HC Deb 25 June 1964 vol 697 cc763-76

10.11 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson (Dundee, East)

I beg to move, in page 10, line 21, to leave out from "and" to the end of line 29 and to insert: may be continued in force thereafter under the following provisions of this section. (2) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that this section shall continue for such further period from the end of 1969 as may be specified in the order, being a period not exceeding five years, and from time to time extend the period for which this section continues in force for further periods not exceeding five years. A draft of an Order under this section shall not be submitted to Her Majesty in Council unless it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament". I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly at this time of night on a matter which has been already thoroughly argued both on Second Reading and in Committee, but I want to press the Government to accept the Amendment. In Clause 16, there is provision for the continuance of certain of the emergency laws, apart from those being repealed by the Bill It is laid down that although those laws might expire after a certain time, they can be continued by an affirmative Resolution of the House. What I ask the Government to consider is why, if they allow that procedure to apply to certain emergency laws, they have not so far proposed to do so in the case of Government jute control.

Government jute control is absolutely essential to the employment of about 12,000 out of the 17,000 people in the jute industry in the city which my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) and I represent. It has operated for nearly 20 peace-time years. During this period, there have been thorough efforts by successive Governments to bring new industry to Dundee to diversify employment there and to reduce the city's dependence on jute. I am bound to say that the success of these attempts was much greater during the Labour Governments immediately after the war than during the years since.

I am thinking in terms of bringing new growth points into the city. Of course, I welcome the expansion of employment by firms already in the city and I give due credit to the Government for that, but what is important is the bringing in of new growth points of employment, and these have been very few and far between during the 12 years of the present Conservative Government.

On present evidence, Dundee will need jute control to protect employment in the city for longer than the period of five years laid down in the Bill. The Government's position is that jute control, with all it means in terms of employment for our constituents, is to end in 1969. We believe that there should be at least a provision that Government jute control could be continued by an affirmative Resolution of the House for the further period if it is proved, as we believe it will be, to be necessary in the interests of full employment in Dundee. Those are the reasons for the Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

Before the Minister of State, Board of Trade spreads further alarm and despondency in Dundee, I should like to reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson).

It is true that we had a good deal of discussion on a similar Amendment in Committee upstairs, but a few days have elapsed since then, and I hope that the Government have been able to reconsider the matter. I said upstairs that it was a great pity that the House was called on to judge a matter which affected almost one city alone, the trade and industry of Dundee, and that it was difficult for us to judge the full consequences of the possible withdrawal of this protection at the end of 1969. Without the assurance which we sought that the various interests concerned were satisfied about this, we felt that it was regrettable that the Government should propose to include in a Bill of this kind a Clause of such profound importance to one single city in the United Kingdom.

The Amendment is perfectly reasonable. It merely seeks to provide in the Bill for the opportunity for an extension beyond 1969 of this protection if circumstances then justify it. For this purpose we have copied into the Amendment the provisions of Clause 16 with regard to the extension of certain controls by Her Majesty by Order in Council, and that is the procedure which we suggest could be used in this connection, too. I emphasise again that there is nothing in the Amendment which says that there shall be an extension beyond 1969. It is permissive. It is only if circumstances justify it that the Order in Council will be made.

As it stands, this is really an ultimatum to Dundee to diversify its trade and to adjust itself to the withdrawal of this protection in five years from now, and that if it fails to do so it will be at its own peril and to its disadvantage. This is an unfair ultimatum to deliver to the City of Dundee, with no assurance that it is possible within that time for the desirable and necessary diversification of industry to be carried to the point needful to put Dundee on a better and more satisfactory industrial balance.

I cannot see why the Government are doing this. Why are they doing it? What is the impulse behind it? Is it doctrinal? Do they want to get rid of this form of protection at all costs and get rid of it just before a General Election in case their successors continue it? What is the purpose of doing this in this way at the moment?

During the Committee stage some of us challenged the Minister of State to give us the assurance, if he could, that the local authority, the Chamber of Trade, the trade unions and others interested in the economic welfare and health of the City of Dundee did not view this proposal with anxiety. No such assurance was given, and unless the Economic Secretary has assurances to give tonight we are bound to say that we regard this as a wanton act, and the abandonment of a protection which Dundee may need in a few years to come, as it needs it now.

As recently as 1959 this protection, which stemmed from earlier legislation, was deliberately put into the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act, and no suggestion was then made that the possibility of its discontinuance was in sight. It was put into that Act without any proviso regarding termination, and there seems to be no reason for abandoning this protection at this moment.

The hour is late, and I know that hon. Members want to get home, but we cannot allow this point to pass casually. It is something to which my hon. Friends and I attach great importance. I sincerely hope that the Economic Secretary will have something conciliatory to say. If he will forgive me for saying so, we will take his compliments as read on this occasion. We will manage for a few moments without his customary praise for the moderation with which we have put our case. We want him to talk business and get down to the issue, and to do so in a few, simple words. We do not want to be bewitched by his courtesy and his blandness of manner. We want him to speak to us as man to man and tell us why he is doing this.

The hon. Gentleman should tell us why he cannot extend this protection. What harm would it do? Would it not reassure Dundee? Are the Government not being just contrary and awkward and unreasonable in persisting in their rejection of the Amendment?

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward du Cann)

Whether the Economic Secretary will or will not satisfy the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), I cannot say, but the Minister of State will certainly do his best to do so.

Before I discuss the Amendment perhaps I may refer to the points which have been raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) and the hon. Member for Sowerby. In Committee, the hon. Member for Sowerby said that we were living in a time of change. He spoke about change as it affected Dundee. I know that the hon. Member for Dundee, East also had this point in mind. Our view is that the authorities in Dundee are confidently adapting and adjusting to change and to the challenge of modern Britain. We are all at one in wanting to see a prosperous city.

Diversification has been referred to. Much has been done and is being done to diversify the life of this industrial city. I do not care whether the Labour Government, immediately after the war, or the present Conservative Government, have been responsible for the job; what matters is that it should have been done in the interests of the people of Dundee.

When we were last discussing the matter we talked about the unemployment figures for May, which then stood at a total of 2,582—an unemployment rate of 2.7 per cent., which, I ought to point out, is below the late Mr. Gaitskell's definition of full employment, although our view is that the figure is still too high. We are determined to see it come down, and we shall work to that end with the authorities, hon. Members who represent Dundee, and the people of Dundee.

New figures are to be published in a day or so. I am not in a position to give them to the House tonight, except in general terms, but we are pleased to see from the figures issued today that for Scotland as a whole the unemployment rate is down from 3.6 per cent. to 3.2. My information is that the unemployment figure for Dundee, which was nearly 2,600, is likely to be below 2,500 on this month's count. That is encouraging and satisfactory, but we want to see it come down still further.

But that is not all. On the question of diversification, there are between 1,800 and 2,000 jobs in prospect. I think that the House will be aware of that. Hon. Members will also be aware of certain other projects. In particular, there is the Pergamon Press project, and I should like to say to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) that it would not be correct to say that the Board of Trade played no part in introducing the Pergamon Press and the head of the company to Dundee. I have checked the record, following the discussions during the Committee stage, and we feel it right to say that we did play some part in that. But credit is not the point, the point is that the job has been done.

Mr. Doig

Is the Minister aware that the proprietor of this firm, Mr. Maxwell, said that the list of possible places in which to start the business that he got from the Board of Trade did not include Dundee?

Mr. du Cann

I am aware of that. I have had that fact particularly looked at and I am unable to trace his ever having had a list from the Board of Trade. I do not say that he did not have it; I say only that I am unable to trace the records of his having had a list. I have a full record of the conversations and I am aware of a particular date, about three years ago, when Dundee was first mentioned to him as a town by one of our regional development officers. However, I do not think this is the point. The point is that it seems, from the latest information that we have, that this firm is likely to go there and that would mean a total of about 3,000 jobs in the pipeline.

I am aware of another project, but I am not in a position to go into any details at the moment. The House will appreciate the confidentiality of these negotiations with individual firms. In sum, on the subject of diversification, the introducing of other industries and the expansion of new industries, the total estimate of jobs in prospect, including the Pergamon Press project, is about 3,000, at a minimum count, which is substantially over the figure of unemployment of 2,500 which I have given.

Mr. G. M. Thomson

We are very glad to hear the information which the Minister has given to the House. Will he remember that what we are discussing in respect to my Amendment is a Government Regulation, which, at the moment, protects the jobs of 12,000 people in Dundee. The figures he has given with regard to the Pergamon Press are the final contract of employment for a period of probably a year and nearly as long as the final period the Government are prepared to give the Jute Control Order.

Mr. du Cann

That is a fair point. Of the jobs in prospect some will take some years to go through and this is one of the reasons why the Government are continuing the protection until 1969 and there will then be an opportunity to discuss the matter later in the light of whether the House considers that the protection is necessary. I will deal with the Amendment in detail in a moment, but I wanted to give the House the information about the jobs in the pipeline and bring the figures up to date because I knew that both hon. Members who represent Dundee would like to have those figures.

In Committee I quoted an inaccurate figure for the new industries moving into the area. The figure for new industries was correct, but the figure for the number of jobs provided was not. I should like now that I am, so to speak, face-to-face with them, to apologise to those hon. Members who took part in the discussion for that mistake, for which I must take personal responsibility.

The position is that new industries and old are coming to Dundee and we are succeeding in diversifying. Progress is being made and we may look to the future with confidence. I think that is one reason why it was fair for me to claim that the authorities and the people of Dundee are confidently adapting themselves and working in an atmosphere of change.

All this does not mean, nor does the Bill nor the Clause mean, that in our view there is no place for a jute industry. As I said during the Committee stage, and I repeat it now, we believe in the jute industry and its future. The Prime Minister said that Scotland needs its older industries, as well as its new ones, and we intend to ensure that the long association of jute with Dundee is maintained by an efficient and viable industry. I make that entirely plain.

May I say a word shortly about the working group. I have nothing, in particular, to add to what I said in Committee except that in the interval I have checked the position. The Committee is proceeding apace with its work. I cannot anticipate the result of the working group's deliberations because the report is not yet available, but as I tried to make clear when we discussed the matter, the Government will neither delay considering the Report when it is available nor take precipitous action.

I have discussed the matter with the Secretary of State, as I promised the Committee that I would, and I have his authority for saying that and for going on to say that Ministers will certainly study the conclusions with care. We are not wedded in any way to a mathematically exact interpretation of the phrase, which the hon. Members for Dundee in particular will understand, "In a year's time", and I am glad to have that opportunity of repeating that in the House.

Another point not raised in the debate has a beating on the whole subject, as both hon. Members for Dundee, who are present this evening will know. I should like to make it clear to them and to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. I express the Government's concern about the new Pakistan export price for jute. We fully support the representations being made by the Dundee and London Jute Association. We hope that they will be sympathetically received by the Government of Pakistan. Our trade commissioners in Pakistan have been instructed by the Government to give every possible assistance to the industry.

I come to the Amendment. The hon. Member for Sowerby says that this is a matter of crucial importance to Dundee and I am endeavouring to paint the full picture. We are dealing here with a narrower subject than when in Committee and I am glad that that is so, but I never saw any sound purpose in maintaining the early position that it was essential that all the war-time powers should be retained, including powers which were not being used. It is our purpose to demote the Government's powers if they are not required. I appreciate that there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the two sides of the House about this, but it is neither our wish nor our intention to retain powers of which the Government have no need in anybody's interests.

As for the period for which the powers should be taken, which is what the Amendment is about, this is not an ultimatum to the industry, as the hon. Member for Sowerby suggested that it might be. That I would deny. It is not intended to be and it is not. Nor are we abandoning protection, in the phrase which he used. State trading in imports in this respect is a special and unique form of protection which in our view must be looked at critically—I do not mean unsympathetically—from time to time. In our opinion it is important not to allow it to continue without full opportunity for the House to review it.

The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked me about Clause 16. This is a very different matter which relates to powers in the realm of defence. The Government think it right to take these powers again for a specified period of five years. When all is said and done, it is a substantial period, and in our view about the right length of time. In 1969 the matter can be reviewed again, and in the light of the prevailing conditions the Government of the day, whatever it may be, can decide what is then required. If we are the Government, as I assume that we shall be and hope that we shall be, I certainly give the House a clear understanding that we shall be ready to do what we can to see that the position of Dundee is sympathetically understood and considered at that time as at any other.

Mr. G. M. Thomson

If the hon. Member is so keen that the position in Dundee should be reviewed in 1969 and so anxious to persuade us that he wants to approach it sympathetically, then his answer lies in our Amendment, which provides machinery for this review to take place and for the affirmative Resolution of the House to allow this jute control to be continued. He is proposing that the Government of the day in 1969 must find extra time in the legislative time-table to introduce quite new powers to continue this control.

Mr. du Cann

We can find time before 1969 if that is required. I hope, however, that the hon. Member will agree that whatever the Government we have in 1969—or before—it would be right for Dundee to have a proper place in legislation if that were required by the circumstances of the day.

I certainly have no hesitation in saying that it would be right that the Government should contemplate that if legislation is needed in that year. At least, in the light of prevailing conditions, the Government of the day can decide what is then required. If similar or other powers are needed, it will be open to the Government to come to the House and to seek them for a further period by legislation for that specific purpose. We believe that to be the right and proper procedure.

I repeat that this is no ultimatum to Dundee. It is not intended to be. We look forward to having the report of the working group, which we shall seriously, carefully and sympathetically consider. We are not abandoning protection. We are providing the machinery to continue it for a further five years. This gives assurance and certainty to Dundee and is clear evidence of the justification of what I have said of our sympathy for that city and our determination to ensure that full employment in the context as we know it in other parts of the country is finally brought to it.

Mr. Peter Doig (Dundee, West)

The Minister of State gives a very complacent picture of Dundee's future, but if we have to depend upon the Government and their promises and actions as distinct from anything they may say, the future for Dundee is bleak. In a short period of over 12 years, the Government have brought to our city new industry which has provided 1,200 new jobs—that is, 100 jobs a year. At this rate of progress, it will not take five years to replace the 17,000 jobs in the jute industry, but it will take 170 years, and yet the Government refuse to extend this provision beyond five years. That is nonsense if the Government mean what they say.

The diversification of industry has been a hopeless failure. We in Dundee are very fortunate for two circumstances for which the Government can take little credit. Dundee has been busy and expanding its older industries. The two circumstances to which I refer are, first, that a road bridge is being built across the Tay. This type of project happens only once in a lifetime. It provides employment for a lot of people, but for a limited time.

Secondly, the largest firm in Dundee, one of those which has had fantastic expansion and provided a tremendous number of additional jobs, has been exceptionally busy making accounting machines, which are being produced in large numbers because of the likelihood of a change-over to the metric system. Again, this is purely temporary, possibly for a few years, but that is about all. It will not go on for ever.

During the past twelve years, we in Dundee have lost more jobs than the Government have brought. They have a plan for Central Scotland and they visualise that Dundee's jute industry will some day come to an end. They know that 17,000 people are employed in that industry, but they do not include Dundee in the development plan for Central Scotland. Surely this is strange, particularly when we remember that it is almost on the verge of the area and could have been included without any trouble at all.

One of the things which bring new industries to a city is good roads. Although the Government are to build two road bridges across two main obstacles in the north-east, the Forth and the Tay, they flatly refuse to provide a road to connect the two, and they have no plans for doing so in anything like the near future.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am finding it a little difficult to see how he relates the provision of the roads to this Amendment.

Mr. Doig

Because these are things which attract industries which provide jobs, and if the Government fail to do this it is fairly obvious that if this Government continue in power there is little hope of new jobs coming along in the future.

The other point I want to make in this connection is on air services. We have asked for years and years for a regular air service. The Government in their White Paper admit that it is necessary that Dundee have an air service, but what have they done to provide it? Absolutely nothing. Not a solitary thing have they done to help provide an air service. They say they are going to diversify industry. Even if they succeed, at the rate they are going it will take 170 years.

And yet they allow an industry five years' life under this Bill. Surely that is nonsense. Dundee will have the highest unemployment figure in the country if the jute industry goes out of existence in five years' time. There is no shadow of doubt about that at all. It must be nonsense for the Government to say this sort of thing.

One other point which the Minister did not mention. We asked in Committee on the Bill for a definite assurance, even his own back benchers asked for a definite assurance, that the Government would not interfere with the existing protection for the jute industry before the General Election. I am still waiting to hear that assurance. I did not hear it in Committee; I have not heard it tonight. It looks as though we are not going to get it. I say that it will be a crime if they interfere with this industry in the last months of a dying Government, when everybody, except themselves, knows they are going out of power.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

I do not propose to take the time of the House for more than a few moments, but it seems to me that this is an essay in amateur prophecy for which the Board of Trade and the Treasury are singularly unfitted, and it is really quite nonsense. What we are considering is not the present position but the rather narrow point whether we are so sure about what the position will be at the end of five years that we have to abrogate the existing power now, or leave the matter to be determined by the procedure attaching to an affirmative Order at the time when it arises. It is a rather narrow procedural point from one aspect, but really what the Government are taking upon themselves to say, especially in the light of the preceding Clause in the Bill, is this, "We," the Government, "are so certain about the future that we are prepared to give up now, not at this moment but for a time five years ahead, a form of control which has applied in Dundee for some twenty years or more and is admitted by everyone at the moment to be essential to the employment of a considerable number of the inhabitants of the town." What the Government are, in effect, saying, so far as there is any importance in the matter at all, is, "We are so certain about this that we are prepared to do something which, if we are held to it and if the occasion arises, may mean the unemployment of a large number of the citizens of Dundee".

10.45 p.m.

There is not the least occasion for it. There is no reason why the Government should refuse this Amendment. They are perfectly free, if they accept it and if they are the Government in power at the time, to bring forward the appropriate Order or not to bring it forward at the end of five years. I fail completely to understand the reason for this obstinacy. It seems to be a form of obstruction which I would hardly credit any responsible Government with. If it means anything, it comes to this: "We think that you, the present Opposition, are going to be the Government at the time, and we would like to put as much stuff on your legislative programme as we can". I cannot see any other reason for it. If that is not the reason, what is it?

We have heard a great deal of forecasting and summing-up of the position from the Government, but not a word as to why they want to abrogate the existing power not now but at a time five years in the future or why they object to what is proposed in the Amendment, that the decision should depend on an Order by affirmative Resolution, that is, on something which will have to come before the House when the occasion arises.

What is the reason? Are they so confident in their powers of prophecy? One knows all about racing tipsters, and one sees the reason for their existence. One knows about gentlemen who make confident forecasts about the Stock Exchange, and, no doubt, they too get some consideration for it. But what are the Government getting out of this? What horse have they got? What do they think is going to rise or fall? What money will they make out of it? Why should they embark on this prophecy, and do it in this particular case, so far as it has any effect at all, at the expense of a number of worthy citizens whose employment depends at present, at least, on the existence of this control? If I may respectfully say so, I have never heard such nonsense in my life as the Government's resistance to this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.