DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY

HL Deb 26 January 1949 vol 160 cc318-50

5.16 p.m.

LORD ROCHDALE rose to call attention to Command Paper 7540 Distribution of Industry: and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the outset I should like to follow the practice that is common in your Lordships' House in declaring a small interest that I have in the matter under discussion. For some years, I have been closely connected with a firm that is at the present moment establishing a branch of its activities in one of the development areas. I hope I shall not say anything that will make me liable, however, to the accusation that that has influenced what I am going to say.

It seems to me that a debate on the distribution of British industries might, broadly speaking, take one or two possible courses. In one course, the subject might be approached simply from the point of view of considering the results that have been achieved by the distribution of industry policy from within the development areas. In such a course, no doubt, the matter would be considered both from the point of view of those who live in the development areas and from the point of view of those firms which are becoming established there. The successes they have achieved, the difficulties they have been up against, would be discussed. No doubt, in such a debate reference would be made to the ready assistance that has so often been received from various Government Departments, but I have no doubt either that reference would also be made to delays, and to the difficulty that perhaps has been found in co-ordinating the activities of the different Government Departments.

But that line is not the one which I propose to adopt this evening. I would like to approach the subject from the much wider aspect, in which the development areas are only one part of a far wider, larger and extremely complex subject. I would like also, at this early stage, to make the point that, whilst one would like to think that this subject was politically uncontroversial (certainly in one of the development areas of which I know, those who have been responsible have endeavoured faithfully to keep it so), I am inclined to think that, looked at from its wider aspect, we may come up against topics which are the subject of a Party political controversy. The White Paper to which I am referring is, of course, primarily a Report of the results that have been achieved in trying to bring prosperity into certain distressed areas in order to bring them up to a level of prosperity and stability comparable with the rest of the country. At this late hour I do not want to go into the history of the policy—your Lordships will be well aware of that. But I would like to remind your Lordships that it was initiated as far back as 1934, with the Special Areas Act, carried on by the Special Areas Act of 1937, and then, following the Barlow Report of 1940, and the National Government's White Paper on Employment Policy in 1944, it was carried a stage further by the Distribution of Industry Act of 1945.

Looking through the debate that took place in your Lordships' House when that Bill was given a Second Reading, I should say, that whilst perhaps it did not go far enough then for some of your Lordships, it was generally agreed as a step in the right direction, if the problem of these particular areas was ever to be solved. I wonder whether before the war a somewhat misguided belief did not exist in certain quarters. I will not go so far as to say that British industry had reached its zenith, but at any rate, so far as the development areas were concerned, industry there had little to look forward to but a policy of retrenchment, sometimes camouflaged at that time under the word "rationalisation."

At that time we appeared to be a wealthy country. We had tucked away considerable wealth which we had built up in more spacious days, and no doubt we could indulge in the sort of comfortable feeling that that wealth afforded. But I wonder whether it was not perhaps responsible for the way in which this problem was sometimes approached. Would it be far from the truth to suggest that the problem of these areas was sometimes regarded rather as a moral obligation—the sort of obligation that a rich family may have to a down-and-out and perhaps somewhat senile relation, rather (to change the metaphor) than as a symptom of a disease from which the whole country, and indeed the whole world at that time, was suffering? Today, of course, with our economic position having changed so drastically as a result of the war—or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, that as a result of the war the changes which were already in operation having been so vastly accelerated and become more apparent—the point of view that the development areas could be regarded merely as a poor relation is obviously (and I think everyone will agree with this) no longer tenable.

I hope therefore that your Lordships will agree with me if I suggest that the real position to-day is that, whilst some moral obligation may exist so far as individuals in the development areas are concerned, no one who saw anything of the development areas before the war can fail to appreciate that by far the greater problem to-day is that the whole family is now a poor one. What we have to ensure is that the efforts of all its members, irrespective of their particular circumstances fifteen years ago, are put to the best use for their general good, and that that same criterion shall also be used when deciding how we are going to spend such resources as are available for capital investment. One of the things that has struck me so much about the White Paper has been the repeated reference in it to the fact that the success of the present schemes in the development areas, as it says, can be regarded as assured only provided that no general economic depression intervenes.

I would like to read one or two instances of that to your Lordships. Dealing with the North Eastern Development Area, the Report says this: New industrial development which has taken place or is planned should, however, go a long way towards providing most districts with a high level of employment, provided no general economic depression intervenes. A similar point is made in the case of the West Cumberland Development Area: … But as long as a high and stable level of employment is maintained in the country as a whole, the new industrial developments should eventually provide work for the chronic surplus of labour of pre-war years. Again, of the South Lancashire Development Area the Report says: … Provided the general level of purchasing power is maintained, the new industrial developments should go a long way towards utilising all the labour resources of the Area. And, again, in the case of the South Wales and Monmouthshire Development Area, the same point is made: … provided the general economic situation remains favourable.

I should have thought, however, that was placing the emphasis entirely on the wrong point. Obviously, should there he a general world economic depression, we should in some respects be bound to feel its effects in this country, but surely what we want in any policy is not a "fair-weather" policy that will provide results only under favourable conditions but one as a result of which the industrial structure of this country will be so strengthened, by taking the fullest advantage of all available resources—man-power and others—that we shall be better able to compete in the world markets to-day (for most industrialists realise how difficult hat is already becoming in many respects), and be better able to weather any world depression should one develop later. My Lords, whilst that object is not necessarily incompatible with a policy of giving preference as regards development within the development areas, I submit that it does not necessarily follow that the reverse is also true.

It is in the light of that sort of argument that I hope your Lordships will agree that a discussion on the whole policy of distribution of Industry may be of value this evening. I have been encouraged in that point of view by two articles that have appeared in the newspapers within the last few days. Your Lordships may possibly have read them. There was a double article that appeared in The Times on the 21st and 22nd of this month, which dealt with the problem from the Scottish aspect, and there was another article which appeared in the Manchester Guardian only yesterday, which referred to the Report on the East Coast that has just been issued.

I would like to look for a few moments at some of the results which are described in this White Paper. Undoubtedly, the important figures of employment and unemployment there given are by no means unimpressive. So far as the employment figures go, they do not perhaps give us a complete picture of the situation, though I rather suspect (particularly from one or two points that are made in the White Paper itself) that that may be intentional on the part of the writer, owing to the difficulty of allowing fairly for the numbers of men and women who at different times have migrated from the areas in order to find employment elsewhere; and I gather that these numbers are not inconsiderable. One big figure is quoted in the case of South Wales, but it is certainly very encouraging that compared even with 1939, when the effects of rearmament must already have been considerable, we see that in July, 1948, there were at least 250,000 more people in employment in the development areas than previously.

It is, however, the unemployment figures that are more impressive and give a more complete picture. I will avoid, so far as I can, giving too many figures, but in order to make the point which I wish to make I shall have to quote a certain number. Whereas there was an unemployment total in the development areas in the year 1932 of 820,000 (the figure dropped to something over 320,000 in 1939), in July of last year it was down to something just under 102,000. Putting these results for the same years as percentages of the insured population, we find that in 1932 it was 38 per cent., in 1939 it was 13 per cent., and in July, 1948, no more than 4 per cent., a figure which compares very favourably with the corresponding percentage for the whole of the rest of the country, which is no more than 2 per cent.

I feel that we can record a very real measure of satisfaction at these figures, but I suggest that we must be careful how we interpret them if we are not to reach wrong conclusions. We want to be quite sure that we do not allow ourselves to think that they necessarily represent the success of a policy of bringing new industries into these areas. As I shall point out in a few moments, there are other factors which have been largely responsible for these figures. Actually, so far as the new industries that have been introduced there are concerned, I see that the total employment found by them since the war is of the order of 105,000 persons. Some of that has been found in surplus Government munition and other factories or other existing buildings, and a certain amount in postwar buildings, new factories—a figure, in fact, of about 32,000.

That figure of 32,000 may not seem very high, but I realise that it does not by any means represent the total employment to be found ultimately in these new post-war factories, and that schemes have been approved for factories some of which are under construction, but some of which, I admit, have been deferred owing to difficulties of capital expenditure. But, on the whole, schemes have been approved which together are estimated to raise that figure of 32,000 to one of 216,000. To give you an idea of what that means may I say that it represents approximately one-tenth of the insured population of the whole of the development areas. Even so, we come to this very important fact: that by far the greatest source of increase of employment in these development areas compared with pre-war years appears to be due not to the new industries which have been introduced there but to other reasons—to the service industries, to some extent to the building industries, and, to a large extent (and this is a very important point, I think) to the increased activities of the basic industries, mining, shipbuilding, iron and steel and so forth, which predominate in those areas and which act as a very definite barometer of the general industrial activity of the country as a whole.

To complete my picture and to bring out the point which I am trying to make, I would now like to turn for a moment to the capital expenditure that has been incurred and approved in the new factories, some of which of course is being financed by the Government and some privately. From what I see, both in the White Paper and in the Monthly Digest of Statistics, between December, 1944, and September, 1948, the total authorised expenditure on new factories in the development areas, not including the cost of the services to them where they were inadequate (and of course I need hardly say, not including any machinery which would ultimately be put into these factories) was approximately £92,000,000. That figure compares with £95,000,000 approved for the whole of the rest of the country. Out of these two figures, £92,000,000 and £95,000,000, actual building licences have been granted in the case of the development areas for £70,000,000 and in the case of all the rest of the country for £64,000,000.

Now, to my mind, that is a really important figure that we must consider, and it is so important that I would like to repeat it though I would put it in another way. Although the development areas include only about one-sixth of the insured population of the whole country, present proposals are to incur a capital expenditure of approximately £92,000,000—substantially the same as that for the whole of the rest of the country—and for that we hope to get in the development areas further employment compared with pre-war years of 216,000 persons. Bearing in mind that these immense figures include only the cost of actual factories, to suggest that it has been an extremely expensive way of finding that employment is, I believe, to state the obvious, even allowing for the enormously increased cost of building to-day. But, having said that, I would not go so far as to say that it was necessarily, in certain circumstances, an improper course to pursue. I believe that there are some very good reasons for it, and I would like to mention one or two in a moment. But I do think it provides a sound reason for wanting the matter discussed, in order that we may all be quite clear in our own minds as to what is happening now and also, I hope, in order that we may glean something from the speech of the noble Lord who is to reply as to what His Majesty's Government propose to do in the future.

May I turn for a few moments to some reasons which I suggest would, to some extent, at any rate, justify that present policy, the bare facts of which I have given your Lordships. Some people might perhaps give overriding priority to the moral obligation to those who suffered so much in those development areas before the war. As I have already said, an obligation undoubtedly exists, but in the interests of the industrial prosperity of the country as a whole, and, not least, of those who live in the development areas, I suggest that it is an obligation that is not always best met by taking the work to the workers. The reverse may sometimes be preferable. No; so long as the basic industries continue to be the backbone of this country, and so long as the basic industries continue to predominate in the development areas—a very important condition, I submit—so long, taking the distant view, must we see that the facilities for employment there are as diverse as possible, so as to be sure of attracting and maintaining a balanced population there. That is essential, if we are to make quite sure that there will be growing up in those areas a body of young men who will in time become recruits to man those vital basic industries.

I am well aware that previously in many of these development areas it was not nearly so common for women to be employed in industry as it was in other industrial areas; but, with the times, so the status of women has been changing, and what I have just said justifies, I think, the introduction into those areas of new industries which require a high proportion of women operatives, and also industries that can employ disabled persons and those who are unattracted by, or unsuited to, the heavier industries. I believe that, for the long distance benefit of the country as a whole, that is a very strong and important argument for introducing a number of new industries into those areas. But, of course, it does not necessarily mean to say that in any particular area the population has to be maintained as high as it was previously. That may not be the case, for instance where we have had a coalfield or iron-ore field gradually becoming exhausted. An example was quoted in the newspaper I mentioned earlier on, in the Report on the Hartlepools area made only a few days ago by the Max Lock Group.

Second only in importance to that argument in favour of the present policy is the value of dispersal for strategic reasons, particularly in the North and West where so many development areas exist. Your Lordships are well aware that Government and munitions factories were erected in many of these areas during the war. Many of those factories have been leased or sold to private firms and for work other than war work. That, to my mind, is certainly all to the good, particularly if it means that these factories are being maintained in good condition and will be available for war purposes should the unhappy event occur again. One hopes that in the new factory areas that have been established an eye has been kept on the strategic allocation of factories, and that those factories that have been financed by the Government, at any rate, are under an arrangement that, if required, they will be available for rapid conversion to war purposes in any future war. No doubt there are other good reasons that could be brought forward in support of the policy of the distribution of industry that has been carried on up till now. No doubt it offers opportunities for relieving excessive concentrations of industry in such areas as Birmingham and London, a fact which was very strongly reported on by the Barlow Commission, both for social and strategic reasons. That would especially be the case when dealing with industries that perhaps are either new to this country or have no particular need to be located close to some other subsidiary or, to use the word of the Barlow Commission, "cognate" industries.

But, having tried to make the best of all the arguments in favour of the present policy, I am afraid that I have still some doubts. I doubt, for instance, whether anyone can truthfully say that development has always been governed by a definite plan covering the country as a whole, and has not sometimes been perhaps rather over-influenced, in Parliament and elsewhere, by over-zealous protagonists of a particular area. I would like to ask the Minister who is to reply one or two questions. Is it not a policy of rather doubtful wisdom, at this time in particular, to build factories for which there are no specific tenants in mind—the so-called "unallotted factories" referred to in paragraph 48 of the White Paper? I know that there are not very many of them, but they could so easily become an invitation to non-essential or non-exporting industries, especially when we remember that while, under the Town and Country Planning Act, the Government can prevent development by refusing building licences, they can only encourage industry to go to a particular area and have no positive power of direction.

Again, how often have existing firms outside a development area, wanting to extend their activities, been refused building licences unless they were prepared to go to one of the development areas which may have been quite unsuitable for their particular needs? Or again, how often have existing firms on essential work, perhaps short of labour in their own home towns outside a development area, not having (as paragraph 45 says) "desired to build factories in new locations" but having agreed rather reluctantly to go and open up branches elsewhere, thereby involved either themselves or the State in considerable capital expenditure when their own factories were not fully occupied? Might there not have been cases where it would have been preferable to have built more dwelling houses near the existing factory areas, or—and I know that in mentioning my next point I am entering on a very wide subject—to have considered overhauling the whole system of control which has had the effect of drawing so many operatives from essential to unessential occupations?

I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will say something about this matter. I ask him not to make too much play of the fact that, as we read in the White Paper, two-thirds of the new factory development has been financed by private means, implying, of course, that had it not been calculated to be profitable it would not have been undertaken at all. I can imagine cases where it was a matter of "Hobson's choice." Perhaps the decision was not completely uninfluenced by the existence of considerable available sums from post-war E.P.T. refunds which could be spent only on capital expenditure. I have no doubt that only firms who could see their way clear, or at any rate could see their way during the first post-war years, actually agreed to go. But I suggest that that is not good enough. What is vital to-day is not that the project be merely economic, but that it should be capable in the national interest of achieving the maximum economic advantage.

I think it would not be out of place here to mention that, as was so clearly brought out in the Barlow Report, the great, old industrial areas were not developed in a way so haphazard or devoid of economic reason as is sometimes popularly thought. There were usually sound reasons why development took place. Of course, I recognise that those reasons may not have the same force to-day. I have already instanced the case of a coalfield becoming used up, and one could give a completely different example: the existence to-day of an electricity grid, which makes it far less necessary for a firm to establish itself in a coalfield to get power. Even so, I suggest that many reasons which resulted in the growth of these big industrial areas are as potent to-day as ever.

There is one other question I would like to put to the Minister. I am not going to ask him whether all the new factory projects financed by the Government are expected to give the Government a proper return on their expenditure, because it is quite clear from the whole policy on development areas that this answer would be, "No." And he would no doubt make the point that there are other good reasons for the expenditure. But I will ask him this question: whether he does not feel that to-day and from now on those other reasons will not become much more difficult to find and to justify. I have put a number of ques- tions to the Minister of which I have given him a certain amount of warning, and I hope he will not consider they have been unduly and destructively critical. The dangers I have instanced are, to my mind, very real dangers, particularly from now on; and it is in the light of that that I would now like to turn for a moment, before I finish, to the future.

Different people, I know, hold different views as to the extent to which the present policy should be allowed to go. Most people would agree whole-heartedly that a great deal of excellent work has been done, and is yet in hand, in the development areas which would justify a very real measure of congratulation to those responsible—though not (may I suggest?) congratulation to which His Majesty's present Government are solely entitled. But there are, I know, a few who feel that the policy has gone too far already; that the policy has been too parochial in outlook, without having sufficient regard to the wider aspect—a point of view which could, I suppose, be substantiated by figures included in the White Paper itself. For instance, I see that existing projects for development, even if we set aside those projects I have already mentioned as having been deferred, are calculated to provide employment far in excess of the quoted figures of registered unemployed. There may be good reasons for that; I do not know. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to throw some light on that. However, one thing is certain—namely, that from now on it will be increasingly difficult to put forward propositions which are both economically sound, from the national standpoint, and sufficiently attractive to manufacturers to encourage them to start up new factories in these development areas.

I am strongly of opinion that the time has come for a review of the whole policy, and that is really my object in putting down this Motion. I am inclined to think that it would not be going too far to suggest that, so far as the deferred projects are concerned, they should be regarded as indefinitely deferred—unless, of course, after exhaustive examination of individual cases, a sound case can be produced for them. I realise that one could not consider changing or holding up projects that are already in hand. That would probably be wasteful. The White Paper makes two suggestions for the future. It refers to Merseyside and the Highlands, and suggests that they should become the new scheduled areas. It then goes on later to give a list of other areas for which adduces good reasons why they should not be so scheduled, although admitting that they have their own special unemployment problems. I am not going to comment this evening on the two new proposed development areas, because that is a problem in itself. But if we can accept the Government's arguments as to why these other areas referred to are not suitable for scheduling now, I fail to see why, in most cases, they should ever become suitable for scheduling.

The question therefore arises: What is to be the future of this distribution of industry policy? Will it die a natural death; or in what direction will it turn in the future? I would like to suggest, at any rate as a basis for discussion, that the time has now come to forget the distinction between the development areas and elsewhere, and to encourage development, not necessarily by means of such financial powers as are included in the 1945 Act, but where it would seem to be in the best interests of the country. Having said that, I have no doubt that I shall have my attention drawn to paragraphs 78, 79 and 80 of the White Paper, which deal with other areas. But I am afraid the fact that in a White Paper of 115 clauses and a great number of schedules, only three small paragraphs have been allotted to the effects on other areas of this policy, may be indicative of the point of view that has prevailed when allotting preferences to the development areas.

The White Paper refers, on page 32, paragraph 66, to the Government policy of full employment, a policy that is not the prerogative of any one particular Party. But if we are to achieve and maintain such a condition, we must see to it that it must not be allowed to become an excuse for lowering productive efficiency. Up to a point, the present policy of taking work to the workers in the development areas is not incompatible with the maximum productive efficiency; but if it is carried too far there is bound to come a time, depending on local circumstances, when it will lead only to rigidity, waste and an uneconomic location of industry, a time when, for any further reserves of labour, the Government should surely rather create conditions and facilities for a high mobility of labour. I am inclined to think that that time has already been reached—possibly we have already passed it—and that, at any rate for the future, we need a different policy from the existing one. So far I have seen little in the White Paper to indicate that anything like that is in the mind of His Majesty's Government.

I therefore very much hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply, he will be able to tell us that—here I quote from the White Paper— as a result of a constant study and examination of the needs and resources of every part of the country, and as a result of the research work described in Part V of the White Paper, His Majesty's Government realise that a thorough review is now overdue, and that he will be able to indicate the direction which future policy is to take. I beg to move for Papers.

5.58 p.m.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

My Lords, I am in some difficulty in this matter, not because I have any direct or indirect interest in it, but because (to use language adopted in certain circles) owing to a prior engagement of a political nature I considered myself a doubtful starter. On arriving at your Lordships' House, I found myself put down as a certain runner, and I therefore feel obliged to do what I can. I have been precluded, in the circumstances, from giving the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, notice of the one or two points which, with great brevity, I hope to put before your Lordships. I am not enamoured of this White Paper, but I do not go so far as the Manchester Guardian, which I think described it as almost as thorough a failure as any ill-digested collection of wrong information could be. The principles in this White Paper are no doubt sound but, like medical treatment, if applied injudiciously they can be disastrous; but if they are applied with care, the patient's life may be saved. The damage that can be done to industry by a reckless or careless application of the principles contained in this White Paper is very great indeed. I have seen some of its effects actually on the spot, and I propose to give one brief example of what in fact has happened.

The purpose of this White Paper is to direct industry where there is a surplus of labour. But, surely, there is a fallacy here. Industry does not depend on labour alone. Industry needs an assurance of a copious, abundant and cheap supply of the fuel and raw materials which it uses. This particularly applies to some industries which are high up in our export drive. I have particularly in mind the pottery industry. We cannot remove potteries from, let us say, Stoke-on-Trent, to some area in Wales without irretrievable damage and extreme cost handicapping us beyond hope in the export market. If we turn to labour, it is not a question merely of getting the labour; it is a question of getting the labour suited to the task, and labour which, by inherited talent or tradition, is fitted for the work it has to do.

When I was in Manchester recently I was told of a case where it was desired to build a factory, and the building licence was refused because it was felt that the factory should be erected on Merseyside, where there was a surplus of labour. There is a surplus of labour on Merseyside, but it is not labour which this particular man needs. The result was that this factory was never built. I would like to give your Lordships a more concrete illustration. I cannot go into the matter in detail, but the letter is here with the names and particulars if my noble friend would like it. I have been asked to mention what occurred when a vice-president of a large American enterprise visited this particular town with the idea of starting a new factory. The noble Lord will forgive me if I do not say what the factory was, although I will gladly show him the letter. In the ordinary way the American would have decided to locate his factory here, but the Government told him that it would be impossible to grant a building licence because of the shortage of workpeople in the area. As a result he expressed himself so disgusted that he returned to the United States; and Britain lost a factory which would have done a large export trade. That is one illustration of the disastrous results of the interpretation of the theories enunciated in this paper.

It is true that industries are short of labour, but I feel that the proper course is not to try to drive the employer into areas in which it is uneconomic and unprofitable for him to go, but rather to build houses and to attract the type of labour required to the areas where it is wanted. In other words, do not build the factories where they are not needed, but build the houses where they are needed. I wonder whether your Lordships have fully appreciated the vast sums of money involved in this issue. A figure of nearly £100,000,000 has been put to me as the cost of establishing these factories in areas where some theorist thinks they should be advisedly set up. But have we stopped to think what could be done if only a fraction of that £100,000,000 could be spent in building the houses in the towns and the districts where the labour is in fact needed? I have tried briefly to put before your Lordships one or two points which I trust are not without substance. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will be able to assure me that the principles of this White Paper will not be applied without reason and restraint. I hope that he will also encourage me by saying that he feels able to give careful thought to the points which I have tried to make.

6.5 p.m.

LORD CLYDESMUIR

My Lords, I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that this is a subject which is most suitable for debate in this House, and that you will feel grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, for raising his Motion. If I may say so, his speech was a most helpful and constructive one, in which he analysed thoughtfully the employment figures in the White Paper and made valuable suggestions arising from that review. I feel sure that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will study his speech with the thoroughness it deserves.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, and the noble Viscount who has just spoken, stressed several points which I hope to bring into the few remarks which I shall make. One point in particular, which appeared from both speeches was the desirability of encouraging the mobility of labour so far as possible and getting away from what may prove to be old and preconceived ideas not applicable to to-day's situation. My reason for wanting to intervene for a few minutes in this debate is that through three Departments and for nine years this problem has dogged me. I remember when I was in the Overseas Trade Department of the Board of Trade I was continually urged by my chief to do my best to extend the particular exports which affected what were then known as the depressed areas. Then again, when I went to the Treasury, the financial aspect of this problem was always on my desk. Finally, in the Scottish Office I had perhaps the most stubborn and difficult of the depressed areas to deal with, and in that work the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, took command and did yeoman service. Therefore, the subject is one which interests me, and I make that explanation and apology for detaining your Lordships for only a few moments while I deal with it.

The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, gave a thumbnail historical sketch of development. I would remind the Government that in 1945, when they came to office, they fell heir to the result of much preparatory work and there was no unemployment problem. That was because, of course, the Forces were mobilised, the momentum of war production was still at its height and there was literally no unemployment problem. But they had, of course, the prospect of an unemployment problem in the future, and they properly applied themselves to measures to meet those dangers when they arose. Perhaps I may refer to an earlier document—namely, the White Paper on Employment Policy which was published by the Coalition Government in May, 1944. In that White Paper it was stated that the Government accepted as one of their primary aims and responsibilities the maintenance of a high and stable level of employment after the war.

Your Lordships will recollect that the Paper went on to outline the methods by which this policy would be put into practice, including special action to encourage the establishment of new enterprises in areas which had previously suffered from high unemployment. The decision of the Government of the day to accept responsibility for maintaining a high level of employment was a momentous and courageous one. Previous Governments had done their best to alleviate unemployment and to reduce unemployment, but the Coalition Government of the day, recognising at that time that there was no unemployment problem, looked ahead and courageously and wisely took the responsibility on their heads. The Distri- bution of Industry Act, 1945, followed upon that decision, and I do not quarrel with it. It was directed to preventing mass unemployment, and it marked an important step in dealing with the problem of maldistribution of population. I do not quarrel with it, but I think the time has come when we should review it and its results in the light of present day circumstances.

May I say a word on maldistribution of population? There can be no doubt that concentration of population in one area of the country, inducing the depletion of human resources over other areas, is unstrategic and uneconomical. Strategically, it is unsound if that concentration is, as my noble friend has said, in the vulnerable South-Eastern area. The maldistribution of population also brings in its train administrative problems of the first magnitude. Any large concentration of population must have an effective economic hinterland behind it to draw on. If it feeds its own growth by drawing its population from that hinterland, and thereby depletes the hinterland, the great centre of population accelerates its own decline, and a vicious circle may be set up. That is one of the problems which the Government had before them in the distribution of industry. A great deal has been done in distribution of industry but it has been done expensively. No doubt the Government say that they realised that it would be expensive, but the fact remains.

The operation of the Act itself has raised some new problems to which attention should now be directed. However right and necessary the policy may be, it should not be followed too narrowly, and without watching its implications as time goes on. As one noble Lord said, it is a medicine to be used wisely and sparingly, and not administered when not required. One highly important question is that of maintaining a really effective balance of development between the scheduled development areas and the other areas of the country, particularly those which are naturally developing. There are certain areas in the country which are naturally developing, and it is most important that they should not be penalised artificially by unwise application of this policy. This problem is rendered acute in certain parts of the country by the fact that some of the old coal-bearing areas are being worked out, and that in future the main coal areas which may be developed are not necessarily within the present development areas as scheduled. The Lanarkshire coalfield, for instance, is within the development area but in some measure is worked out, and miners are being removed to Fife, the Lothians, and Ayrshire, which are outside the development area.

If coalmining is allowed to develop in these areas without the provision of ancillary industries, the old problem of lack of industrial balance may be repeated. It is therefore necessary not only to plan wisely beforehand but to take early practical steps to ensure that there is balanced development of indusstry in the areas of natural industrial growth. A new coal area to which men are going is a naturally developing area. It is important that such an area should have ancillary industries to back up this great basic industry, otherwise we shall repeat our problem of an unsound balance.

I should like to ask this question. In these migrations of men that are taking place in consequence of coalfields being worked out, is it the National Coal Board or the Ministry of Labour who are responsible for co-ordinating the movement? I am in doubt as to who is responsible. The need for an overall balance of development is obvious. In Scotland, the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) has been pressing the view that there is need for vigilance to ensure that communities immediately outside development areas are not unduly prejudiced by the application of development area policy. That is true of other parts of the country besides Scotland. There are in various parts of the country instances of towns which, though they cannot be said to have suffered as yet from mass unemployment, are definitely in need of further industrial development; but because they are situated just outside development areas, new industrial projects tend to pass them by and to settle in the development areas where powerful attractions are available. In consequence, workers are often drawn from such places to the development areas either permanently or as day travellers. Your Lordships will agree that there is need to keep watch on that situation.

There is also need for reasonable discrimination in the attraction of new industries to the development areas. Hitherto, the emphasis has been laid rather on acquisition than selection. We have been glad to acquire almost any new industry in an area, but I think we now have to watch selection very closely. It is economically unwise to concentrate in one area too many industries of any particular kind, and it is ultimately of no benefit to attract industries which have not a reasonable expectation of survival in worse times than at present. The roots should be deep.

I should now like to touch upon another point. In my view, no area can be fully prosperous or economically secure if its economy depends unduly on outposts of concerns which have their main sources of vitality elsewhere. Remote control has its dangers. Broadly speaking, it is where the heart and brains of the concern are situated that there will be the most progress and most development, both of the main products and of the ancillary developments which usually flow from modern industry. I cannot, of course, apply that too narrowly, because in large concerns a measure of remote control is inevitable. Conversely, in times of depression and retrenchment it would be the remote outposts which would tend naturally to be closed down first if curtailment were necessary. It is therefore essential to attract, not only to the development areas but also to areas needing new development, industries which will strike roots and which have a natural and good chance of survival. In this connection the importance of research and development cannot be over-emphasised.

There is another consideration. It is generally recognised that we must export more than in the past if we are to maintain our existing standards of life. There was a debate on the export trade in this House just before Christmas, when the Government made a statement on the situation. As was pointed out then, there was cause for a certain amount of satisfaction, although not for complacency, because a highly artificial situation existed, in the sense that the home market was being curtailed heavily in order to make goods available for export. But another factor has arisen which is going to add to our difficulties, and that is competition coming from re- vived sources. I believe that Japanese competition and possibly even German competition may be factors to be dealt with in the future. In the manufacture of many mass-produced goods, certain countries other than ours start with great advantages. They start with vast material resources, with plentiful capital equipment and a large and well-protected home market. Therefore, it seems wise for us to concentrate, above all, on goods of really high and inimitable quality and products which require the high level of intelligence and ingenuity which the workmen and designers of this country can show. The latter are, in general, those requiring a large measure of research and development to produce. Therefore, I stress—and I hope that the noble Lord will bring out this point in his reply—the advisability of more research being done.

I mentioned earlier to your Lordships the work of the Scottish Council. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the work which the Council has done in the promotion of research and development work. Strenuous and systematic efforts are being made to increase research-consciousness among Scottish firms. In some ways, some of them have lagged behind in research-consciousness, particularly in the smaller firms and the newer industries. Many of the major Scottish firms in the established industries have research departments, but there is need for more such effort in industry. I think that this is true of other parts of the country as well. But in addition to private firms, there is much that the Government can do. I hope that the Government will play its part in effecting a reasonable measure of devolution, not only to Scotland and the North but to other parts of the country generally, of their own massive scientific research effort now mainly concentrated in the South. I think there ought to be more research laboratories in other parts of the country than in the South, and more Government Department research contracts. I think it is proper that Scotland should have her share of the £60,000,000 or so which the Government are spending annually on research; but far more important is the contribution that Government laboratories and Government research contracts make to the development of a scientific atmosphere and the furtherance of those industries which will not be fully effective until they are developed in that atmosphere.

There has recently been one such research laboratory promised to be established near Glasgow. It will be of great value to that district. While I am speaking of the Clyde, I note that in the White Paper there is a reference to shipbuilding. I see it refers to the "highly vulnerable" condition of shipbuilding on the Clyde. Shipbuilding is very active indeed at the present time; but, to use the words of the White Paper, it is "highly vulnerable." In my opinion, a good contribution to the stability of shipbuilding would be a graving dock on the Clyde large enough to take the largest ships. Here is a matter in which the Government might interest themselves. If one of the basic industries employing large numbers of men can be made better balanced, so that the refitting and repair of large ships can be carried out, I think it will be a greater contribution to employment in that area than anything else that can be done through new industries in factories. I hope that the Government will take into account the suggestion I have made, and, although I can hardly expect the noble Lord who is to reply to give me a graving dock for the "Queen Elizabeth" across the table to-night, I throw out the idea as one worthy of consideration.

I make no apology now for mentioning one of Scotland's most beautiful areas—the Highlands—which suffers from depopulation. Paragraph 105 deals with this problem. Some progress has been made in this area. Hydro-electric schemes will, I believe, play an important part in the revival of industries in the Highlands, but peculiar and special problems arise. I believe it will be necessary to provide special facilities to ensure the utilisation of hydro-electric power in these districts, such as the services of an industrial estate in the Highlands and an adequate dock at a suitable point, because most of the industries going there as a result of hydro-electric power will require to import raw materials. There is one question I should like to ask specifically before concluding. On page 34 of the White Paper, in paragraph 115, there is a reference to the Committee which was set up in 1947 under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Clay. I understand that this committee is studying long-term problems in relation to the location of industry. Its Report has been sent to the universities for consideration. Would the noble Lord tell us whether we can expect some information about this Report soon?

In conclusion, I would urge the Government to scrutinise carefully the effect on the United Kingdom as a whole of the policy which is being pursued, and to consider whether the time has not come when hard and fast territorial limits should be abolished and assistance given on its merits to areas in any part of the Kingdom which could demonstrate the value to our national economy of new industries there located. I realise it would be a difficult policy to carry out. The butter might have to be spread more thinly, and with a wise and steady hand, but it is worthy of consideration whether a rigid adherence to development areas should be continued, for I fear that there is danger that the very problem which successive Governments have sought to correct may be repeated through unbalanced development.

6.27 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, your Lordships have been brought with a suddenness from the altruistic aura of the cultural and moral world in which your Lordships have spent a delightful afternoon to the hard material fact of "How do we earn our daily bread?" As usual, the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, has put the case exhaustively in a well-reasoned and balanced speech. I can only regret that we have had to debate this subject (than which there is no more important before this country at the present time) at such a late hour and on such an inconvenient date. The noble Lord, with his usual courtesy, had given me notice of quite a a number of the points he was going to make. I hope that my replies will prove to be satisfactory.

I am delighted that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster thought better of "scratching" himself, and that he did after all appear at the post. As is usual with him, he had a furious if short gallop. The noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, again addressed your Lordships in that constructive manner which we have learnt to expect from him and to enjoy. As he quite rightly surmised, I am not going to hand him a graving dock over the table. I might get into trouble with the county of my adoption, and there might be trouble in Southampton if I tried to appease Glasgow as he would like me to do. But, before I attempt to answer some of the questions that have been put, I think it might serve a useful purpose if I tried to clear the air by restating briefly what is our policy. I do not intend to attempt to make debating points; the subject is too serious. But the conflict of argument between the three noble Lords who have spoken from the opposite Benches really only points to the complexities of one of the greatest problems we have to solve.

The purpose and policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to the distribution of industry is to provide in all parts of the country regular work for the greatest possible number of people who want it, and provide the workers which industry is seeking. We hope to achieve that aim, first, by guiding enterprises seeking new locations to areas with labour (I will deal with the more intricate point raised by the noble Lord on that question later on); and next, by limiting industrial expansion and preventing overcrowding in congested areas, such as Greater London and Greater Birmingham. Therefore, in pursuance of those aims, we give special attention to those parts of the country known as the development areas, the overall object being to raise the number in work and the nation's total output to the highest possible level. That is the basic policy upon which we are working, and I think we can confidently claim that since the introduction of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, a very large measure of success has attended the efforts of His Majesty's Government.

I hope I may be forgiven if I deal with the development areas first—and in that I am following the example of the Government, because they had to deal with first things first. The development areas have had, and will continue to have, preference for reasons apparent to all. The job in these development areas is not yet completed, as I hope to illustrate to your Lordships as I go along. In the past—and this bears out exactly what all three noble Lords who have spoken have said—these areas were far too dependent upon our basic industries. The great need has been to provide them with a much broader-based industrial structure than they had in the past. That is what the Government's distribution of industry policy has been aimed at, and I think it has been successful. Of course, difficulties have arisen. The general overall shortage of materials has hampered us. If we had had all the materials we wanted for these development areas, the numbers in employment would have been far greater than they have been.

That brings me to the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale. He said that only a relatively small proportion of the new employment is due to new industries introduced into the development areas at enormous cost, and he asked whether this expenditure could always be justified. My Lords, no one is yet in a position to judge finally the benefits which will accrue from our factory building programme. It is true that new employment created up to the present has flowed mainly from the conversion of war-time Government factories to civilian use. But this state of affairs will change, and we are confident that in the future the number of employed in the new factories will grow and grow. By September the completed factories in the development areas, about one-third of the whole programme in terms of area, were employing 38,000 people, and this has been rising by about 5,000 to 6,000 per quarter.

The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, was quite fair. He pointed out that there were good reasons why this could be justified, but he asked, could it go on being justified? As I have already pointed out, the job in the, development areas is not yet completed, but a return on the capital invested is received in the form of the rentals for the factories. It might interest your Lordships to know that the rentals upon those factories are based on 1939 values and are arrived at by the district valuer. Every person put to work in one of these factories, your Lordships will I think agree, effects a diminution of the calls upon the unemployment fund, which is a substantial benefit, and the community also obtains the benefit of the goods produced, so there is a double benefit. We shall have to go on with this policy until we can see that the task is being got under way.

Then the noble Lord asked me another question, to this effect: Can the building of unallotted factories really be justified? By "unallotted factories" is meant those on which the Government speculated and built in anticipation of demand. No new factories for which tenants are not available have been started since October, 1947, and I think the figures which I will give to your Lordships are indicative of the success of that anticipatory policy, if I may put it in that way. All factories built or building amount to 4,800,000 square feet in area. The factories definitely allotted amount to 3,500,000 square feet. We have tenants in view for an additional 800,000 square feet. Of the balance of 500,000 square feet, we have only one unallotted factory completed, of 5.000 square feet in size. I am certain that without these factories at our disposal we should never have attracted the volume of new industry which we have. Applicants for unallotted factories have now to pass a very stringent test of essentiality before they are accepted.

The noble Lord then asked a series of questions, the purport of which, I gathered, was to inquire whether or not the rest of the country had been sacrificed for the benefit of the development areas. The Government distribution of industry policy is on a broad basis and is not directed entirely towards solving the problems of the development areas to the exclusion of all others; nor has the Government concentrated on the need to create employment to the exclusion of industrial efficiency. Industrialists who can prove that to transfer their production, either to a development area or elsewhere, would be uneconomic and not in the national interest, have not been prevented from building new factories or extensions in existing locations.

The noble Lord mentioned figures for building in the whole of the country, and then split them up between the development areas and the other areas. I would like to elaborate those figures and bring them up to date. In Great Britain as a whole the number of projects licensed up to October 30, 1948, amounted to 3,126. The square footage of that was 87.283,000, and the capital cost was £137,964,000. That was split up as between the non-development areas and the development areas in this ratio: In non- development areas the number of projects was 2,068, the square footage was 46,420,000, and the capital cost was £66,172,000; in the development areas, projects numbered 1,058, the square footage was 40,863,000 and the capital cost £71,792,000. On that I would make the point that the non-development areas have not been excluded for the benefit of the development areas.

When speaking of costs—and this was a matter which was also mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster—the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale laid emphasis on strategic necessity. Now stategic necessity and cost go hand in hand, because the strategically important parts of this country are just the very parts where the industrialists do not want to go, and where they have to be tempted to go. Noble Lords have only to think of the wastes of Cumberland, and certain other parts of this country, which were strategically the right districts in which to build our factories during the war but which as commercial propositions before the war held no attraction whatever to industrialists, so that they never went there. I will return to that point later.

Lord Rochdale also raised the question as to whether these areas were developed at the call of salesmanship or pressure groups. The answer is: No. I can give him that reply quite definitely. I am not going to say that some have not been better developed than others, by reason of more intelligence being used, but although the representatives of particular areas do press their claims, the Government are well armed with all the information they require. Moreover, research is continuously undertaken, and the relevant claims are weighed in a very fair manner. The noble Lord asked how often firms have been refused building licences unless they would agree to move to development areas. No figures are available, but I have already pointed out that if they could prove the economic necessity of remaining where they were they have not been hindered unduly. That, I think, was illustrated by the figures which I have given. And, after all, there are other reasons for refusing building licences than the one which the noble Lord mentioned.

Another question which he asked was how often have established firms in other areas, on essential work, reluctantly had to move a part away owing to their inability in their present location to find sufficient operatives to man fully existing factories. The answer is: Not many, though there have been some outstanding cases. I could point to established firms which have benefited very much by reason of their not being affected by new demand for labour. Then the noble Lord asked whether there might not have been cases where, for the sake of efficiency and economy, it would have been preferable that more dwelling-houses should be built in existing areas. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, also made that point. I know that that sounds the easiest solution in the world, but as a matter of fact it is the most difficult.

Consider, for a moment, the overall shortage of houses. I am sure there are many noble Lords in this House who are members of local authorities who know well how every local authority in this country has a waiting list of local inhabitants—people whose names, in many cases, have been on the list for years. What kind of trouble would His Majesty's Government store up for themselves if they brought in a lot of new labour, and built houses specially to house these workers to the exclusion of those who had been on the waiting lists of the local authorities for long periods? There are other considerations to be borne in mind as well. Perhaps when the day arrives when we can build all the houses that we want, and are able to build with less hindrance than we have to put up with at the present time, we may be able to go a substantial way towards solving this problem. But I would impress upon noble Lords that while it is easy to say: "All you have to do is to build houses," to act on that is far more difficult than it sounds. As I have said, there are so many other considerations to be taken into account.

The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, further asked whether there might not have been cases where all these difficulties would have been swept away if only we could modify the system of controls. I am afraid that raises, as the noble Lord admitted, very wide issues—such wide issues that I should hardly be forgiven if I went into them to-night. I can only say that the Board of Trade have set a very good example to other Government Departments in recent months in getting rid of controls, and that it will be the policy of His Majesty's Government to get rid of every control as soon as it is practicable to do so. The noble Lord asked what is to be the future course of events after Merseyside and the Highlands have been included in these new areas, and when the orders will be laid. I can tell the noble Lord that the orders affecting Merseyside and the Highlands will be laid within the next few weeks, when consultations about the boundaries have been completed.

Then Lord Rochdale asked whether we have had any adverse comment—a point also raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. I hope that the noble Viscount will forgive me if I twit him slightly on the fact that he, from the Conservative Opposition Benches, should have had to return to his first love, the Manchester Guardian, in order to get ammunition to fire across the table this evening. I would be glad if I could have the noble Viscount's attention for one moment, as I am on a point which he raised. I will not repeat my gentle chiding. No doubt he will read it to-morrow, and will enjoy it as much as I have enjoyed administering it. I shall be interested to see the details of the case to which he has referred, but I must confess that I was not much impressed with the criticism of the Manchester Guardian. I am surprised that such an authoritative and responsible organ should say that there were no grounds for scheduling an area in which to-day there are nearly 30,000 unemployed. I am afraid that His Majesty's Government would be vulnerable to very harsh criticism if they allowed conditions in Merseyside to continue as they are to-day. I will study with very great care what the noble Lord has said. At the moment I have given him a brief answer, but other points which he raised will require mature consideration.

Another question put to me by Lord Rochdale was this: Having got so far in improved employment results, is it not time to forget the distinction between development areas and other areas? I can only repeat that the work in the development areas has not been finished. Unemployment in parts of South Wales to-day is between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent., and it is necessary to conserve our resources—which are not limitless—and to limit these schemes to areas where the need is greatest. Have we not reached the stage, asked the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, where, if we are to maintain a so-called full employment policy, and at the same time achieve maximum production, we require a policy not so much of work to the workers, as of workers to the work. That is a very fine distinction. I can assure your Lordships that it is a matter of the greatest difficulty. I am afraid that if we followed the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, we would find ourselves once again in the position well illustrated in Paragraph 80 of the White Paper. I am sure your Lordships must be impressed by these figures. In the Greater London area, the effect of restriction has been to limit new industrial building to 5.3 per cent. of the total for the country. The contrast with pre-war is striking. Between 1932 and 1938 Greater London and the whole of the Midlands had 57 per cent. of new industrial development. A roughly comparative figure for the post-war period would be 19 per cent. I assure your Lordships that it is no part of the policy of His Majesty's Government to go back and present themselves with such problems as Greater London presents to the Government to-day.

The noble Lord also asked me as did Lord Clydesmuir: Where do we go from here; what is the future policy? On this point I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale. What is needed is not so much a change in principle as a better and still better working out of present policy. I repeat—and I cannot emphasise this too much, because the whole tenor of the discussion has been that the job in the development areas is approaching an end—that this task is a long way from being finished. It may be that we can say in West Cumberland that it is nearly finished, but that is the only area about which I would offer any optimistic assertion about completion. As the noble Lords, Lord Clydesmuir and Lord Rochdale, have said, this is no static problem. In paragraph 113 some of the changing difficulties are set out. It illustrates the coalfields, which the noble Lord also gave as an illustration. The same could be said of the steel industry. Lord Rochdale suggested that we were pursuing a "fair-weather" policy. But it would obviously be imprudent to rely upon an indefinite continuance of conditions of prosperity in the basic industries brought about by world inflation and the post-war need for capital goods produced by those industries. The noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, made my point for me when he talked about Lanarkshire, and the need to bring in ancillary industries, to secure a broader basis so that this area may not become a depressed area again. The pattern of demand will change; it will change unceasingly. Industrial efficiency will produce many new problems. Redundancy is bound to occur as development goes on. We anticipate it in the steel industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, asked me about the Clay Report. The Report is a confidential document, and therefore I cannot disclose what is in it. But as a result of that Report the Board of Trade have asked the National Institute of Economic and Social Research to carry out research on subjects for which it is well fitted, and the universities are being asked to give their co-operation. I anticipate very good results from this research. I am afraid that that is all I can say about the Clay Report at the present time. I would impress on your Lordships that research has been going on, and is still going on. There is not a square mile in Great Britain which has not been surveyed, and is not continually being surveyed, and its changing future assessed. Merseyside and the Highlands are tangible results of such research. Perhaps the other areas mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, are published examples because application has been made by the local authorities.

I wish I could give your Lordships some examples of others that have not been published; but that would be dangerous. If I did, we should find tomorrow a queue of indignant local authorities outside the Board of Trade saying that I was either calling them depressed areas, and that they were going bankrupt, or that the information I gave your Lordships was entirely wrong. There is to our hand, together with the Distribution of Industry Act, Section 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which must be regarded in future as a permanent feature of Government policy. It is linked up with the broader aspects of development of the national resources as a whole.

Before I sit down, I would like to answer the specific question which the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, asked me about who looks after the movement of labour in the coalmines. The responsibility rests with the National Coal Board, who act after consultation with the Minister of Labour and the National Union of Mineworkers. It is really an agreement between the three. Perhaps I may conclude by giving the assurance that there is not one problem that has been raised in this debate which is not receiving the careful and daily consideration of His Majesty's Government: the question of population, and its past, present and future trends; the structure of industry and whether it is dependent too much on the capital goods industries; past and present trends in the number and composition of the unemployed—all with a view to finding whether, and if so how much, additional industry can be established in any particular place and what types are desirable.

The White Paper has been a valuable contribution. It may be that the time will arise for another. White Papers cannot be produced too often. Sometimes we are asked for them, though there are those, like the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, whom I have heard say that the only thing the Government produces is White Papers. But I expect that at a reasonable period another document will be produced, and I hope it will be an account of successful stewardship. Though I have already overstepped the time I had set myself, I am conscious that I have not answered many of the questions raised, and I apologise if I have omitted anything. For instance, I have said nothing about the difficult question of female labour, which has to be taken into serious consideration in mining areas, where there has been an absence of any employment for females. I thank your Lordships for being so kind to me. This debate, though short and at an inopportune time, will have some lasting benefit.

7.0 p.m.

LORD ROCHDALE

My Lords, at this late hour I certainly do not intend to keep your Lordships for more than a few moments. There are, however, one or two points I would like to make before I withdraw my Motion. I wish to thank my noble friends very much for the support which they have given me, and for the strong points which they made underlining what I had to say. I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for the way in which he dealt with some of my points, and for the trouble which he has evidently taken over the matter. I hope I am wrong in thinking that I detect a slight trace of complacency—perhaps that is a little too strong a word. I must say that if I had to make over again the speech I made earlier, nothing which the noble Lord has said would lead me to alter my remarks.

Turning to what the noble Lord said as regards the future, I was disappointed that he did not give me a little more encouragement in what I had asked for. He seemed rather to take the point of view that what we were asking for was a sudden, clear-cut stop to what was going on in the development areas, and to have something new. Obviously that is not what we want. These policies take a long time to formulate, and they take even longer to put into effect. I still feel that the time is ripe for consideration of those matters. However, one looked for encouragement, and I was glad when the noble Lord said that the Government realise that this is no static problem, and that constant research is going on. I am delighted to hear that, and I hope the noble Lord will keep the Government up to it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.