time geographically. We have the high-prosperity nation, south of Gloucester, and the low-prosperity nation, north and west, including the north of England, Scotland and Wales. This concept of two nations must be changed by the redistribution of industrial activity in the country.
§ 5.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Gower (Barry)
The hon. Member said that the kind of planning which he envisaged will have to come and he implied that it would have to cone for the sake of efficiency and of the industrial prosperity of our country. He implied that those who in many cases have spent a life-time in learning the administration of a great industry are the least well-equipped to decide how that industry can be successfully run.
§ Mr. Bence
I spent too many years with the British Motor Corporation to make that suggestion. We have been able to put our products at the gates of the factory at such a speed that neither the railway nor the roads can get them away. The fact that we cannot get them away fast enough represents our highest cost.
§ Mr. Gower
I was observing that there was the implication that the people who are running industry have not the least idea how to do it and that there was some other body or some politicians who would know far more about it. I do not think that that is a view which is generally held; it is certainly not the view of my right hon. Friend. The implementation of the powers in the Bill would in many cases not be of benefit to an industry; in many cases it would be a handicap. We must recognise that fact and ensure that the handicap under which any industry shall labour shall be as small as possible and not as great as possible.
I believe that my right hon. Friend, in that setting, has gone a very long way indeed to meet the wishes expressed when the matter was discussed in Committee. On the one hand, he has ensured that when the Board of Trade considers to what areas industries shall be dissuaded from going there shall be reference to the question of redistribution. On the other hand, when the Board of Trade considers to what areas industries shall go, its attention will be directed not to the question of distribution but to the much more relevant question of higher than average unemployment and, to some degree, to the question of diversification within those areas. I think that those are much more appropriate matters.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) seemed to find 1043 it difficult to understand why in the case of the industrial development certificate it might be appropriate to consider distribution and why, on the other hand, my right hon. Friend was not prepared to have that consideration included in the Clause. I should have thought that there was a distinction to be drawn between the two cases. When we are considering why an industrial development certificate should be withheld in the case of London or Birmingham, surely maldistribution must be one of the main considerations. But when we are considering to what area an industry should go the main consideration should be the evil of high unemployment and not of maldistribution of industry in the area. On the other hand, one of the faults in such an area may well be the failure to have diversification.
§ Mr. J. Griffiths
The hon. Gentleman comes from South Wales as I do, and it amazes me that with his experience he should be talking as he is now.
§ Mr. Gower
I am submitting that under my right hon. Friend's proposals there is power to deal with an area in which there is higher than average unemployment. My right hon. Friend's Department has already shown by its withholding of industrial development certificates, in the case of the motor industry, its ability to influence the movement to Wales and to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency of Llanelly, and indeed, to Scotland, of major industries. The consideration there has not been diversification but higher than average unemployment.
§ Mr. Griffiths
As I have said, the hon. Gentleman comes from South Wales as I do, and he knows that up to comparatively recent times three out of every five persons employed in Wales, including Barry, were dependent upon one industry. Because when that industry failed there was no alternative employment, the people suffered. Barry was one of the towns which suffered, and it is still suffering. That is why I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should say that we do not suffer from a lack of proper distribution of industry.
§ Mr. Gower
Surely the point which the right hon. Gentleman is making is covered by the lack of diversification. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman. I should have thought it was patently obvious that the lack of diversification answers the point which he has mentioned. For these reasons, I think that my right hon. Friend is quite correct in saying that when the Bill becomes an Act and is in operation the Board of Trade should concentrate on the areas of higher than average unemployment. Indeed, I imagine that people living in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, near Llanelly, or in the high unemployment areas in Scotland would resent it if the Board of Trade did not place industries in those areas but put them elsewhere because there was lack of diversification.
§ Mr. Gower
With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this Amendment deals with the lack of diversification— it deals entirely with that point. I should have thought that people living in areas with higher than average unemployment would be very concerned if the question of distribution claimed the major consideration of the Board of Trade at a time when that major consideration should be higher than average unemployment.
§ Mr. Tom Brown (Ince)
The debate so far on this Amendment has been contributed to in the main by hon. Members who come from districts which have suffered in the past and which are still suffering from the lack of distribution of industry at the right time and in the right way in order to obviate or minimise unemployment. Very few of the speakers so far have personal experience of unemployment. I speak as one who has experienced the loss of dignity which unemployment causes to the man or woman who is thrown out of work. I have always maintained that there is dignity in labour and degradation in being out of work and inforced idleness. No man that I have come across when discussing this matter has deliberately thrown himself out of work.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is going very wide of the Amendment.
§ Mr. Brown
Right, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The question of the distribution of industry has been discussed many times, and we must put forward arguments to show why we support an Amendment of this character.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) state that there are only two industries in that area, namely, mining and pottery. In the district which I have the honour to represent we also have only two main industries. They are mining and cotton. Hon. and right hon. Members know what is happening in coal and what is happening in cotton. Both industries are contracting very rapidly. The coal industry is contracting far more rapidly than we anticipated. That is why I am anxious, as one who comes from a mining area, that the word "distribution" should be incorporated in the Minister's Amendment.
In many parts of the country the coal industry is contracting with great rapidity. Twenty-five years ago, in Lancashire and a small portion of Cheshire, 80,000 men were employed in the pits. The figure today is 38,000. It may occur to some right hon. and hon. Members to ask where the men have gone. They have gone to other industries in distant parts of the county and the country, and even overseas. We as a nation failed to provide alternative employment for these men when they were thrown out of work.
I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South pay a tribute to the President of the Board of Trade. I reinforce what my hon. Friend said. It has been my experience when serving on Committees for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible that he was amenable to reason. I hope he will be amenable to the reasoning that we are putting forward to prove the importance of the Amendment, and that he will accept the word "distribution". That word is very important if we are to maintain a high standard of living for all our people and protect them from unemployment.
I said a moment ago that at one time 80,000 men were employed in the mining industry in Lancashire and that only 1046 38,000 men were employed there today. Where have those men gone? They have not left the district entirely, but they now have to travel long distances to work rather than occupy the ranks of the unemployed.
I should like to give a picture of what is happening where mines have closed down. A man who used to work for eight hours a day in a mine is now away from home for more than twelve hours a day, because there is no alternative employment in the area in which he lives. That shows neglect in the past by the Government of the day to distribute industry to places where it was required.
In Ashton-in-Makerfield in my constituency six or seven pits are to be closed in the next two years. The mining industry has contracted steadily over the last few years but we have not been offered an alternative industry. I plead with hon. Members to listen to the reasons why we consider the Amendment so important. We must have a real distribution of industry to areas where it is required, and that as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend referred briefly but sincerely to the number of men suffering from pneumoconiosis and silicosis. Let us consider the position of these men. When the pits were in full commission and a man was unfit for work through injury he was found light employment within the industry. There is now no light industry in which he can be found work. To keep down the percentage of unemployment in localities where there are only two industries we must redistribute other industries to those areas to provide work for those men.
I support the Amendment because it will help considerably, if it is put into operation. It will help those districts like Ashton-in-Makerfield, Ince-in-Makerfield, and Abram where pits are being closed and the men are being displaced. I know that the closing of a pit is sometimes unavoidable. I am not blaming the Government for that—not at this stage. I have enough common sense to know that when pits have been in commission for 300 or 400 years the coal stocks run out. There is, however, no reason why the men displaced should not be found alternative work by the distribution of such industries as are available for distribution to those districts. 1047 I am not saying that the President of the Board of Trade can manufacture an industry. I am saying that by proper control and proper diversification and distribution the Minister would be able to direct into those areas those industrialists who want to help the bad areas. He could say to the industrialists, "Here is a site. Here is labour and material. Instead of sending your industry to the south of England build your factory in this area." I know there has been a battle between the North and the South, and we have lost the battle so far, but let us now try at least to effect a draw. The Minister should direct those industries which are available for direction into the districts which have unfortunately suffered a contraction of the industries that once helped to provide employment for the people living there.
It may be that even if two new light industries are directed into a mining area, we shall once again face the problem of finding employment for the men displaced from the mines which are contracting with ever-increasing rapidity, but there is no reason why the President of the Board of Trade, with his tolerance and his amenability to reason, should not accept the Amendment.
As one who has suffered in the ranks of the unemployed and has tramped the country and been unable to find work, I plead with the Minister to accept the Amendment. If any words of mine can prevent any individual, be he in Lancashire or in any other county, from experiencing unemployment, it is my duty to say them. I hope that the Minister will agree to our Amendment and include the word "distribution" either after or before the word "diversification," because the two things must go together. By doing that he will help the districts which in the past have experienced, and are now experiencing, the difficulty of having many unemployed men and women.
§ Mr. Maudling
We have had a very interesting debate, but it has been a little diffuse. I think that at one and the same time I can agree with a great deal of what has been said by many speakers, including the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), without accepting the 1048 Amendment, because, on the whole, speeches have been directed to supporting not so much the Amendment to the Amendment as the arguments which I put forward against it in the initial stage.
Much has been said about the need for diversification. It is true that there is a need but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) pointed out, it is already covered by the Government Amendment. We recognise that in providing for the needs of an area where there is a substantial amount of unemployment we must try to make available the sort of employment which will be permanent. If a district is substantially dependent on one industry, or one branch of an industry, it is wiser to try to persuade industry of a different kind to go there, so that all the industries in the area will not be engulfed at the same time if difficulties should subsequently arise.
In Committee the argument was put forward very powerfully that in operating our policy we should have regard to the need for the diversification of industry—meaning the diversification of industry in the areas in which we are trying to create new enterprises. That is the purpose of the Government Amendment, which describes the circumstances in which the Board of Trade can use the powers under Part I, but even in respect of the Government Amendment, to which we are now discussing an Amendment, the powers are to be used only within development districts. That was the point I made earlier, and it was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barry. In so far as we are inducing people to go to certain areas at all we must try to get them to go to places where there is a high level of unemployment.
We say that the criterion we must have is that the areas concerned are areas with a high level of unemployment, and in inducing industries to go to those areas we must take account of the situation already existing in them. We must take note of the fact that there is a concentration of heavy industry, or a large number of school leavers or disabled people, and so on. But in every case the area or district to which we are trying to persuade industry to go must be an area where a social need 1049 exists because of a substantial amount of unemployment.
The Amendment to the Amendment could mean one of two things. It could mean that we should have regard to the distribution of industry, first, within development districts and, secondly, in the country as a whole. I do not think that the first alternative is relevant. If a firm is going to Merseyside, as I hope some firms will, it does not very much matter to the Board of Trade which part of the area it goes to; that is a matter for the local planning authority. Our job is to get firms to go somewhere where unemployed people are waiting.
Therefore, if the Amendment to the Amendment has any significance we must treat it as dealing with the distribution of industry between different districts. I can only explain the point of view of the Government once again. The attitude that we adopt is somewhat different from that of the party opposite. We do not start from the proposition that there is something called a "proper distribution of industry throughout the country", which can be defined and set down in terms of a blueprint. We say that, as far as possible, industry should be allowed to develop in accordance with competitive conditions, under free enterprise.
We recognise that there are limitations to that view, and I accept that we must employ negative controls, which prevent industries going to crowded districts. There is nothing illogical about that, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) suggested. He tried to argue that if we say "No" to a person in respect of one area we must say "Yes" to a person in respect of another area. Even the party opposite would not do that. They have said that they would shrink from directing people and that they would use the negative but not the positive power. We can say, "This place is too crowded, so no one else can come in", but we do not have to tell people who want to come in where they must go.
It might be that everybody on a railway platform tried to get into the same coach. It would soon become overcrowded, and further people would have to be prevented from getting in, but that would not mean that we should tell them exactly how many of them were to go 1050 into each of the remaining coaches on the train. That is a logical analogy, which can be sustained. We do not accept that it is the function of the Government to tell industry where to go. We want to see it go where it thinks it can be most efficient, and where its costs can be kept low, but this wish must be conditioned by two things. First, we must exercise strenuously these negative powers, preventing industry from going into areas which are already overcrowded where, on economic, strategic— as the right hon. Gentleman said—and social grounds there is a strong case for preventing further expansion, even at the cost of some loss of economic efficiency. We are doing that.
Beyond that, we say that in respect of districts where there is a special danger of unemployment we should, at the expense of the Government, offer inducements to firms to go into those areas. We should not direct them; no one is proposing that. If there were no areas of special unemployment I see no reason why the Government should have anything to say upon the question where firms should go, beyond preventing them from going into crowded areas. It is only because of the existence of a special unemployment problem that the inducements in Part I are being provided.
As clearly as I can explain it, that is our reason for saying that the introduction of a concept of distribution at this stage would run counter to all our ideas.
§ Mr. Jay
Is not the right hon. Gentleman's argument inconsistent with the wording of Clause 18, which says:In considering whether any development for which a certificate under the principal enactment (hereinafter referred to as an "industrial development certificate") is applied for can be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry, the Board shall have particular regard to the need for providing appropriate employment in the localities mentioned in subsection (2) of section one of this Act.Surely the President of the Board of Trade would agree that that must mean that the Board of Trade takes account of the proper distribution of industry over both types of area, which is all that our Amendment to the Government Amendment is asking for.
§ Mr. Maudling
I should have thought that those words expressed, as succinctly as possible, what I have been saying. 1051 We have only two purposes. The first is to stop people from going into crowded areas, which would clearly cause maldistribution of industry, and must be stopped, and the second is to induce people to go into areas of special difficulty, because a social problem exists there which must be solved.
We will not go further and say that we should use Government influence and money to induce industry to fall into a pattern which accords not with the principle on which one would like industry to work but with a theoretical principle
§ which the Government are trying to impose. There is a fairly clear division between the two sides of the House on this matter. I have done my best to explain our point of view and I am sorry if I cannot persuade the party opposite to accept it. I cannot assist the House any further, beyond saying that these are the clear purposes of the Bill and that we cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 260.1055
|Division No. 32.]||AYES||[5.58 p.m.|
|Ainsley, William||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Mellish, R. J.|
|Albu, Austen||Gourlay, Harry||Mendelson, J. J.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Greenwood, Anthony||Millan, Bruce|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Grey, Charles||Mitchison, G. R.|
|Awbery, Stan||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Monslow, Walter|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Moody, A. S.|
|Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)||Grimond, J.||Morris, John|
|Beaney, Alan||Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Mort, D. L.|
|Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Moyle, Arthur|
|Benson, Sir George||Hamilton, William (West Fife)||Mulley, Frederick|
|Blackburn, F.||Hart, Mrs. Judith||Neal, Harold|
|Blyton, William||Hayman, F. H.||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)|
|Boardman, H.||Healey, Denis||Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Phillp(Derby,S.)|
|Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)||Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)||Oliver, G. H.|
|Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)||Herbison, Miss Margaret||Oram, A. E.|
|Bowles, Frank||Hill, J. (Midlothian)||Oswald, Thomas|
|Boyden, James||Hilton, A. V.||Padley, W. E.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Holman, Percy||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Holt, Arthur||Parker, John (Dagenham)|
|Brown, Alan (Tottenham)||Hoy, James H.||Paton, John|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Pavitt, Laurence|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Peart, Frederick|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Hunter, A. E.||Pentland, Norman|
|Callaghan, James||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Castle, Mrs. Barbara||Hynd, John (Attercliffe)||Popplewell, Ernest|
|Chapman, Donald||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Prentice, R. E.|
|Chetwynd, George||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Cliffs, Michael||Janner, Barnett||Probert, Arthur|
|Collick, Percy||Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas||Proctor, W. T.|
|Corbel, Mrs. Freda||Jeger, George||Pursey, Cmdr. Harry|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Randall, Harry|
|Cronin, John||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Rankin, John|
|Crosland, Anthony||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Reynolds, G. W.|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Rhodes, H.|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Kelley, Richard||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Lawson, George||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Deer, George||Ledger, Ron||Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Ross, William|
|Dempsey, James||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Diamond, John||Lipton, Marcus||Short, Edward|
|Dodds, Norman||Logan, David||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Donnelly, Desmond||Loughlin, Charles||Skeffington, Arthur|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter||McCann, John||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)|
|Edelman, Maurice||MacColl, James||Small, William|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||McInnes, James||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Edwards, Walter (Stepney)||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Evans, Albert||McLeavy, Frank||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Fernyhough, E.||MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Finch, Harold||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Steele, Thomas|
|Fitch, Alan||Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Forman, J. C.||Manuel, A. C.||Stones, William|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mapp, Charles||Strachey, Rt. Hon. John|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd||Marsh, Richard||Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)|
|Ginsburg, David||Mason, Roy||Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith|
|Gooch, E. G.||Mayhew, Christopher||Swingler, Stephen|
|Sylvester, George||Wade, Donald||Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)|
|Symonds, J. B.||Warbey, William||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)||Watkins, Tudor||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Taylor, John (West Lothian)||Weitzman, David||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)||Wells, Percy (Faversham)||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)||Wheeldon, W. E.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)||White, Mrs. Eirene||Woof, Robert|
|Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)||Whitlock, William||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Thornton, Ernest||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Timmons, John||Willey, Frederick||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Tomney, Frank||Williams, D. J. (Neath)||Mr. Darling and Mr. Redhead.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Errington, Sir Eric||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Aitken, W. T.||Erroll, F. J.||Lilley, F. J. P.|
|Allason, James||Farey-Jones, F. W.||Lindsay, Martin|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Farr, John||Linstead, Sir Hugh|
|Arbuthnot, John||Fell, Anthony||Litchfield, Capt. John|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||Finlay, Graeme||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Longbottom, Charles|
|Balniel, Lord||Freeth, Denzil||Loveys, Walter H.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Gammans, Lady||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)|
|Barter, John||George, J. C. (Pollok)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Batsford, Brian||Gibson-Watt, David||McAdden, Stephen|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)||Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)||MacArthur, Ian|
|Beamish, Col. Tufton||Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)||McLaren, Martin|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Goodhart, Philip||McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia|
|Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)||Goodhew, Victor||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs.)|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Gower, Raymond||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)||Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)||McMaster, Stanley|
|Berkeley, Humphry||Green, Alan||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)|
|Bingham, R. M.||Gresham Cooke, R.||Maginnis, John E.|
|Bishop, F. P.||Grimston, Sir Robert||Maitland, Cdr. J. W.|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Markham, Major Sir Frank|
|Bossom, Clive||Gurden, Harold||Marlowe, Anthony|
|Bourne-Arton, A.||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Marshall, Douglas|
|Box, Donald||Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Marten, Nell|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||Mathew, Robert (Honiton)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)|
|Braine, Bernard||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Brewis, John||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Mawby, Ray|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. W. H.||Harvie Anderson, Miss||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.|
|Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hay, John||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.|
|Browne, Percy (Torrington)||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Mills, Stratton|
|Bryan, Paul||Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Bullard, Denys||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Morrison, John|
|Bullus, Wing Commander Eric||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles|
|Burden, F. A.||Hendry, A. Forbes||Nabarro, Gerald|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Hicks Beach, Maj. W.||Neave, Airey|
|Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)||Hiley, Joseph||Nicholls, Harmar|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Hill, Dr, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey|
|Carr, Compton (Barons Court)||Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)||Noble, Michael|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Nugent, Sir Richard|
|Chataway, Christopher||Hobson, John||Oakshott, Sir Hendrle|
|Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)||Hocking, Philip N.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. D.|
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Holland, Philip||Orr-Ewing, C. Ian|
|Cleaver, Leonard||Hollingworth, John||Osborn, John (Hallam)|
|Cole, Norman||Hopkins, Alan||Osborne, Cyril (Louth)|
|Collard, Richard||Hornby, R. P.||Page, Graham|
|Cooke, Robert||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia||Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)|
|Cooper, A. E.||Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)||Partridge, E.|
|Cooper-Key, Sir Edmund||Howard, John (Southampton, Test)||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John||Peel, John|
|Cordle, John||Hughes-Young, Michael||Percival, Ian|
|Corfield, F. V.||Hurd, Sir Anthony||Peyton, John|
|Costain, A. P.||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth|
|Coulson, J. M.||Iremonger, T. L.||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Pitman, I. J.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorna)||Jackson, John||Pitt, Miss Edith|
|Crowder, F. P.||James, David||Pott, Percivall|
|Cunningham, Knox||Jennings, J. C.||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Curran, Charles||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Dance, James||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Prior, J. M. L.|
|de Ferranti, Basil||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Proudfoot, Wilfred|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)||Rameden, James|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.||Kerby, Capt. Henry||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin|
|Doughty, Charles||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Rees, Hugh|
|Drayson, G. B.||Kershaw, Anthony||Renton, David|
|Duncan, Sir James||Kirk, Peter||Ridley, Hon. Nicholas|
|Duthie, Sir William||Kitson, Timothy||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Eden, John||Leavey, J. A.||Rippon, Geoffrey|
|Elliott, R. W.||Leburn, Gilmour||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Emery, Peter||Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Legh Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Roots, William|
|Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Tapsell, Peter||Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold|
|Russell, Ronald||Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)||Watts, James|
|Scott-Hopkins, James||Teeling, William||Webster, David|
|Sharples, Richard||Temple, John M.||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Skeet, T. H. H.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)||Williams, Dudley (Exeter)|
|Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Smithers, Peter||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin||Wise, Alfred|
|Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)||Turner, Colin||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Spearman, Sir Alexander||van Straubenzee, W. R.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard|
|Speir, Rupert||Vane, W. M. F.||Woodhouse, C. M.|
|Stanley, Hon. Richard||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Stevens, Geoffrey||Vickers, Miss Joan||Woollam, John|
|Stodart, J. A.||Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis||Worsley, Marcus|
|Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Storey, Sir Samuel||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Studholme, Sir Henry||Wall, Patrick||Mr. Chichester-Clark and|
|Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)||Mr. Whitelaw.|
§ Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
We now have a series of consequential Amendments which, I believe, are drafting.
§ Mr. J. Griffiths
Do I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you are intimating that you do not propose to call the Amendment standing in the name of one of my right hon. Friends, some of my hon. Friends and myself, in page 1, line 16, to insert a new subsection (3)?
§ Mr. Griffiths
May I raise a point of order about the matter? It is a very important matter, which, with every respect, we think ought to be debated on this Report stage. May I indicate briefly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, why we put this point to you?
§ Mr. Griffiths
May I now assume that you are Mr. Speaker, and therefore put my point to you? I hope you will listen to what I have to say, and I wish to say only one thing. When we pass this Bill, we shall repeal entirely the whole of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. That Act contained a Schedule which delimited and defined the areas which it covered. The whole of that Schedule goes, and there is to be no Schedule to replace it. That is why we think it is important to discuss this matter and make it an obligation upon the Minister, within a definite time after this Bill becoming an Act of Parliament, to declare and announce the areas to which the new Act will apply. We thought that, because the Bill makes this important 1056 change in national policy, because it completely repeals the whole of the 1945 Act, which included the areas that were scheduled, or, to use the old term, the Development Areas—which this Bill does not—there was a very sound reason for allowing us to move this Amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman out of courtesy, but I cannot alter the decision of Mr. Speaker.
§ Amendments made: In page 2, line 3, leave out "such locality as aforesaid" and insert "development district".
§ In page 2, line 7, leave out "such localities" and insert "development districts".
§ In page 2, leave out line 9 and insert "a development district".
In page 2, line 11, leave out "locality, or to the" and insert:
development district, or to that".
In page 2, line 16, leave out "locality or to the" and insert:
development district or to that".
§ In page 2, line 20, leave out "locality" and insert "development district".
§ In page 2, line 23, leave out "locality" and insert "development district".—[Mr Maudling.]