MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS (Hansard, 20 January 1970)

§ Mr. Ridley
I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 9, line 2, at end insert— Section 38(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 (Industrial Development Certificate). At the end of subsection (2) of section 38 shall be added the words 'and intermediate areas'. This Amendment would have the effect of granting to intermediate areas the same considerations in I.D.C. policy as apply to development districts. I imagine that this will, in any case, be the policy of the Government. The relevant phrase 415 in the Town and Country Planning Act, from which the I.D.C. power derives, reads: …shall have particular regard to the need for providing appropriate employment in development districts". The Amendment would add "and intermediate areas" after the words "development districts". Thus, from the point of view of granting I.D.C.s, intermediate areas and development districts would be on the same footing.
I cannot conceive that there would be circumstances in which an I.D.C. would be refused in an intermediate area. I hope very much that there is no question of that, because the problem by definition is one of employment and if I.D.C.s are refused for intermediate areas those areas will have something to complain seriously about. There is something to be said for amending the original Act in this sense so that the powers are exactly the same. The Hunt Committee was in general agreement with this. Its policy on I.D.C.s was a great deal more flexible than is that of the Government. It was prepared to advocate I.D.C.s in more areas than the Government were prepared to look at. The Committee recommended that I.D.C.s should be made available to firms to establish themselves in Yorkshire and Humberside. We should like to go further and put them on the same basis as development areas.
I hope there will not be any dispute about this from the Government. The I.D.C. is a very arbitrary and abrupt weapon. Although we agree that it has to remain, the effect can do serious damage to businesses which have a right to extend their area of operation. Although we want to continue the use of I.D.C.s, we should use this weapon as little as possible consistent with policy, but I hope that there is no question of refusing I.D.C.s in intermediate areas.

§ Mr. Varley
As the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said, there was a long discussion about I.D.C. policy in Committee and it attracted a great deal of interest.
As far as industrial development certificate control is concerned the Ministry of Technology is required under present legislation to determine whether applications are consistent with the proper dis- 416 tribution of industry and in so doing to have particular regard to the need for providing employment in development areas. In practice this has meant that I.D.C. applications for development area locations are almost always approved and projects for locations in congested areas are approved only if they would not add unreasonably to the congestion in those areas and if it is demonstrated that they could not reasonably be undertaken in a development area.
But while we must have "particular regard" to the needs of providing appropriate employment in development areas, this does not mean that the needs of other areas are neglected in operating I.D.C. control. The I.D.C. policy is of course a flexible one and full account is always taken of the local employment situation in considering any application. In those areas which the Government intend to designate as intermediate areas, the I.D.C. control has for some time been operating liberally in recognition of their employment problems. In accordance with the Secretary of State's announcement on 25th June, 1969, I.D.C.s are now available in the intermediate areas on the same basis as in the development areas. This means that most applications will be approved, but there may be occasions, both in development areas and intermediate areas, when refusal of an application would be justified; where, for example, a project was proposed for an area where the labour resources were inadequate.
I can assure the House that so long as the intermediate areas have their present needs the policy announced by the Secretary of State will continue. I hope that the movers of the Amendment will accept this assurance and will not press it.

§ Mr. Ridley
Having accepted entirely the substance of what I said, the hon. Gentleman has not given any reason why he cannot accept the Amendment. Can he say what is wrong with the Amendment since he seems to meet me on the substance of what we are trying to achieve?

§ Mr. Varley
I.D.C. policy is flexible. In this regard we could not stop at intermediate areas, but would be pressed to include overspill towns and assisted areas which are not in intermediate areas or 417 development areas. To do that would be adding to the complexities of the matter.

§ Mr. Ridley
The Bill deals only with intermediate areas, so it would be possible under it to extend the power only to intermediate areas. As the Minister of State said that he accepts that I.D.C.s should be granted on the same basis and for the same reasons as in development areas, it is odd that he was not prepared to accept the Amendment and write it into the Bill. What is the point of having Acts if they are not to contain what we mean? As we are all agreed about the substance of the matter, it is peculiar that the hon. Gentleman was not prepared o accept the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman's assurance is welcome and satisfactory, so I see no point in pressing the Amendment. I merely state in passing that it is a pity, if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the substance, that he is not prepared to accept the form. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Waddington
I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 9, line 22, at end insert 'and under this Act'.
I am not sure that strictly speaking the Amendment is necessary, but it is not entirely clear from the Bill whether it is intended that in future the annual report by the Minister under the Local Employment Acts should include a report on assistance in the intermediate areas. The Amendment, if accepted, would make it absolutely plain that such a report bad to be furnished. I am sure that all hon. Members would like this information to be available annually.

§ Mr. Varley
There can be a concession here. We originally took the view that it was not necessary to add a reference to the Local Employment Act, because no new functions would be exercised. However, we have considered the matter and, in view of what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) has said, we accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Ridley
After much hard pounding to a late hour, it is to be welcomed that at last we have made an impact upon the Bill. After three weeks in Committee and five hours on Report, we have at last achieved an improvement of substance. The credit for this fittingly goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington), who has been doing a great deal of the hard pounding. I am only sorry that we have not succeeded in persuading the Government to accept many more of our Amendments. However, much of the substance of what we have argued has been accepted, and that is some consolation to us. The Bill has been thoroughly and properly debated. With the acceptance of the Amendment we can leave the Bill with the knowledge that we have produced something which will be of great assistance to the grey areas. All hon. Members will wish those areas prosperity for the future.