Control of Office and Industrial Development Bill

Part of Ballot for Notices of Motions – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 14 April 1965.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Douglas Jay Mr Douglas Jay , Battersea North 12:00, 14 April 1965

I do not think that any of us are really in doubt what we wish to do in dealing with this part of Clause 1. We all believe that in the administration of these office development permits the Board of Trade must take into account the effects on employment and a number of other relevant considerations. We all agree with that and we are really only discussing, in effect, the drafting question of how this can best be put into the proper legal language.

It will not be disputed that the main purpose of the Bill is to get office employment better spread out over the whole country. The main mischief which we are aiming to check is the over-concentration of employment in offices in London and the South-East which has led to all sorts of other difficulties which we need not describe at length now.

But although that is the main purpose in administering the O.D.P.s, clearly the Board of Trade must take account of the need for modernisation of offices, decent conditions in transport and housing and a number of other relevant fac- tors which have been mentioned in these debates. It seems to me that if that is the purpose, we shall best achieve it by the existing language of the Clause.

As it is, the Bill states that the Board of Trade shall have particular regard to the need for promoting the better distribution of employment in Great Britain. I ask the House to notice that it is "employment in Great Britain" and not simply employment in the neighbourhood to which an O.D.P. applies. If we use that language, it is surely clear, first, that there is special emphasis on the need to promote the better distribution of employment, and that, I think, is what we all intend. It is also clear, however, because the word "particular" is used, that other relevant considerations are not excluded. Both those points are made perfectly clear by the language as it is.

If we were to do what is suggested in Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, if we were to omit "particular" and then add, in addition to "better distribution of employment", and so on, the words proposed in the Amendment, providing adequate office space to meet the requirements of the commercial, industrial and professional life of the country … we would surely get into a difficulty. We would then be saying that two groups of considerations are to be taken into account: first, the need for promoting better distribution of employment, and secondly, the other points which are set out in Amendment No. 9.

If we do that, however, if we do not have the word "particular" and we mention two groups of considerations, it will be implied that other considerations which are not mentioned are not to be taken into account. Why should we select only two of the points which should be taken into account and exclude all others from mention in the Bill?

I believe, therefore, that of the two alternative forms of language, we shall really come nearer to saying what we all want to say if we put it more simply in this form that the Board of Trade shall have particular regard to … the better distribution of employment which is the main purpose of the whole operation. But, of course, we will, in practice, take into account all the other relevant factors. If we try to list all the other relevant factors, we are in this difficulty, that either we have to put them all in, which would not be practicable, nor efficient legislation, or, alternatively, we have to put in some and thus clearly imply that others are to be left out of account.

Having carefully considered this, and the arguments of hon. Members, I feel convinced that it would better achieve the purpose on which I think we are all agreed if we leave the wording as it now is in the Bill.