English Industrial Estates Corporation Bill [Lords] (Hansard, 13 April 1981)

§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is the first consolidation measure to be considered this Session by this House, and it continues the process of bringing into one Act the statute law on a given subject for the benefit of all those who have occasion to use the statute book.
The Bill consolidates the law relating to the English Industrial Estates Corporation. It is pure consolidation—that is to say, it does not amend the existing law in any way. It has been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, which found nothing to draw to Parliament's attention. Nor do I.

§ Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West)
If I detain the House for one moment on the Bill it may spare it having to listen to me on the four successive Bills. I intervene to say only two things. First, I think that I am right in saying that this is the first consolidation measure to reach the House since Lord Roskill assumed the chair of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome him to that chair. The Joint Committee continues to perform sterling service, not always with national acclaim. We on the Labour Benches would like to offer our congratulations and welcome to Lord Roskill on assuming that office.
Secondly, I think that, on the first consolidation measure debate in this Parliament, when I had the pleasure of welcoming the hon. and learned Gentleman to his high office I mentioned that the Opposition would never seek to take any action on law reform measures that might discourage the Government from producing them. I repeat that invitation. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that we have lived up to that promise.
Where law reform measures are controversial the House will clearly wish to debate them. One can understand that the Government might be a little reluctant to give parliamentary time to debate them. There are many worthwhile law reform measures which are probably no more controversial than consolidation Bills of this kind. If the Government were minded to bring them forward, I think they would find that the Opposition would be no less time-consuming and welcoming than on this Bill. I welcome the Bill on behalf of the Opposition.

§ Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield, East
I do not intend to speak at length on this matter. My scrutiny of the Bill leads me to worry that there has been no change in a situation that I found when I first came to the House. I discovered that there was no provision for the English Industrial Estates Corporation to anticipate legislation passed by the House. On becoming a Member of the House in May 1979, I was soon awakened to the real facts of life by the Secretary of State for Industry, who deprived most of West Yorkshire of intermediate development status. 114 This had severe consequences for the economic and industrial life of my constituency and of West Yorkshire in general.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)
Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman has had a disappointing day, but he must not enter into the merits of the Bill. This is a pure consolidation measure.

§ Mr. Sheerman
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would merely like to point to a number of clauses within the measure—whether or not it is a consolidation measure—where it seems to me that the English Industrial Estates Corporation has withheld permission to develop any more estates within West Yorkshire in anticipation of the withdrawal of intermediate status, which is against not only the spirit but the letter of the Bill. I ask the Minister to help us by pointing out where in the Bill there is permission for the corporation to deny the people of West Yorkshire and industry in West Yorkshire the rights that exist under other enabling legislation. I should like to hear how the corporation can deprive us of that right.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that the Minister will not attempt to make any such clarification. He would be out of order, as the hon. Gentleman has been out of order.

§ Mr. K. J. Woolmer (Batley and Morley)
I understand that we are able to discuss only whether the Bill consolidates the law, as opposed to the merits or otherwise of the proposals. I want to know its effect in relation to existing law and I seek clarification of how, that is interpreted specifically in relation to clause 2(1), (4) and (6). When the law is consolidated, does it deal with a matter of interpretation that has been put to me by the West Yorkshire metropolitan council? It appears to the council that the English Industrial Estates Corporation frequently says that its functions are not to act in competition with the private sector. Thus, where sufficient development has already been generated by market forces, the corporation would not wish to be involved. In other words, the corporation would not get involved where the private sector was already involved.
On the other hand, when local authorities put proposals to the corporation, the corporation applies criteria very much as though it were a private business—namely, it becomes involved only if the developments are profitable. I am told that the way in which the corporation acts is not the way that Parliament intends. As a result, in Batley the corporation is not carrying out the pump-priming exercise that Parliament expects.
I want to ask the Minister two questions. First, is he satisfied that this consolidation Bill encourages the corporation to act in circumstances that are additional to the way in which the private sector would otherwise behave? In that regard, what particular directions in clause 2(4) and (6) would the Secretary of State use in authorising the corporation to behave in a way additional to that of the private sector?
Secondly, do the Government recognise the problems of those areas losing assisted area status? Section 7 Industry Act grants—local employment Act grants—are being extended to take account of the loss of assisted area status in such a way that, provided that grant application is submitted by 31 July 1982, transitional arrangements 115 will cover development if it takes place by 1984. Will the Minister confirm whether, in this consolidation Bill, the English Industrial Estates Corporation will be able to operate within such guidelines and provide finance for projects in an area that is due to lose its intermediate area status in 1982, as long as the scheme is agreed by July 1982? In other words, would the corporation be able to act as long as the scheme was carried out by 1984?
I ask that question because in West Yorkshire, and in Batley in particular, the possibility of the corporation carrying out the developments would be an essential part of the need to attract industry to the area. We are concerned that the Secretary of State appears to have certain powers but that it is not clear whether they are being used in the way intended.

§ The Solicitor-General
I am sure that both the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) and the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) know as well as I do that it is not within my province to answer their questions, though I understand their desire to air them, and it is fair enough that they should do so.
I echo the welcome of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) to Lord Roskill. We have had a succession of chairmen who have done us proud, and Lord Roskill has already shown the measure of what he will do.
On the question of law reform, we look forward to discussing on other occasions matters of interest such as those that the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to.
For the moment, I ask the House to concentrate its mind on the proposition before us, which is that the Bill be now given its Second Reading.