HC Deb 03 February 1960 vol 616 cc1093-127
Mr. Ellis Smith

I beg to move, in page 12, line 8, after "employment" to insert: and for providing research and development which would lead to employment". In spite of the provocation of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), I move this Amendment. He ought not to have said that this Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (sir F. Maclean) has "my" support. He should have said it has "our" support. I was trained in one of the largest industrial establishments, where, before the war, they spent £150,000 a year on research, which was more than most industries as a whole in Britain were spending on research. The reason they spent that amount was that it was a good business proposition; they had to spend it to keep pace with foreign competition and to hold their own in the world. It is very annoying, when one is involved in this kind of research and development, and if one has developed a new product which needs a new factory for its manufacture, if the factory is taken to some other part of the country and one is not even considered.

To avoid any misunderstanding on this, let me make it quite clear, speaking for myself and for those with whom I am very friendly, that there is no section of the community in this country more friendly disposed than we are to those who suffer from unemployment. There are very few people to stand for a national overall plan such as I stand for, because I believe it is in the best interests of our country. My fellow countrymen, including my own party, do not accept the fundamental ideas, on which I do not compromise, for planning our economy in the way in which it should be planned in accordance with our national needs and international position, and it is with those in mind that I move this Amendment.

I am reminded of the position in my own locality in North Staffordshire. We spend a large amount on research, and some time ago His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh opened a large extension of premises there and made a very fine speech showing the need for scientific research. To undertake research of that character means an enormous expenditure. If, having embarked upon that expenditure, one is faced with the proposition to carry out the development in another area, it is most unfair.

So what we are asking for in this Amendment is that consideration should be given to the needs of an area where research has been carried out, and where research has been carried out leading to development. I am mostly familiar with development in engineering and in pottery. By this Amendment we say that, all things being equal, if the requirements of the locality are such that more employment is needed there, and the research and development leads to employment, that ought to be considered. For this and other reasons, I beg to move the Amendment.

Mr. Willis

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is most unusual that we should have an Amendment put down by four Members on the Government side and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), and that none of the hon. Members on the Government side is here to move the Amendment, particularly as it is an Amendment which they have now put down twice, once for consideration by the Committee on the Bill and again now on Report. It really is a disgraceful piece of shadow boxing to put down words suggesting that they are actively concerned with research and development and then to run away when the time comes to move the Amendment in the House. I think we are indebted to my hon. Friend who did see the importance of this Amendment and moved it.

At this time of night, and in view of the amount we have still to do before we finish with the Bill, I do not wish to keep the House for more than a few moments, but it does seem to me that the insertion of these words in the Bill can do nothing but good. I think that everyone now recognises the importance of research and development, and to insert these words in a Clause dealing with the factors to be taken into account in issuing industrial development certificates will be helpful. It will place upon the Board of Trade the obligation to recognise the importance of this.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secrtary is going to accept this Amendment. I rather gather that he may be, in view of the way he is straining at the leash to get to the Dispatch Box. On most occasions during our proceedings on the Bill Ministers have not been too anxious to get to the Dispatch Box. We have had almost to drag them to it by various tactics.

Mr. J. Rodgers

That is not so.

Mr. Willis

Not true? Had the hon. Gentleman been present at all our proceedings on the Bill —I think he has been present at most of them—he would know that we have had to go to considerable lengths to get the Minister to the Dispatch Box on occasion. However, I can see that the hon. Gentleman is really dying to tell us that he is going to accept this excellent Amendment and to congratulate the Opposition on their courage and initiative in moving the Amendment, and on the fact that they have sufficient interest in the Bill to be present during the discussion of it, which is more, apparently, than can be said for the Government supporters. I am sure that he will reward our attendance here by saying that he has very much pleasure in accepting this Amendment.

Mr. J. Rodgers

If I am straining at the leash it is merely because I regret very much that I played my part in agreeing with my hon. Friends whose names appear in support of the Amendment that it might be more appropriate if they raised the matter on Third Reading rather than at this stage, because I am sure that they would have moved it in better terms than did the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East talks as if the object of the Amendment was to help us to recognise at the Board of Trade the importance of research and development. We, of course, recognise that very much and we do not need the Amendment to remind us. The object of the Amendment, I thought, and I am sure it was the intention of my hon. Friend, was to make clear that firms would be discouraged from establishing research and development projects in the south of England where a disproportionate amount of this work is taking place. It is argued that once a research and development project has been set up there is a tendency and a pressure for production to be put next to it or located near it.

That is a very valid point, but the Clause as drafted completely covers it because it provides that in considering whether any development for which a certificate under the principal enactment … 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 … where it is high and persistent. I can give an assurance that in considering applications for industrial development certificates, either for a research and development project or for a productive undertaking alleged to need to be near its research unit, the Board will take account of the need to provide employment in the listed localities.

This is the policy at the moment and we shall not weaken in it. It would be wrong to specify this one consideration among the many which the Board must have in mind in dealing with applications for industrial development certificates. Indeed, to specify research might be taken to mean that considerations of distribution and diversification of industry and the proper use of local resources did not matter very much. The concept of the proper distribution of industry, with particular regard to the needs of unemployment areas, covers the case.

It is also important to bear in mind that not all research work involves the carrying on of an industrial process. [An HON. MEMBER: "Reading too quickly."] It is only when the structure in which research is to be carried on is an industrial building within the meaning of Clause 22 that an industrial development certificate is necessary, and for this reason I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn or rejected.

Mr. Jay

The Parliamentary Secretary's conduct is almost as odd as that of the original backers of the Amendment. It is oddly characteristic of the Tory Party that five hon. Members opposite should have put their names to the Amendment twice, for which quite strong arguments can be adduced, and when the time comes round to consider it on an important Bill like this, affecting the employment of millions of people, just because, as I suppose, it is dinner time, there is nobody on the Tory benches except the Parliamentary Private Secretary who has to be there compulsorily whether he likes it or not. I see that another hon. Member has just arrived rather belatedly but not in time to move the Amendment. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) on having had the initiative and the wit to be in his place and to move this important Amendment. On top of all that, the Parliamentary Secretary gets up and makes a gratuitous attack on my hon. Friends, I suppose in order to conceal the flimsiness of the arguments which he has just put before the House.

8.15 p.m.

I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary can contest the substance, that it is not only desirable to get direct employment to the areas which need it but that it is also desirable to see that there are research establishments which might provide employment later on. I remember that back in 1945 when the location of the Harwell Atomic Energy Establishment was being discussed I advocated that this original establishment should go to one of the Development Areas. That was turned down because all the scientists wanted to be near Oxford University. The result has been, as we suspected, that having got Harwell in Berkshire we were then told that the station now at Aldermaston had to be near Harwell.

I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary seriously contests all this, but in spite of that he tells us that there is no need for the Amendment. What possible objection can there be to putting these words in the Bill? The hon. Gentleman says the matter is covered already by words such as "distribution of industry" and "diversification" in the other Clause, but if he thinks that the words are there already I do not see what objection there can be to accepting the Amendment. These are perfectly plain words which merely express an argument which the hon. Gentleman has already been compelled to accept. Has the hon. Gentleman any really good reason, despite the extraordinary conduct of his hon. Friends, for so obstinately rejecting the Amendment?

Mr. Ross

The conduct of the Parliamentary Secretary's hon. Friends, who are not behind him and really ought to be, is something which calls for comment. I see that the first name to the Amendment is that of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). I would not say that he was an Ayrshire man, for he is a recent import. He now represents Bute and North Ayrshire but he was the former hon. Member for Lancaster. It is surprising to me that he is not here to proclaim the needs of his area, in respect of exactly this kind of research and development. It shows a rather tepid sort of enthusiasm for development and the provision of work for that area if the hon. Gentleman cannot spare a few hours' time to be here, if only to give the Minister an opportunity to make the statement which he has just made. But for the Parliamentary astuteness of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) the statement would never have been made.

Mr. Willis

And it is a very unsatisfactory statement too.

Mr. Ross

But unsatisfactory as it is, the Amendment having been moved and a statement made, we can debate it and put our point of view and emphasise the importance of this matter to our various areas. The Parliamentary Secretary says that he advised his hon. Friends to keep away.

Mr. J. Rodgers indicated dissent

Mr. Ross

The hon. Members concerned certainly owe an explanation to the House. They had an Amendment on the Order Paper which they were neither prepared to withdraw nor yet to move, but the Parliamentary Secretary says that he advised them to raise the matter on Third Reading. At times when there is a point in relation to a Money Resolution and we ask whether it is in order to raise it at that stage we are told that it is not; and it is not the hon. Gentleman's province but that of the Chair to say what is in order on Third Reading. Since there is no mention of research and development in the Clause, any reference to it might well be ruled out of order on Third Reading. The Parliamentary Secretary's Parliamentary experience is not terribly long, but he should appreciate that discussion on Third Reading is very tight and is confined to what is actually in the Bill.

The subject matter of the Amendment is so important in relation to research and development that we thought that it should be in the Bill, and we still think so. The hon. Gentleman told us that he was concerned about the concentration of research projects which tends generally to lead to the siting of development projects in certain areas outside the present Development Areas. Is not that sufficient reason why this change should be made here? The hon. Gentleman has been longer at the Board of Trade than his right hon. Friend. Is he telling us that the Board of Trade has been lax in this respect? He tells us, "Leave things alone. We have powers under legislation which continues the present position that will enable us to do what the House desires."

Not long ago a delegation of Scottish Members of Parliament went to see the Minister for Science about the siting of an atomic research establishment in the South of England. This is not ancient history. That is what has been done, and is being done now, despite the fact that the powers are there, as the Minister has said. I am referring to the siting of an atomic research establishment somewhere near Oxford. We felt that this should go to the Development Areas and we mentioned that Scotland was one such suitable area. We were fobbed off with the same kind of answer.

In each instance we are given plenty of reasons why such projects could not go to the Development Areas. Can the hon. Gentleman wonder that we are concerned to ensure that such projects are properly considered in relation to the granting of certificates?

Can the hon. Gentleman wonder at my lack of enthusiasm when I hear about a new tractor factory going to a part of Scotland? We have one in my constituency already, which we got without the benefit of this Bill under Labour Government legislation. In fact, anything to do with Scotland can be done without this Bill. The point is that Massey-Ferguson have announced that they are moving that tractor factory, its development unit, from Kilmarnock and taking it back to Coventry. May I take it then that, using the powers which he says are there without this instruction to the Board of Trade, the Minister will take steps to prevent that happening and will ensure that the unit now in Kilmarnock, which is partly research and development, will remain where it started instead of going to the Midlands?

We are concerned about the Board of Trade not exercising its present powers, and we are concerned to ensure that by putting these words in the Clause it will be plain to everyone dealing with the question that these matters must be specifically considered. The hon. Gentleman said that if we put in those words it would mean that all the emphasis would be on them and that all the other considerations would be forgotten. It does not work that way. The fact is that we would be adding only a phrase and joining to the words already there, which he considers sufficient, the words: and for providing research and development which would lead to employment. Does the hon. Gentleman still think that is limiting or tending to limit? No, it is an extension, an amplification. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to particularise, he will find these words in subsection (2) of Clause 7—" … in particular of industrial undertakings therein.…" That phrase does not rule out other considerations, as the hon. Gentleman told us during the Committee stage, so he should be logical and consistent.

This Amendment is a clarification, an amplification and an emphasising of the power that exists, that should be there and that should be used. The hon. Gentleman admitted to the House his own concern about this, so let that concern be further displayed by accepting the Amendment, which has been more clearly explained by my hon. Friend than it could have been by the transient Scotsman whose name headed the list of those supporting the Amendment but who has not seen fit to be here.

Mr. Dempsey

I support the Amendment. I am surprised at the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary, which seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. In his original remarks the hon. Gentleman indicated that he accepted the Amendment in principle, but eventually arrived at the culminating factor when he said that he did not think it was appropriate. So here we have what is in my view an important Amendment which meets with his approval, but apparently the timing is indiscreet, and because of its importance the hon. Gentleman sets out to give the House certain assurances. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members appreciate those assurances, but would it not be much better if the hon. Gentleman converted them into writing and agreed to their insertion in the Bill? There may be other Parliamentary Secretaries in the days that lie ahead and I do not think they will accept his responsibility in offering assurances. Accordingly, it is not unreasonable to be asking that the House should be adequately safeguarded by having those assurances in writing.

It is obvious to me that it is essential to re-allocate diversified industry—a contention we accepted during the Committee stage. It is also equally important to have the allocation of research projects sited in certain areas which require them. It is reasonable, in accordance with the words of the Clause and the Amendment, that the Board of Trade should have regard to that factor before issuing industrial development certificates.

It is a well-known fact that, where there are attractive research units, certain types of consequential employment automatically follow. If the Parliamentary Secretary cares to look at certain Development Areas initiated under the old Distribution of Industry Act, he will find that consequential employment followed the establishment of research units, whether it was the mechanism of motor cars or even the manufacture of road material. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should realise that this is also important in combating unemployment.

There is another particular aspect which the Parliamentary Secretary should take into consideration. Apart from the general employment aspect, we have to bear in mind individuals looking for employment, such as students leaving our central institutions and universities. They are prepared to equip themselves mentally and physically, with a view to serving our country. Yet I know that students leaving a Scottish university require to look for the type of research employment which they want to do in the Midlands or the south of England.

I have in my possession a letter from a student at Glasgow University begging me to use all my influence to impress upon the Minister the need to encourage the siting of research units in parts of the country where there is a need to provide employment of this nature, so that students can serve the country without having to leave home. Surely the hon. Gentleman is bound to acknowledge the validity of that point of view. If he does, he can respond to it in a very simple fashion—by accepting the Amendment instead of giving a verbal assurance.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Probert (Aberdare)

I implore the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the matter. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) upon his persistence and remaining in the Chamber although his name was fourth on the list of the names attached to the Amendment.

I wish to add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) about young students. I would impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary that one of the reasons for bringing forward the Bill was the dire state of many of our coal mining areas at present. Not long ago I had the fortune to spend a day at the National Coal Board experimental research station at Stoke Orchard, near Cheltenham, where processes have been developed for producing coal by-products. No one in his senses would deny that if the coal industry is to succeed it must very quickly develop by-products. In my constituency there is a "Phurnacite" plant, producing smokeless fuel, a very successful venture indeed which employs about 500 or 600 men and supplies areas such as London and the north of England with this very fine coal by-product.

Cannot the Parliamentary Secretary see that if, for example, in my area—fortunately, we do not need it at the moment, but I can envisage such a need in the future—we could have a research station concerned with new forms of coal by-products certain demands would be satisfied? It would be doing the very thing that my hon. Friend mentioned, providing vacancies for young students in the locality. I had a sad experience at Stoke Orchard. I asked the young students where they came from and found that their homes included Aberdare, Rhondda and Swansea. If there had been a research station in their own locality these young lads could have remained at home. There is a great future for by-products such as "Shape". A plant might be installed in an area when a colliery closed down, and about 500 displaced men could then be immediately employed.

I implore the Parliamentary Secretary to make certain that this sort of thing will happen by embodying such a provision in the Bill.

Mr. Manuel

We have reached a rather unique position. We are discussing an Amendment for which I suspect the Parliamentary Secretary was in the first place responsible. I imagine that he was responsible for getting some of his intimate friends to put it forward.

Mr. Ross

The hon. Gentleman has none.

Mr. Manuel

Then the hon. Gentleman tells us that he has now dissuaded his hon. Friends from being in the Chamber to attend to their business and justify their words. However, I would point out to hon. Members who are present that it is a little more shocking than that because the Amendment has had publicity in the Press and, accordingly, people are expecting us to discuss its subject matter, the provision of research and development which would lead to employment. There have been reports in the local Press in the constituencies of these hon. Members and I think that amounts to sailing under false colours. We should be stern in our condemnation of such tactics.

I am sure the House will agree that this Amendment is necessary. May I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) on his ingenuity and courage in moving the Amendment, despite the fact that he did not have the support of his hon. Friends to bolster up the strong arguments which he advanced. Alone and unaided, my hon. Friend strode into conflict with the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary—

Mr. J. Griffiths

I think that my hon. Friend ought to be fair about this. I understood that the hon. Members who are absent were in the Library preparing their speeches for the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

Order. I do not think we should go too far in discussing the conduct of hon. Members during the debate on this Amendment. It may be referred to, but I think it has been debated sufficiently and that now hon. Members should deal with the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. Manuel

I have to justify myself for speaking on this Amendment when my name is not attached to it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) tells me that he suspects these hon. Members are lined up in the Library doing a bit of "devilling" in order to get some ammunition for the Third Reading debate—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. I do not think it is in order to discuss that on this Amendment. Hon. Members should devote themselves to discussing the Amendment.

Mr. Jay

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As the Parliamentary Secretary gave as the reason for not arguing this now that he had ordered his supporters out of the Chamber and told them not to come back until the Third Reading debate, surely this is relevant?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Reference to it was certainly in order, but I do not think that the debate should be devoted entirely to that aspect.

Mr. McCann

Would it be in order to keep the debate going until the hon. Members come into the Chamber to explain why they were not here?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Willis

Would it be in order to ask my hon. Friend whether he said that the hon Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) had already published his speech in the local Press?

Mr. Manuel

No, I did not say any such thing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Manuel

I do not wish to get out of order, but I think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you would agree that it would not be in order to discuss this Amendment during the Third Reading debate and that it was not good reasoning on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary.

I consider this Amendment of particular importance to Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) mentioned that there had been a deputation from the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Group to the Minister for Science to express to him our keen anxiety that we should get a research development unit in Scotland, and that the atomic energy installation—for peacetime pursuits may I say—should not be sited in the south of England. I understand that the deputation failed in its objective, but in Scotland at any rate we have a particular interest in this matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary knows that frequent reference has been made in this House to the plight of the constituency of Greenock over the question of heavy unemployment there. Despite that, by a deliberate act of Government policy the torpedo research factory has been moved from Greenock to the south of England. If Clause 18 had buttressed—[Interruption.] I am delighted to see reinforcements slowly rolling up. I want hon. Members who are present to be seized of the importance of this aspect of the matter. We should have had a much stronger argument for retention of the torpedo research establishment at Greenock rather than its removal to the South of England if this Bill had already become an Act and Clause 18 contained the words: and for providing research and development which would lead to employment I feel that we have said quite enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to be completely seized of the idea that we on this side of the House consider this very important. We are very weak on the question of research in Scotland. We should be giving far more help to Scottish industry and to Scottish industrialists if we were providing scope for our students coming from university to go into research establishments sited in Scotland. We should then be doing a great deal more for Scottish industry and providing many more jobs in Scotland than at present.

Mr. J. Rodgers rose—

Mr. J. Griffiths

Since one of the hon. Members whom we have all been looking forward to hearing speak has now come into the Chamber, may we have an opportunity of hearing him, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

If the Minister wishes to rise to speak, he can do so only by leave of the House.

Mr. Jay

Before the Minister rises, can we know whether the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) has the permission of the Minster to come back into the Chamber?

Mr. J. Rodgers

With the leave of the House, I wish to deal with some of the points which have been raised. First, I am sorry that in trying to defend my hon. Friends against what I thought, perhaps wrongly, was an attack by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) I unwittingly did a disservice to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). I apologise for that, and withdraw it. I think the hon. Member showed initiative by being in his place when the Amendment was called, even though he was fourth on the list of those under whose names the Amendment appears. Perhaps in defending my hon. Friends I did him that disservice, but I certainly did not advise my hon. Friends to leave the Chamber, nor dissuade them from being in the Chamber. I merely agreed with them that perhaps they would make their point more appropriately on Third Reading.

It is true that research and development problems are extremely important. It is also unfortunately true, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) knows only too well, that there is a tendency for scientists and research workers in general to want to be near Oxford, Cambridge or London. I believe that research and development are vital to our existence in the expansionist climate in which we are now living.

It would be wrong to specify any one consideration among the many to which we at the Board of Trade must have regard in the granting of I.D.Cs. It would be wrong of us to pick out this one element of research and development. If it were possible to steer research projects which provide employment to development districts, I should be one of the first to try to do it, but the major consideration must be whether the research and development projects are situated most efficiently to make their major contribution. That is the main point to which we at the Board of Trade must pay attention. If we can steer them, we certainly will. Many of them do not provide much employment and many do not require industrial premises.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths

I hope that other hon. Members will not mind if I point out that almost all the areas affected by this problem are areas where there is a wonderful provision of education. I worked at one time with colleagues who were in the Ministry of Education. I know that if we look, for example, at the proportion of places provided in grammar schools, we find these areas at the top of the list. We want not only balanced industry but balanced population in these areas, and we must get young men and young women trained in our own grammar schools and working in these areas.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. May I be permitted to hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying?

Mr. Griffiths

I said that we must bear in mind that we want a balanced population as well as balanced industry. The Minister says that he already has the power which we offer him. It has not been much used. Let us use it in the future. He also said something of vital importance when he admitted earlier that he realised that wherever these research establishments are located, they pull the industry after them. That is another reason why he should do everything within his power to steer them to these areas, because they will pull the other industries after them.

Mr. J. Rodgers

I said that there was a tendency to put productive units around research and development projects, and I therefore can give an assurance that where projects are steerable, we will steer them to the Development Areas. We have powers in the Bill and they need not be spelled out as they are in the Amendment. I deny the suggestion that we at the Board of Trade do not appreciate research and development; indeed we do, but it is only one of the criteria which we must take into account in granting an I.D.C. For that reason I must resist the Amendment.

Mr. Willis

The Minister says that by mentioning research and development we exclude other things which ought to be considered. We have already mentioned one factor—"appropriate employment". If his argument were sound, that would mean that we have excluded everything else. Surely by making this addition we extend rather than exclude. The hon. Member's argument, while relevant to many Amendments which are moved from time to time, does not apply in the context of this Clause.

Mr. T. Fraser

I could not understand the Parliamentary Secretary when he said the he could not accept the Amendment because it particularises too much. Once we have reached this Clause, the Amendment is in its proper context. The Clause sets out the considerations which the Board will have in mind when deciding whether to grant an industrial development certificate, and it ends: … 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. The Amendment seeks to insert the words on the Order Paper after the word "employment". The latter part of the subsection would then read: … the Board shall have particular regard to the need for providing appropriate employment and for providing research and development which would lead to employment in the localities mentioned in subsection (2) of section one of this Act. That does not particularise to the exclusion of any other consideration. The hon. Member has mentioned the effect which research and development have on employment in this country.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that in London and the South-East we have some 19 per cent. of the country's industrial workers and 28.8 per cent. of its research and development workers; and that, because of that, so many industrialists who apply for I.D.Cs. tell the President of the Board of Trade when he is inclined to refuse a certificate that they cannot afford to go elsewhere because all the research and development work on which their industry depends takes place in London and the South-East?

Perhaps I may give some figures at the opposite extreme. Looking at a table contained in the 1958 Report of the D.S.I.R.—the last one published—on this very subject, we find that in London and the South-East there is the greatest proportional excess of research and development workers over industrial workers of any part of Great Britain. In the Midlands the two are almost equated but, going beyond the Midlands, we suddenly find a movement in the opposite direction.

The further north one goes the smaller the proportion of research and development workers and the larger the proportion of industrial workers. So, when we get to Scotland, we have almost 10 per cent. of the industrial workers of Great Britain, but our share of research and development workers is only 2.7 per cent. It is because of that that a great many industrialists say that they are unable to accept the Board of Trade's advice to take their industries to Scotland. Those are important considerations.

It is true that in Scotland we have more university students in ratio to the population than has any other part, taking the country as a whole. It is also true that in recent years 60 per cent. of our Scottish science graduates have had to leave Scotland to find a job; 6 out of every 10 never find a job in Scotland. If we had more research and development work there, we could provide more work for our science graduates. That would provide the magnet to attract industry, and, at the end of the day, we would make a less heavy demand on the central Government for finance to provide employment in Scotland.

In that context, it is highly desirable that the Government should accept the Amendment. After all, by accepting it, all that the Parliamentary Secretary would do would be to undertake that is his own right hon. Friend, in considering an application for an I.D.C., would have regard to this matter. It would not necessarily be the final determining factor. The President of the Board of Trade, in making up his mind, would still have to weigh other considerations, but I think that he would regard this as being a factor of some importance.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that he understood that the complaint was that most of these people setting up these establishments wanted to be between Oxford, Cambridge and London. We recently made representations against the decision of the Atomic Energy Authority to build a new thermo-nuclear research establishment at Culham, in Berkshire. Originally, the Authority proposed to set this up at Winfrith Heath, in Dorset. We understand that the boffins said, "No, we want to be near our pals"—and they got their way.

The Government have now agreed that the research establishment shall be built in the most congested part of the country. This strip between London and the Midlands, where the great M.1 runs, is the most congested part of the country. This new establishment will provide 1,000 new jobs for highly skilled workers and will inevitably in the long run be a magnet attracting still more industries to that part of the country. Some of us said at that time that we thought that it should go north. I was with the deputation of Scottish Members which said that it should go to Scotland. I should have understood perfectly if my Welsh hon. Friends had said that it should go to Wales or if other hon. Members had said that it should go to Merseyside or the north-east.

It is nonsense to say that this cannot be done except in a congested part of the country. Research and development work is being done at Dounreay, in the most northerly tip of the island. This is not for the convenience of the boffins, but because the work being done there must be done on tidal water where there is a plentiful water supply and as far away from population as possible. That was the reason for deciding to take that research establishment right up to Dounreay. Therefore, we can persuade boffins to go to out-of-the-way and not easily accessible places. We do not ask that all these establishments should go to inaccessible places. We ask merely that they should be spread out a little more than at present and that at least the President of the Board of Trade in considering an application for an industrial development certificate should have regard to the provision of research and development, which would lead to further employment.

The Parliamentary Secretary should accept the Amendment. It does not tie the hands of his right hon. Friend in any way. If accepted, it would be an acknowledgment of the employment provided in those establishments and the effect that they have on employment generally. We in Scotland in recent years have had one new research establishment.

Mr. Frederick Peart (Workington)

Dounreay.

Mr. Fraser

We have had the Dounreay atomic energy reactor, but we have had also the National Engineering Laboratory.

Mr. Peart

I am glad to say that the main research station for the Atomic Energy Authority, which is fundamental to its development, is in my area, namely, Cumberland.

Mr. Fraser

I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend. He might learn from the Minister concerned that his justification for the project going to Culham was its proximity to where the main work is done at Harwell. That is a long way from Windscale. It is a dreadful justification. In the days of the Labour Government we thought that we were doing something to induce industry to go to difficult areas when we took the National Engineering Laboratory to East Kilbride.

We must spread research and development out a little. The Government can do much in this respect. Private industry provides much of its own research, but unfortunately almost all of it is in the south. Private industry provides precious little research in the north. There is only one private industry in Scotland which provides research services. Oddly enough, it is one which is going downhill. That is the jute industry. No other privately-owned industry in Scotland provides research.

I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to take account of our need and of the needs of other parts of the country and to say that research and development are matters to be taken into account when the President of the Board of Trade in future considers an application for an industrial development certificate.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Peart

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that the Government should accept the Amendment, and I shall not quibble about which area should have which research station. I agree that the more research establishments are distributed, the better. But I hope that we shall not use the argument which the Minister used. Indirectly, there is a danger. The Minister implied that most young scientists wished to concentrate their activities around Oxford and Cambridge. I reject that argument.

Many young scientists wish to be outside those centres. That is why I quoted a case in my own area where, under the old Distribution of Industry legislation, with the need to diversify industry, we got the atomic energy projects at Calder Hall and Windscale. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton that they are great centres of fundamental research, and, according to the latest pronouncements of the Atomic Energy Authority, most of the fundamental research work is to be done there.

I am certain that young scientists will be attracted to such centres. They are being attracted to them now, which is a good thing for an area which was formerly a distressed area. Most of the fundamental research into nuclear power is now done not at Oxford or Cambridge, but at Risley and Springfields and similar places. A study of those places will show that it is not true that scientists wish to flock to Oxford and Cambridge.

After all, there are great research centres in Scotland. There are great universities with great traditions in pure research. I have always defended Glasgow and Edinburgh Universities against the fashionable places in Oxford and Cambridge, and in Durham there is a great tradition of research, particularly in engineering on Tyneside.

If it is Government policy to have this distribution, young scientists can be attracted to the new centres. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment, which will help decentralisation and ease the concentration around London and other areas. Young scientists should be attracted to new areas, such as those in Cumberland, where new power techniques are being evolved.

Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)

I am not at all surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary should confess that scientists and research workers are, concentrating around Oxford, Cambridge, London and similar areas. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) rejects the argument that that is the case, I nevertheless feel that there was a great deal of truth in what the Parliamentary Secretary said.

I recently asked the Minister of Works how many establishments had been completed in Great Britain on behalf of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Atomic Energy Authority, arid other scientific organisations. I was told that about 300 establishments had been completed, at a total cost of £21 million, three of them in Scotland. representing only £270,000 worth of work. In other words, we have got 1 per cent. of that total expenditure. No wonder that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has had to say that Scotland is very weak in research establishments. I wonder whether he realises that we have only one research association in Scotland, for the jute industry. We should take the opportunity—and the Minister will if he accepts the Amendment—of directing, guiding or steering research establishments North of the Border. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has already referred to the Culham project of the Atomic Energy Authority and said that that could have been steered to Scotland.

In view of his own statement that research people and scientists wish to concentrate South of the Border, we must ask the Minister to take the opportunity now to accept this Amendment which has been justified beyond all doubt by the speeches made from this side of the House. I hope that he will say now that he intends to accept it

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

Most of us who have been here for any length of time have sorry memories of leaving the Chamber without having been called and tearing up notes for speeches which we were quite certain would have established our Parliamentary reputation had we only been able to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair. We, therefore, congratulate the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) on the opportunity which has been saved for him by the assiduity of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith).

We have had from the Parliamentary Secretary two explanations why the hon. Gentleman was not here when his name was called. I think that the hon. Gentleman himself heard one of them. We recognise that the hon. Gentleman, in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and certain of his own hon. Friends, placed the Amendment on the Notice Paper. There has been no supporter of the Amendment so far from the Government benches, but there have been two emphatic rejections of it by the Parliamentary Secretary.

One of the stories we heard was that the hon. Gentleman had been advised by the Parliamentary Secretary that he should try to make the speech on Third Reading. It is a well-known fact that one can mention on Third Reading only what is actually in the Bill. It would appear that the Parliamentary Secretary advised his hon. Friend not to speak on the Amendment but to speak on Third Reading and, at the same time, he was prepared to prevent this matter going into the Bill so that, when Third Reading came, the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire would be out of order if he attempted to mention it.

We have had a long and interesting debate. Various of my hon. Friends have spoken in favour of the Amendment. I hope that, if the Parliamentary Secretary still finds it impossible to accept the Amendment, we shall show our displeasure at that attitude by going into the Lobby. But we should very much like to hear what the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire, whose name appears at the head of the list against the Amendment on the Notice Paper, has to say before we pass from it.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean (Bute and North Ayrshire)

The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is a far greater expert than I shall ever be on Parliamentary procedure. I am, therefore, quite prepared to be warned by him that anything I could say on this subject on Third Reading might be out of order.

Having failed to be called in Committee, I do not want to miss my chance altogether, and, therefore, as this is a subject on which I feel extremely strongly, I am only too glad to speak now, lest I should be ruled out of order were I to try and discuss it on Third Reading.

I am in general agreement with much of what has been said by hon. Members opposite and, in particular, with what I thought were the very cogent remarks of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). I think that the need for increased research and development must be obvious to anyone, and I am glad that it has been recognised by the D.S.I.R's new five-year plan, which provides for a 70 per cent. increase in expenditure on research and development. The purpose of this Amendment, as it was tabled originally by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. de Ferranti), was, I think, to try to provide a link between this expanded programme of research and development and the idea which underlies the Bill—in other words, to take advantage of this expanded programme of research and development in order to bring new industries to parts of the country where they are most needed and where it is most necessary to stimulate the economy and provide increased employment.

Nowhere is there a greater need for new industries in general and for the diversification of industry in particular than in Scotland, and it is with the Scottish aspect of the problem that I am chiefly concerned. One thing about which I think everyone is agreed is that research and development brings industry in its train, particularly science-based industry—chemicals, oil, electronics, and so on—and that is exactly what we need in Scotland—projects with a high development potential which can be used to replace waning industries and in general to revive the economy where this is needed and also completely new industries which at present do not exist in Scotland and which will serve further to diversify the economy.

Such projects, particularly science-based industries, would undoubtedly help to utilise the many very great assets which we in Scotland possess. To my mind, the greatest of these assets is our output of men who possess special skills and special technical and scientific qualifications. The House has heard before, but I think it is worth repeating, that in Scotland one person in about 250 goes to university as opposed to one in 500 in England. There is, therefore, in Scotland a very plentiful supply of skill and brains.

The tragedy to my mind—and one hon. Member brought this out very well—is that we do not succeed in keeping them. In 1957, 64 per cent. of our science graduates and 66 per cent. of our engineering graduates left Scotland. In 1958 38 per cent. of our science graduates and 59 per cent. of our engineering graduates left Scotland. I have not the figures for 1959. Certainly the 1958 figures show an improvement which, let us hope, will continue. But it is still far too high a proportion.

9.15 p.m.

To illustrate what I mean, I should like to read a letter which I recently received from a young constituent, who states: Scotland has had a pitiable share of Government sponsored research and this is one reason why young Scottish scientists are forced to leave the country in their hundreds. To quote my own experience, of the 18 graduates who qualified at the same time as myself, 15 went to England to work and one went to Canada. Only one or two at most wanted to leave the country. I was only able to return later to Scotland by incurring some financial loss myself. That case is not untypical of the state of affairs in Scotland.

That would be a sad enough state of affairs if we did not need these men. The fact is that we need them badly. It is a case where the laws of supply and demand are not operating properly. We have already had some discussion about planning and Government intervention generally. I personally regard this as a case where Government intervention is called for. It is the Government's business in this case to try to make the laws of supply and demand operate as they should.

What we need most of all in Scotland is more science-based industry, more new industry and a more diversified industrial structure. The best way in which the Government can help to bring this about is by bringing more scientific research to Scotland. I wish that I had got my speech in before the hon. Member for Hamilton made his, but perhaps I might correct him. We have, I think, 9 per cent. rather than 10 per cent. of the total labour force and, as the hon. Member said, only 2.7 per cent. of research and development workers, which is nothing like the Goschen formula. Whether the figure is 9 or 10 per cent., 2.7 per cent. is still far too small a proportion.

In all this, we should, of course, realise that there is a limit to what the Government can do. They have neither unlimited powers nor unlimited funds. It is also true that private industry could do more than it does, although we should not underestimate what is in fact done by private firms. Nevertheless, there is still quite a lot that the Government can do.

Seventy per cent. of all research and development is financed by the Government. To the extent of 70 per cent., the Government therefore control its geographical distribution. It lies with the Government to say where the 70 per cent. will be directed. The whole purpose of the Bill is not to direct private industry—my right hon. Friend has made that clear—but to encourage private industry by the use of deterrents and inducements to go where it can do most good, in this instance to undertake more research and development in Scotland. Of the forty grants which are made throughout the country to research associations, only one grant—for the jute industry—has gone to Scotland. Clearly, that is not as much as we in Scotland have the right to expect.

Another thing that the Government can do is to bring to Scotland installations that are Government-owned or Government-controlled. It was a great disappointment to hon. Members on this side of the House, as well as to hon. Members opposite, that the new nuclear research centre was not sited in Scotland but, instead, was sent to Culham. Knowing as little as any of us do about these matters, one is bound, I suppose, to accept the argument that it had to be sited near Harwell and near Aldermaston. Obviously, when a scientific installation is established somewhere, it immediately becomes much simpler to bring the next one there, too. And the one after that. And so on, indefinitely until it becomes out of the question to site them anywhere else.

I hope that now that we have a Minister for Science he will use his powers to break what I consider is a thoroughly vicious circle, and that he will not allow himself to be blinded with science by his own boffins who are all too apt to hold up their hands in horror—and of course their wives even more so—at the idea of being sent anywhere outside the Home Counties, let alone anywhere as remote as Scotland.

That is a vicious circle which it ought to be quite easy to break once we get things going. I think that once we get our fair share of research and development a great many of these difficulties will very quickly disappear. I have met and talked to quite a lot of the boffins, if they will forgive me for calling them that, who are working at Hunterston, in my constituency, and they all seem perfectly happy—just as happy as, if not happier than, they would have been in the Home Counties. If the Government will give a lead, I have no doubt that private industry will very quickly follow suit and it will then become just as easy and popular to site such an establishment in Scotland as anywhere else.

If this could be done—and Dounreay is an example—it would mean that we should be able to offer far better opportunities to our own scientists and technicians in their own country where they want to be than it is at present possible to offer. It would also mean that we in Scotland would get our proper share of science-based industry and also the new industry which we need to give our economic structure diversification and the long-term stability which it so greatly needs. It could be done by a once-for-all injection of capital which would produce a permanent economic improvement. That is why I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment which stands in my name on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Ross

Will the hon. Gentleman make some efforts to answer the points made by the Parliamentary Secretary?

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)

I hoped that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) would answer the points made in variation of the narrative which we have had as to why he was not here when the Amendment was called. I am sure that the readers of the Largs and Millport Weekly News and the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald, who may be likely to read his speech, will be much more interested to know whether the hon. Baronet will honour his Amendment and stand by his sentiments with his vote on this matter. All the "Hear, hears" during his speech came entirely from this side of the Committee and none at all from his own side, and I hope that his constituents will know that as well.

He has enunciated exactly what is behind the Amendment and the case argued so far. What has he argued? He has argued that once we have achieved a fair share of research and development in these areas things will be well. Where does "once" begin? Do I take it that when the Amendment is passed, that is the beginning of "once"? Because the hon. Baronet said in answer to a comment that 1 per cent. of D.S.I.R.'s recent transfers in 1958 have gone to Scotland. That is nowhere near the Goschen Formula. One could go further, and say that because the total number of university students bears a certain proportion to the population we ought to get twice the Goschen Formula, or twice whatever proportion might be worked out on a population basis. That is nowhere near 1 per cent.

He has argued the case that the D.S.I.R. has announced that for the next quinquennial part of its programme it will have a 70 per cent. increase in funds. It does not, however, follow that we shall get a higher proportion or a higher ratio unless articles like this are written into Bills like this, making the actions of the Government match their professions. After all, if a 70 per cent. increase in the D.S.I.R.'s budget is voted, it follows that we shall have only a rise from 1 per cent. to 1.7 per cent, in an actual share of the research stations throughout the United Kingdom.

I view with great distress this assertion of the Parliamentary Secretary about the position of scientists, namely, that the community of scientists somehow or another all want to transfer to Oxford or Cambridge or London. This is nonsense. In the case of an institution of which I have personal and intimate knowledge, a very substantial research station in Scotland which made a transfer down to Portland, almost every senior scientist and every first-class technologist in that institution wanted to stay in Scotland, and I know of only three who wanted to go to Portland. The rest all dissented from the idea. They wished to stay where they were.

Indeed, I can remember that the late Walter Elliot, a very distinguished Member of this House, a former Member for Scotstoun and two Labour Members went to the Admiralty to argue this case about taking that research station from Greenock, on the grounds that we were deserting a very formidable and learned university, namely, the University of Glasgow, which had pioneered many of the achievements of natural philosophy in research, which had gone on since the station was erected there in 1910. It is a most remarkable thing that the station actually left not because it was a temporary war-time institution but because it had arrived there before the First World War.

It seems to me incredible that we should be willing to accept the professions of the Parliamentary Secretary who belongs to a Government who in the last few years have been willing to transfer formidable research stations from one part of the country where we have high unemployment to another part of the country where unemployment is overfull. It seems to me incredible. I do not think it is unreasonable for hon. Members on this side of the House to join reluctant hon. Members on the other side, who put their names to the Amendment but who probably now regret that very much, in insisting that we ought to have a declaration from the Government and written into this Bill that we should have consideration for research and development in those areas.

As I say, in my own constituency, ever since the Government were elected, the average unemployment rate has run at 7 per cent., and yet the best brains of the labour force were transferred only because of this action by the Government.

In his argument the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire said that the Government did not have unlimited facilities for achieving this. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has been good enough to argue the case in moderate tones, in the sense that this is not an Amendment imposing upon the Board an absolutely cast-iron condition which it must observe. He has argued the matter moderately, but the hon. Baronet has nevertheless emphasised that the Government have absolute, unquestioned control over where they put their own installations for research and development. Yet we have seen them actually taken away from a place where high unemployment has persisted.

I think that the hon. Baronet and his ho a. Friends and hon. Members on this side can at least say that we are not being unreasonable in asking that these words should be written into the Bill. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary—even if he does seem not to know very much about the transfer of these establishments to be entirely out of sympathy with the community of scientists in this country and to believe that they all want to go to Oxford, Cambridge or London—if he really wants to see the proper distribution of scientific amenities throughout the country, will accept the Amendment. I hope that, if he does not, we shall divide on the Amendment, because I am sure we disagree with him about this concept of concentrating in those areas.

9.30 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward

I certainly hope the Government will give way on the Amendment. I hope that there will be a Division if they do not give way. I feel that the whole credit of the Bill depends on the Government's willingness to meet this kind of situation. I shall not go into all the scientific details, but here is an opportunity of extending over the whole area some of the advantages of scientific and technical development. When so much of the power rests in the hands of the Government, I do not see why they should not be prepared to do what they are asking private industry to do. The Government have kept on saying that they cannot force industrialists to go to this or that part of the country and that they can only offer inducements. I say to the Government, "Here you can set them an example, and there is a great deal in the force of example."

I have accepted the Bill as being a Measure which follows in the tradition of trying to help employment in areas where it is difficult. At the same time, I am not as satisfied as all that that the Government are absolutely sold on doing the maximum that they can to make the stated policy operative. This is a matter of good faith. I cannot for the life of me see why the Government should not set the example. There have been a lot of jeers and comments about people not being interested in this matter on this side of the House. That is entirely wrong, but I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) said that this was all a matter for Scotland. It is not all a matter for Scotland. It is a matter for the North of England as well. We are coming to a stage where nuclear power is being developed for application to marine engineering. Oxford and Cambridge and parts of London are not connected with shipping and marine engineering and the application of nuclear power to marine engineering development, but the North of England is and we say to the Government that on this kind of provision depends whether we believe that they are acting in good faith towards employment and development in our part of the country. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give way, I shall be delighted to vote in the Opposition Lobby.

Mr. Lee

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, having heard a very powerful appeal to him from his hon. Friends the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) will reconsider the very reasonable approach and the reasonable words spoken to him in favour of accepting the Amendment. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is not seized of this serious point. We invite him to realise that we are now facing a situation in the North which is most serious for us all. We all know that the "bulge" of school-leavers is now rising very rapidly and that by 1962 there will be a vast increase in the number of school-leavers compared with 1956. In my constituency the number has risen to 85 per cent. above the 1956 level. Along with this we also know that a larger ratio of school leavers are now not going into the kind of employment which requires technical education. In other words, a larger ratio is going into work which can lead to a blind alley occupation.

In the areas to which I have referred we have the older industries. The Industrial Revolution took place in the North. We have there the heavy industry which now requires new techniques, new approaches, if we are to maintain our position in the competitive world which is now developing. I invite the hon. Gentleman to remember that, of all the great industrial nations in the world, Britain is the slowest in applying research to its productive industries. This is a vital matter. I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that in the North we have a large number of school leavers who do not feel that it is necessary for them to undertake technical training for research work because, when they have finished it, they cannot get jobs as technicians and technologists.

This is an artificial divorce. We see research confined in a large degree to the test-tube atmosphere of Oxford and Cambridge, divorced to a great extent from the great, heavy, basic industries of Britain which are concentrated largely in the North. I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that if this kind of thing goes on we shall speedily reach the point where it will be impossible for Britain to compete in world markets. These are most relevant points because in the new type of industrial production we shall need a far higher ratio of technologists and highly skilled men than we have needed at any other time in our industrial history. Yet it is at precisely this time that young people in the North are not being encouraged to take up technological studies because there is no scope for them when they leave the grammar schools and technical universities.

I hope then that the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is most relevant to ask the Government to give more facilities for research on the site of our great heavy industries. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will know as well as I do, because he was at the same firm, that there are some large organisations which are doing fine work in this respect, but it appears to me that the Government are not in any way encouraging our young people in the North to turn their minds and abilities to technological training, which would enable us to modernise our industries and so be able to compete with those of other nations.

For these reasons, I hope that even now the hon. Gentleman will listen to the words of wisdom he has heard from this side of the House as well as from his hon. Friends. It would not mean any loss of face to him if he said that, having heard the opinions expressed in all parts of the House, he will bow to those opinions and will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Jay

As the efforts of the Parliamentary Secretary to exclude the hon. Baronet—

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman needs the leave of the House—

Mr. Jay

I wish to ask a question, Sir.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman may be wishing to ask a question, but he still needs the leave of the House.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 208.

Division No. 33. AYES [9.40 p.m
Ainsley, William Herbison, Miss Margaret Rankin, John
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hill, J. (Midlothian) Rhodes, H.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Holman, Percy Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Awbery, Stan Houghton, Douglas Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bacon, Miss Alice Hoy, James H. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Ross, William
Beaney, Alan Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Short, Edward
Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.) Hunter, A. E. Skeffington, Arthur
Blackburn, F. Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Blyton, William Jones, Dan (Burnley) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Boardman, H. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Small, William
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) Kelley, Richard Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Boyden, James Lee, Frederick (Newton) Spriggs, Leslie
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Steele, Thomas
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Logan, David Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Loughlin, Charles Stonehouse, John
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stones, William
Callaghan, James McCann, John Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Corbet, Mrs. Freda McInnes, James Swain, Thomas
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) McKay, John (Wallsend) Sylvester, George
Cronin, John Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.) Symonds, J. B.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Manuel, A. C. Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Mapp, Charles Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Deer, George Marquard, Rt. Hon. H. A. Thornton, Ernest
de Freitas, Geoffrey Mason, Roy Timmons, John
Dempsey, James Mendelson, J. J. Wade, Donald
Diamond, John Millan, Bruce Wainwright, Edwin
Donnelly, Desmond Mitchison, G. R. Warbey, William
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter Moody, A. S. Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Morris, John Watkins, Tudor
Fernyhough, E. Neal, Harold Whitlock, William
Fitch, Alan Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Wilkins, W. A.
Fletcher, Eric Oram, A. E. Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Parker, John (Dagenham) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd Pavitt, Laurence Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Gourlay, Harry Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Greenwood, Anthony Peart, Frederick Winterbottom, R. E.
Grey, Charles Pentland, Norman Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Plummer, Sir Leslie Woof, Robert
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Popplewell, Ernest Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Hart, Mrs. Judith Probert, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hayman, F. H. Proctor, W. T. Mr. Howell and Mr. Lawson.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Duncan, Sir James
Aitken, W. T. Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Elliott, R. W.
Allason, James Chataway, Christopher Emery, Peter
Arbuthnot, John Chichester-Clark, R. Errington, Sir Eric
Atkins, Humphrey Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Erroll, F. J.
Balniel, Lord Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Farey-Jones, F. W.
Barlow, Sir John Cleaver, Leonard Farr, John
Barter, John Cole, Norman Fell, Anthony
Batsford, Brian Collard, Richard Finlay, Graeme
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Cooke, Robert Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bearnish, Col. Tufton Cooper-Key, Sir Edmund Freeth, Denzil
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Gammons, Lady
Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.) Cordle, John Gibson-Watt, David
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Corfield, F. V. Godber, J. B.
Berkeley, Humphry Costain, A. P. Goodhart, Philip
Bingham, R. M. Coulson, J. M. Goodhew, Victor
Bishop, F. P. Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Gower, Raymond
Black, Sir Cyril Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Bossom, Clive Crowder, F. P. Green, Alan
Bourne-Arton, A. Curran, Charles Gresham Cooke, R.
Box, Donald Currie, G. B. H. Grimston, Sir Robert
Boyle, Sir Edward Deedes, W. F. Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Braine, Bernard de Ferranti, Basil Gurden, Harold
Brewis, John Digby, Simon Wingfield Hall, John (Wycombe)
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M. Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Bullard, Denys Drayson, G. B. Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Roots, William
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward Maddan, Martin Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Maginnis, John E. Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James Markham, Major Sir Frank Russell, Ronald
Hendry, A. Forbes Marlowe, Anthony Scott-Hopkins, James
Hiley, Joseph Marshall, Douglas Seymour, Leslie
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Marten, Neil Sharples, Richard
Hocking, Philip N. Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Shepherd, William
Holland, Philip Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Skeet, T. H. H.
Hollingworth, John Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald Smithers, Peter
Hopkins, Alan Mawby, Ray Stodart, J. A.
Hornby, R. P. Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia Mills, Stratton Storey, Sir Samuel
Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Montgomery, Fergus Studholme, Sir Henry
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Morgan, William Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Hughes-Young, Michael Morrison, John Tapsell, Peter
Hurd, Sir Anthony Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Teeling, William
Hutchison, Michael Clark Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Temple, John M.
Iremonger, T. L. Noble, Michael Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Jackson, John Nugent, Sir Richard Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
James, David Orr-Ewing, C. Ian Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Osborne, Cyril (Louth) Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Page, Graham Turner, Colin
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Partridge, E. Vane, W. M. F.
Kershaw, Anthony Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Kimball, Marcus Peel, John Vickers, Miss Joan
Kirk, Peter Percival, Ian Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Kitson, Timothy Pike, Miss Mervyn Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Leavey, J. A. Pott, Percivall Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Leburn, Gilmour Powell, J. Enoch Watts, James
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Price, David (Eastleigh) Webster, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Lilley, F. J. P. Prior, J. M. L. Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Linstead, Sir Hugh Proudfoot, Wilfred Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Litchfield, Capt. John Ramsden, James Wise, Alfred
Longbottom, Charles Rawlinson, Peter Woodhouse, C. M.
Loveys, Walter H. Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Woodnutt, Mark
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Rees, Hugh Woollam, John
MacArthur, Ian Rees-Davies, W. R. Worsley, Marcus
McLaren, Martin Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Yates, William (The Wrekin)
McLaughlin. Mrs. Patricia Rippon, Geoffrey
McMaster, Stanley Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Whitelaw.

Amendment made: In page 12, line 8, leave out from "in" to end of line 9 and insert "development districts".—[Mr. Maudling.]