NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE (Hansard, 25 March 1971)

§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, North-West)

I wish to speak about the £70,000 grant which is being made, for the very first time, in respect of a National Exhibition Centre. I want to ask four questions. Where is the Centre to be established? What will it cost? Who will operate it? What aspects of both 1067 visible and invisible exports is it expected will be covered within that centre?

A great battle about the location of the Centre has raged between London and the Provinces, particularly Birmingham. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to indicate that the Centre will be established in Birmingham and that the Midlands will thus have a boost to its economy and its interests. This would be of especial value at this time, when the engineering and light engineering industries, which have contributed so much to our exports, are hitting the doldrums and when for the first time in Leicester, for example, there are redundancies which indicate that the end of the current prosperity may, alas, be in sight. Anything that can be done to stimulate employment in this area, and export production in particular, would be more than welcome, and I trust that the Centre will be established in the Midlands. If it cannot be in Leicester, then let it be in Birmingham.

Secondly, the sum of £70,000, while in one respect a sum which to many of us is a fortune, is little to a Centre which may cost millions of £s. How much is the Centre itself expected to cost, and what is to be the contribution towards the general cost?

Thirdly, who will operate it? The grant is to be made to the National Exhibition Centre Ltd., a limited liability company. We should know a little about this company before we invest such a substantial sum in it. In particular, who is running it and on what basis?

Fourthly, what aspects of exports will be covered? I would like to deal briefly with one aspect of exports only, and that is the invisible exports and insurance, 95 per cent. of which comes through companies which are members of the British Insurance Association. Is it to be taken that the association will be actively associated with the National Exhibition Centre, and, if so, on what basis? The association is a highly reputable body, and today we heard the excellent news that it is proposing to accept its responsibilities, to some extent at least, arising out of the crash of the Vehicle and General Insurance Company, which was one of its members.

If this association is to take an active part in the Centre, I hope that it will 1068 be understood that it must be able to hold up its head in the world at large and show that it is prepared to shoulder its responsibilities. In the wide sense this means its responsibilities where there is a vast claim by foreign companies; in the small but important sense it means that it can, and will meet claims incurred by members, people such as Mr. Terence Burke, a constituent of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), whose father lives in my constituency. I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member, who has worked with me on this matter so that this man may get his money.

Another is James Seddon, a journalist ordered to pay £44,000; more than half of the total grant to the Centre of £70,000. It would have taken Mr. Seddon some 200 years to pay that sum at £5 a week. It is important that apparently the association is to meet that obligation.

I hope that the Minister will indicate that the association will also go some way at least, before heading into the export world from the Centre, to meet the loss of some 800,000 ordinary people who have lost their premiums through the collapse of the Vehicle and General Insurance Company and that it is not correct that, on the contrary, the liquidator of that company is to seek the payment of premiums for 1971 from people who will get no benefit at all from such payments. Before public money is placed in the hands of the association, it is right to ask it to answer these questions: first what the 800.000 premium payers to Vehicle and General are to recover; second, what will be done about third party claims which do not involve physical injury; third, whether the premiums are to be claimed on behalf of the liquidator from people who will obtain no value from such payments.

It is vital that the companies at the Centre should have high repute in the world, and for this purpose it is important that when a company such as Vehicle and General has been accepted as a member of the British Insurance Association and given the cloak not only of its high respectability but also of the stability of its member companies the association should bear its moral responsibilities in that regard. The Centre itself is to be a combination of private industry and, 1069 through this Vote, public support and that is right, because we are all anxious that exports should flourish and that the country should pay its way in the world at large. The B.I.A. decision shows the influence of the combination of back bench opinion in this House and of the power of the Press, and that is a great encouragement to all of us.

We all wish good fortune to the Centre. We hope that the balance of payments situation, which is so good today, will continue to be excellent and that the Centre itself will make a great contribution in the Midlands and throughout the country to the prosperity of our industry.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant)

I will first deal with the question of insurance, mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner). I am glad that the House gave him permission to speak again in the debate, because I acknowledge the great interest which he has shown, on the Order Paper and in the House, in insurance in general and Vehicle and General in particular.

I join with him in expressing pleasure on behalf of the Government that the British Insurance Association has announced today that it has found itself able to establish a special fund to assist passengers who have been injured in traffic accidents when the driver responsible was entitled to indemnity under a motor insurance policy issued in the United Kingdom by the Vehicle and General Insurance Company or any of its subsidiaries which have gone into liquidation.

The hon. Member himself will acknowledge, equally, that, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the House on 10th March that he was having discussions with the British Insurance Association on means by which it could contribute towards giving greater confidence to the members of the public who take out policies of motor insurance. The announcement today is clearly one result of those discussions, and we are very pleased to hear it. Full details have yet to be worked out, but full details of the scheme will be made available 1070 shortly and will be provided to solicitors through the Law Societies of England and Scotland.

However, I would not imagine that exhibiting insurance would form a particularly major part of the National Exbition Centre. Certainly it should be pointed out that Vehicle and General's overseas business was a remarkably small proportion of its activities, but there is nothing to stop the insurance companies, if they so wish, from exhibiting. However, I cannot say that insurance companies have been the most vivid exhibitors at the many exhibitions which I have visited in the last few months in various parts of the world.

The rôle of exhibitions and trade fairs has become increasingly important as a feature of international marketing activity. British exporters have been deprived of this essential marketing tool for too long. There has long been recognition by both Government and industry of the need for modern exhibition facilities in the United Kingdom, particularly as exhibition centres were being developed in other European countries, thus placing our exporters at a disadvantage with their major overseas competitors.

For over a quarter of a century there was abortive discussion to produce a viable scheme for a London development. In May, 1969, the Birmingham City Council and Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry submitted to the Department a proposal to site the National Exhibition Centre near Birmingham. The cost of this scheme was estimated at £11.5 million, and the proposed methods of financing were by a Government grant of £1.5 million, £3 million from the Birmingham City Council, and the balance by institutional funding. At last there was a proposal for a national exhibition centre which offered every prospect of being a viable development within an acceptable time scale.

On 28th January, 1970, the previous Administration announced their decision to offer financial support—a grant of £1.5 million—to the Birmingham scheme, subject to planning procedures and financial and development discussions.

When this Government assumed office they reconsidered the undertaking given 1071 to Birmingham in the light of the substantial progress made by that time by Birmingham and in the light of further representations made by the Greater London Council to the Government. On 13th July, 1970, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, as he then was, announced the decision to reaffirm support for the Birmingham scheme. The G.L.C. was informed of the decision.

The hon. Member inquired how the Centre would be run. The answer is that the National Exhibition Centre Ltd. has been set up. Further details have yet to be worked out, but this company will be fully representative of all parties concerned—the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Birmingham City Council—and it will, I imagine, if the scheme goes through, operate in the usual way in which these centres are run elsewhere in the world; namely, by letting out space to exhibition companies which themselves deal with their own client manufacturers.

I would expect that the exhibits would be primarily manufacturing goods, if the usual pattern is followed. This will be a matter for the individual companies to decide when the time comes.

Since then, Birmingham has made substantial progress in its plans. The Government have approved a grant of £70,000—part of the £.1.5 million—to the cost of administrative expenses and professional studies. Birmingham's application for planning permission is the subject of a local public inquiry expected to start on 2nd June, 1971. The result will not become known until probably September, 1971. If planning clearance is given to Birmingham, it will immediately be able to commence final construction work.

I wish to pay tribute to the energy and work of Mr. Frank Cole of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, who has been very much in charge of this project, and all his colleagues. I wish them every success if the planning problems are overcome. There is nothing whatever to stop London pursuing a scheme which does not involve public money if it also can overcome the planning problems. I think it will be a great satisfaction to industry and commerce in this country when a 1072 national exhibition centre is finally achieved and made viable.