Abstract
CRITICISM of the Distribution of Industry Bill in the House of Commons on March 21 appeared to centre essentially on two points, which found expression in the amendment moved by Sir George Schuster but afterwards withdrawn when the Minister of Production had made a statement: first, that no steps have been taken to establish a central independent tribunal to consider the national position as a whole, as recommended in the report of the Barlow Commission; and, secondly, that there has been no satisfactory implementation of the Government's intentions, as set forth in the White Paper on Employment Policy, that the Board of Trade should be suitably strengthened to undertake the new responsibilities proposed in the Bill. Sir George Schuster, in moving his amendment, made it clear that he only supported the Barlow Commission's recommendation for a central authority to review the position of the country as a whole and to make research into all those factors which affect the location of industry, in so far as such an authority stood outside the political field and was capable of an independent and objective review of the position, and of keeping it under constant survey. He did not advocate the establishment of an independent authority with large powers outside the control of Parliament, and in so far as Mr. Lyttleton accepted the view that a large conspectus was required, there may be no more difference between his position and Sir George Schuster's than between the majority and minority recommendations of the Barlow Report regarding the constitution and functions of the national authority.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Problems of the Location of Industry. Nature 155, 437–438 (1945). https://doi.org/10.1038/155437a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/155437a0