Ford Motor Company (Industrial Development Certificate) (Hansard, 10 May 1960)

§ 22. Mr. T. Fraser
asked the President of the Board of Trade why, having regard to the provisions of Section 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as modified by Part II of the Local Employment Act, 1960, he has granted an industrial development certificate to the Ford Motor Company for a new tractor assembly plant at Basildon, Essex, costing £10 million.

§ 27 and 28. Mr. W. Hamilton
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why he had no consultations with the Development Corporation of Glenrothes, Fife, before sanctioning the Ford development in Basildon;
(2) what representations he made to the Ford Motor Car Company to induce it to undertake its proposed expansion in one of the Scottish new towns.

§ 30. Mr. Bence
asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with the corporation of the new town of Cumbernauld, Dunbartonshire, 185 before deciding to grant an industrial development certificate to the Ford Motor Company to build a £10 million factory in the new town of Basildon, Essex.

§ 34. Mr. Hannan
asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent, before deciding to permit the building by the Ford Motor Company of a new £10 million tractor factory at Basildon, Essex, he first consulted with the Minister of Labour on the sources from which it was proposed to attract the additional labour likely to be required to man the new factory at Basildon and the extended works at Dagenham.

§ 36. Mr. Lawson
asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland before making his decision to grant an industrial development certificate for the construction by the Ford Motor Company of a £10 million tractor factory at Basildon in Essex.

§ 37. Mrs. Hart
asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with the corporation of the new town of East Kilbride in Lanarkshire before deciding to grant an industrial development certificate to the Ford Motor Company to build a £10 million tractor factory in the new town of Basildon in Essex.

§ 39. Mr. McInnes
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will, in view of the abnormal unemployment in Scotland, indicate the circumstances that led him to grant an industrial development certificate to the Ford Motor Company for a new tractor factory at Basildon.

§ 53. Dr. Dickson Mabon
asked the President of the Board of Trade which sites were drawn to the attention of the Ford Motor Company when consideration was being given by the firm to the building of its proposed £10 million tractor plant.

§ 54. Mr. Small
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of new jobs likely to be created at the Ford Motor works in Dagenham as a result of the extensions and developments to be carried through at those works in consequence of the company's concentration of tractor production at Basildon.

§ 55. Mr. Gourlay
asked the President of the Board of Trade the estimated number of persons likely to be employed at the new £10 million tractor factory to be erected by the Ford Motor Company at Basildon in Essex.

§ Mr. J. Rodgers
With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 22, 27, 28, 30, 34, 36, 37—[Interruption.]—39, 53, 54, and 55 together.

§ Mr. Speaker
There was so much noise that I could not hear the list of further Questions which the Minister enumerated. I ask the House to keep order.

§ Mr. Rodgers
The Questions 1 propose to answer together are Nos. 22, 27, 28, 30, 34, 36, 37, 39, 53, 54, and 55.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
On a point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary, like his right hon. Friend a week ago, said, "With permission", but is it not a contempt of this House and of hon. Members to attempt to give one Answer to a series of Questions which raise very different matters? It seems to us that it will be quite impossible to get proper information in reply to these Questions if only one Answer is given. Could not the Parliamentary Secretary be asked to answer each Question individually?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member was addressing me on a point of order, but I am afraid that the position is exactly the same as it was when I ruled on it on the last Scottish Questions day. No circumstance, as far as I know, has changed.

§ Mr. Lawson
On a point of order. These Questions cover a very wide range of subject matter. May I ask if you could rule that they should be taken at the end of Questions and that a special statement should be made on what in fact is a very large subject, so that we may have an opportunity much more fully to get answers to our varied Questions on this subject?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member can ask me with great courtesy to do that, but he knows I have no power to do anything of the kind.

§ Miss Herbison
Further to that point of order. What redress have we as Members of this House when a Minister informs us—

§ Mr. Hirst
Raise it in the Scottish Grand Committee.

§ Mr. Speaker
I should prefer it if hon. Members would address me one at a time.

§ Miss Herbison
In spite of foolish protests by hon. Members opposite who have no knowledge of the severity of unemployment in our country, I again ask what redress have we as ordinary Members of this House when a Minister proposes to answer a great many Questions together, Questions which raise very different points?

§ Mr. Speaker
I think the hon. Lady will remember that I was concerned about this and went into it on a parallel occasion. I am afraid the true answer, assuming that the Minister has prepared one Answer to all the Questions, is that if the Answer does not properly cover all the points in the several Questions then the unanswered parts should be subject to further questioning by hon. Members.

§ Mr. Hamilton
May I put a rather different, but, I think, related point? If you look at the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, you will see that the next Question is put by an hon. Member from the North-East. If the Minister is allowed to answer generally a number of Questions, some of which in normal circumstances would not be reached, that will rule out the possibility of Questions relating to Durham being asked by hon. Members who are equally concerned with the unemployment problem. That could lead to some abuse on the part of Ministers. Could you think about some possible safeguards in the interests of hon. Members who put down Questions with a great prospect in ordinary circumstances of getting them answered orally?

§ Mr. Speaker
I appreciate the point. If I saw anything which looked like an abuse, I should feel concerned to consider it. I hope I may, with courtesy, point out that the best way of getting Questions answered is not to have a repetition of Rulings I made a short time ago on this point.

§ Mr. Manuel
I wonder if you could consider one aspect of this matter? If we are to have a recurrence of the situation in which ten or a dozen Questions are answered by a Minister in this way, will it not become farcical? What is the use of having an Order Paper? Would it not be better to have merely one Question with ten or a dozen names attached to it? Will you consider that with a view to protecting the rights of hon. Members?

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall certainly protect hon. Members' rights if I conceive that they are being in any way abused, in accordance with the practice of the House, but I do not think that hon. Members' rights are being abused.

§ Mr. Hector Hughes
If the convenience of the House is to be considered —and it is that more than the wish of the Minister to answer a number of Questions together that we should consider—would it not be more convenieat when a Minister decides to take this course to answer all these Questions at the end of Question Time, so that there may be an opportunity for all the hon. Members who have put down the relevant Questions to put supplementary questions without impeding those hon. Members who have Questions later in the list?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think the hon. and learned Member was here—I cannot remember—when I pointed out last time that the practical alternative when refusing the Minister permission would be that he should repeat the same Answer over and over again. I really do not think that would help very much.

§ Mr. C. Osborne
Have we poor English Members no rights at all? In view of the fact that there are at least four times more English than Scottish Members, could you not protect the point of view and right of English Members who want to hear the Prime Minister?

§ Mr. Speaker
My view is that the interests of all hon. Members would best be protected if we ceased to have further points of order.

§ Mr. Hoy
I do not wish to raise a point of order—[Interruption.]—I shall not take that from the hon. Member opposite—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member must address his remarks to the Chair.

§ Mr. Hoy
I was replying to a remark from the other side of the House, but I wish to remind the Chair that we are entitled to protection from the impertinent remarks of a young fellow on the other side of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
I did not hear any remark. No doubt it was loud enough, but I was wondering what the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) was about to ask.

§ Mr. Hoy
I wished to ask a simple question to make certain whether the Parliamentary Secretary included Question No. 33 in the list.

§ Mr. Rodgers
Question No. 33 was not included; it gets a separate Answer.

§ Mr. Short
As a "Sudeten Scot", may I put a further point? You said, Mr. Speaker, that if these Questions were not answered together the Minister would have to repeat the same Answer. May I point out that the only common factor in these Questions is that they mention the Ford Motor Company, but they deal with entirely different points. Each Question, so far as I can see, deals with a completely different point and there would be no question of the Minister having to repeat the same Answer.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is my fault for venturing to use some phrase to try to get on, but I think we had better hear the Answer. If it is incomplete and unsatisfactory, hon. Members can deal with it in due course.

§ Mr. Rodgers
An industrial development certificate has not yet been issued as negotiations between the Ford Motor Company and the Board of Trade have not yet been completed.
Subject to their satisfactory conclusion, my right hon. Friend intends to grant a certificate in order to enable Ford's to secure a substantial increase in production of both cars and tractors without any permanent increase in the labour force at present employed in the Dagenham-Basildon area. He also has in mind that all the expansion of the company's output that does require an increase over the present labour force will be concentrated in the Merseyside area.
190 My right hon. Friend's proposed action is thus fully consistent with the Government's general policy on location of industry, which is to secure increases in production in the congested areas where this can be done without increases in the labour force, and to steer expansion schemes requiring additional labour to areas of high unemployment whenever this is practicable.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House whether the Ford Motor Company has made a similar promise in the past, when an I.D.C. has been granted, that the labour force would not be increased? Will he tell us what has been the change in the labour force since the I.D.C. was granted on an earlier occasion? Will he tell the House whether, in compiling his increase of 25,000 jobs in Scotland over the next five years, he did not add the figure for the number of workers expected to be employed in other new establishments, whereas here he is claiming that the number of workers to be employed in 1 million additional square feet of factory space will not lead to an increase in employment in the area? Will he tell us how he reconciles those two statements? Is it not a fact that under Section 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act the President of the Board of Trade is obliged to take into account the better distribution of the industry of the country as a whole before he issues an industrial development certificate? Does not the issue of a certificate here run counter to all that was said by the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend during the passage of the Local Employment Act?

§ Mr. Rodgers
In answer to the first part of the question, I 'have no knowledge that any previous figures quoted by the Ford Motor Company have proved to be inaccurate. I would point out that the increase in employment at Basildon will be offset by a similar reduction in employment at Dagenham, and there should therefore be no overall increase in the district.

§ Mr. Hamilton
What remedies lie in the hands of the Department if, consequent to the granting of the I.D.C. on the basis that there will be no increase in the numbers employed, there is in fact an increase in the numbers 191 employed? Is there any machinery which the hon. Member can use to safeguard the interests of such places as Scotland?

§ Mr. Rodgers
There may be a temporary increase during the transitional period, but it is expected to stabilise at the present figure in that area. The only sanction we have, if the Ford Motor Company does not keep its promise, is to take account of that when it applies for future I.D.C.s.

§ Mr. Bence
I understand from the hon. Member's statement that the I.D.C. has not been issued. He has not answered my Question, No. 30. I asked whether he had consulted the Cumbernauld new town and the boards before issuing an I.D.C. and had pointed out to the Ford Motor Company the desirability of establishing new industries in the new town of Cumbernauld. Did the President of the Board of Trade consult the Cumbernauld new town when he was considering industrial expansion?

§ Mr. Rodgers
We cannot consult every local authority in the country or every new town before granting I.D.Cs. The decision to approve the Ford package plan, if I may call it that, as a whole was taken by Her Majesty's Government as a whole, and the President of the Board of Trade acted in concert with his colleagues. There is, therefore, no question of his having overlooked the interests of Scotland, of not having acted in concert with the Minister of Labour or of not having taken into consideration the views of the Minister of Transport.

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Hannan.

§ Mr. Hannan
Question No. 34.

§ Mr. Speaker
No. I was calling the hon. Member to ask a supplementary question.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Mitchison
On a point of order. Before you come to the next Question, Mr. Speaker, may I put it to you that you indicated that you might consider the practice of answering a large number of Questions together and the possibility of its being abused in certain circumstances? May I respectfully 192 suggest that it would be of help to the House as a whole if you would consider the point and indicate on what grounds you considered that to be the case?

§ Mr. Speaker
I would rather not have a shot at it now—

§ Mr. Mitchison
Not now.

§ Mr. Speaker
—because there might be a large number of hypothetical circumstances. I was seeking to allow supplementary questions to be asked by those hon. Members whose Questions were comprised in this Answer.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
May I make a point of order before I ask a supplementary question? My Question has not been answered, as the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has not been answered, either. If you look at the Order Paper more closely, Mr. Speaker, you will see that a number of Questions which have apparently been included in this comprehensive embrace have in fact not specifically been answered. Therefore, I am merely rising, in being called to put a supplementary question, to ask my Question. Surely it is very much against the interests of the House that I should have to rise to ask the same thing twice.

§ Mr. Rodgers
In the discussions which my right hon. Friend and I had with the Ford Motor Company, obviously we discussed all the various attractions of the sites available in all the development districts.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
Which sites?

§ Mr. Lawson
We do not find these answers of any help. May I put this question to the Parliamentary Secretary? How is it that if the B.M.C., which is to build a tractor factory in the Lothians to cost £8 million, is to provide 6,500 jobs, the factory to be built at Basildon to cost £10 million is not to provide any additional jobs at all?

§ Mr. Rodgers
There is a redeployment of resources within the present labour force.

§ Mrs. Hart
In view of the doubts expressed on this side of the House, will the Minister tell us how it is possible 193 for such a large amount of money as is to be spent on the factory to provide no additional jobs? Will he consider giving us a full account within a very short period of the method by which the Ford Motor Company proposes to make this possible without further employment? In addition, since he has not answered my Question, either, about consultation with the new town of East Kilbride, may I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the regional offices of the Board of Trade are fully aware of the immense difficulties of the new towns in Scotland, with their large populations of young people and with little prospect of finding employment for them? Is he satisfied that the attention of industrialists is being adequately drawn to their needs?

§ Mr. Rodgers
I am perfectly satisfied that the Controller for Scotland is well aware of all the factors which the hon. Lady has brought to my attention. I am afraid that the details of the Ford scheme must remain in the possession of the Ford Company. I cannot divulge them

§ Mr. Gourlay
With respect, the Minis-has not answered my Question, No. 55, either. It appears that he has tried to evade it. In his general Answer he said that the number of new jobs to be created at Basildon would be offset by the number of redundancies at Dagenham. He must, therefore, know how many new jobs are to be created and can therefore answer the Question.

§ Mr. Rodgers
I am afraid that I am not able to divulge that figure, although I know it

§ Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley
Is not my hon. Friend in error in talking about the Dagenham-Basildon area, since these two places are about twelve miles apart and Basildon by its very nature is a new town with a green belt around it? Is he not in error in talking as though they were the same area?

§ Mr. Bence
On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The interests of all hon. Members depend on making progress and not noises instead.

§ Mr. Bence
On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the collectivised Answer to a number of individual questions, I beg to give notice that I shall take the first opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
Further to that point of order. I am sure that in a fair-minded way, quite apart from the context and the argument about all these Questions, you will recognise, at least on reflection, that there has been an abuse by the Minister of this comprehensive technique. I submit, at least for your consideration as a matter of order, that this should be looked into a little further with the interests of hon. Members such as myself in mind. After having tabled Questions in good faith, we are still without the answers to our specific Questions because of the comprehensive nature of the answering.

§ Mr. Speaker
I follow the point which the hon. Member puts to me, but I ruled about the substance of this quite a short time ago. I think that it was the last day on which Scottish Questions were taken.

§ Mr. Hannan
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When Question No. 22 was being answered with other Questions, you were heard to call my name specially in connection with it. On going to the Table, I noticed that Question No. 34 was included with the other Questions that were answered. May I now be permitted to ask Question 34?

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes—for a curious reason. I thought the hon. Gentleman was rising to ask a supplementary question, and did, in fact, call him. He lost the opportunity because he did not understand, and I think that it is fair to allow him to ask it now. Mr. Hannan.

§ Mr. Hannan
Question 34—

§ Mr. Speaker
No, I am afraid that we shall get this wrong unless the hon. Gentleman conforms. He is really asking a supplementary question in respect of Question No. 34.

§ Mr. Hannan
Then did the Minister have consultations with the Minister of Labour? If he did, to what extent did he have those consultations, and with 195 what areas from which labour might be obtained were those consultations concerned?

§ Mr. Rodgers
As I explained in answer to another supplementary question, the decision to approve the Ford plan as a whole was taken by Her Majesty's Government as a whole, and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is a prominent member of the Government.

§ 32. Miss Herbison
asked the President of the Board of Trade the dates when industrial development certificates to build the proposed £10 million Ford tractor factory at Basildon, Essex, were applied for and granted.

§ Mr. J. Rodgers
The I.D.C. for the new factory at Basildon was applied for on 21st April, 1960, but, as I have explained, it has not yet been issued. The company was informed when the Ford plans for Merseyside were announced that the Government approved of its development projects as a whole.

§ Miss Herbison
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that all the promises made during the General Election on new legislation and on a much stricter use of industrial development certificates now appear to Scottish people as just a great deal of eyewash? Is he not aware that if an industrial development certificate had been refused on a project such as this and the claims of Scotland had been put forcibly, that would indeed have shown to the people that perhaps there was some integrity in this Government? Is he aware that the people are now completely disillusioned and know that there was nothing in those election promises?

§ Mr. Rodgers
I think that the vehemence of Scottish Members has perhaps led us to forget what the Ford Motor Company is contributing in another development district. On Merseyside it is creating 8,500 new jobs in 1965. If all goes well, that is expected to increase to over 20,000 jobs there in 10 to 15 years. That is a very large contribution in that area. As for the country thinking our policy of steering industry is eyewash, they prefer our policy to the policy of nationalisation of the party opposite.