HC Deb 03 March 1960 vol 618 cc1407-10
25. Mr. Short

asked the President of the Board of Trade what prior information was given to the British Motor Corporation or Ford's that the two sites available to them in the North East would not be included in the list of development districts.

Mr. J. Rodgers

None, Sir. Several sites were shown to motor car firms which are within travel-to-work distance of development districts.

Mr. Short

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend told one of my hon. Friends last Thursday that negotiations with the motor-car firms were carried on in the knowledge that the Local Employment Bill proposed new inducements? How could those negotiations be carried on unless the motor-car firms were told which areas would attract the inducements? By excluding Northern Tyneside from the list, did not the Minister exclude that area from consideration by the motor-car firms? Why does not he stop shedding crocodile tears about the North East and really try to help us?

Mr. Rodgers

That supplementary question was not very helpful. It did not require a great deal of intelligence on the part of the motor-car firms to assess that the areas which would be included in the Bill would include South Wales, Merseyside, north-east England, and Scotland. Obviously, we were talking about new inducements in the Bill, but not the areas listed. Several of the areas in the North East, although not designated development districts, are within travel-to-work distance of development districts.

I should like to correct one thing in the Question. The hon. Member refers to two sites. Many more sites were shown to Vauxhall's and Ford's when their representatives were there. I will not list them all, but they included 400 acres at Usworth Station, 270 acres at Harraton, 120 acres at West Chirton, and several sites of 100 acres.

32. Mr. A. J. Irvine

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement upon discussions taking place between his Department and the Ford Motor Company with reference to the company's plans to build a car factory on Merseyside.

16. Mr. Logan

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement upon the consultations between his department and the Ford Motor Company regarding the establishment of a manufacturing plant on Merseyside.

Mr. J. Rodgers

As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) on 1st March, he is still discussing with the Ford Motor Company the terms of Government financial assistance for their Merseyside project, but he informed the company that Her Majesty's Government could not reserve Merseyside for one particular firm. The company has asked for and received the necessary industrial development certificates.

Mr. Irvine

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that Merseyside is an ideal location for any industry which requires imported materials and which also desires economical exporting facilities? At the same time, it is an area where the level of unemployment requires constant watching. When these two factors are present in an area, does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is the duty of his Department to give every encouragement to the location of industry there and to overcome any difficulties which may occur in the course of negotiations with a company like the Ford Company?

Mr. Rodgers

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that Merseyside is an ideal area for the location of part of the motor-car industry. It has 20,000 unemployed and it needs an extra 3,500 jobs every year to keep pace with the birthrate. We believe, therefore, that there is no danger of a labour shortage developing from the projects that have already been announced.

Mr. H. Wilson

Would the Parliamentary Secretary, in his discussions with Ford's, take it from us on both sides of the House who know both north and south Merseyside intimately that the line that the Board of Trade has taken is right, and that the distance between north and south Merseyside—particularly when one considers the travelling difficulties and the necessity for crossing the water and so on—means that the Vauxhall project will not compete with Ford's in the matter of labour supply to any significant extent?

Mr. Rodgers

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his observations. We entirely agree with him.

Mr. Edelman

I support any action which the Government take to reduce unemployment, but may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has considered the possibility that the Government might be encouraging the motor industry to expand unduly in view of the expansion schemes of some of the competing countries which might ultimately be detrimental to the existing industries?

Mr. Rodgers

The size of the development is conditioned by the thinking of the motor industry and not by Her Majesty's Government.

42. Mr. Chetwynd

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on the present expansion plans of the motor industry.

Mr. J. Rodgers

Several of the major companies have within the last month publicly announced their plans for new development, including development in South Wales, Merseyside and Scotland.

Mr. Chetwynd

Can the Minister say whether all the firms which have been wishing to expand have now made a decision as to where they are going? If so, can he say why the one area left out has been the North East Coast, where we have a very grave problem? What steps is he taking to try to induce the motor-car people—who fear moving to an area where there is overcrowding—to go to the North East now?

Mr. Rodgers

Practically all the motorcar firms have announced their development projects. Rootes have still to clarify theirs, and Pressed Steel, which is connected with the industry, has not yet announced its expansion plans. The last of the others—Rover's—was announced today. The Board of Trade has done its best to try to attract some of these firms to the North East, but the decision whether or not to go there was entirely based on their own business judgment.