^{page 40 note (1)} The analysis has been done in terms of total employees to avoid the effects of different unemployment levels at the two dates.

^{page 40 note (2)} Those in which the number of employees grew more slowly than in the United Kingdom as a whole.

^{page 43 note (1)} This may be because many high income-earners who live in the South Eastern region work, and are assessed for tax purposes, in Greater London.

^{page 43 note (2)} Ministry of Labour Gazette, March 1963, page 101.

^{page 44 note (1)} Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population, Cmd. 6153, 1940.

^{page 44 note (2)} The terms of reference of the Barlow Commission, set up in 1937, were ‘to inquire into the causes which have influenced the present geographical distribution of the indus trial population of Great Britain and the probable direction of any change in that distribution in the future; to consider what social, economic or strategical disadvantages arise from the concentration of industries or of the industrial population in large towns or in particular areas of the country; and to report what remedial measures if any should be taken in the national interest.’

^{page 44 note (3)} Barlow Commission Report, Chapter XI.

^{page 44 note (4)} Monthly Digest of Statistics, April 1963, Table 11.

^{page 45 note (1)} Barlow Commission Report, page 171.

^{page 45 note (2)} Barlow Commission Report, page 173.

^{page 46 note (1)} Report of Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population, Cmnd. 6153, 1940.

^{page 47 note (1)} Seventh Report of the Estimates Committee, 1962-3, page vii.

^{page 48 note (1)} Seventh Report of the Estimates Committee, 1962-63, pages ix-x, 203-4, 210-12, 240-41. Witnesses from the Treasury and Board of Trade emphasised the difficulty of establishing ex post the number of jobs created as a result of assistance given, but in response to pressure from the Com mittee the Board of Trade agreed to institute a series of regular returns from assisted firms in order to get more information on this point.

^{page 49 note (1)} Seventh Report of the Estimates Committee, page 82.

^{page 51 note (1)} Report of Joint Working Party on the economy of Northern Ireland, Cmnd. 1835, page 19.

^{page 51 note (2)} As references to a number of publications recur frequently in this section they have been allocated code letters as follows :

1. A.

   A. Inquiry into the Scottish Economy, 1960-61. Report of a Committee appointed by the Scottish Council (Develop ment and Industry) under the chairmanship of J. N. Toothill Esq., C.B.E. (Toothill Report).

2. B.

   B. Report of the Joint Working Party on the economy of Northern Ireland, Cmnd. 1835, October 1962. (Hall Report.)

3. C.

   C. North East Development Council, First Annual Report, 1961/62.

4. D.

   D. North East Development Council, Second Annual Report, 1962/63.

5. E.

   E. National Economic Development Council, Conditions favourable to faster growth, 1963.

6. F.

   F. Seventh Report of the Estimates Committee, Session 1962-63, Administration of the Local Employment Act, 1960, 15th May 1963.

7. G.

   G. Political and Economic Planning, Location of industry, 29th October 1962.

8. H.

   H. Federation of British Industries, The regional problem, May 1963.

^{page 51 note (3)} The Chairman of The Estimates Committee suggested that the scheduling of some of the small isolated development districts in the South West was shadow boxing (F, page 172).

^{page 51 note (4)} The Prime Minister made a statement in Parliament on 1st August which suggests that the government may now be giving more favourable consideration to the ‘growth point’ approach.

^{page 52 note (1)} A, page 190; E, pages 25-26; H, page 4; The Economist, 11th May 1963, ‘Working up Britain’.

^{page 52 note (2)} F, pages vii-viii.

^{page 52 note (3)} The Observer, 30th June 1963, ‘Hailsham tax plan for North East’.

^{page 52 note (4)} F, pages ix and 8.

^{page 52 note (5)} E, page 18.

^{page 52 note (6)} F, pages 199, 269.

^{page 52 note (7)} D, page 18.

^{page 52 note (8)} F, pages xii-xiii.

^{page 52 note (9)} D, page 20.

^{page 52 note (10)} A, pages 158-9.

^{page 53 note (1)} H, page 6.

^{page 53 note (2)} F, page 145.

^{page 53 note (3)} F, page xiii. See also A, page 159.

^{page 53 note (4)} H, page 3.

^{page 53 note (5)} F, page xi.

^{page 53 note (6)} A, page 160.

^{page 53 note (7)} A, page 155.

^{page 53 note (8)} F, page 151.

^{page 53 note (9)} C, page 22 : ‘The North East has everything to gain from a more rapid rate of national economic expansion. When the economy as a whole is expanding, employment in the North East rises rapidly.’ E, page 27 :’ A high pressure of demand in the country as a whole would undoubtedly bring with it an improvement in the regional problem.’

^{page 53 note (10)} A, page 190; B, page 55; H, page 3.

^{page 53 note (11)} B, pages 31-6 and 58-9; see also E, page 24, from which it appears that the National Economic Development Council viewed an employment subsidy with some favour, if applied only to increases in employment and given only for a limited period, such as five years. A recent National Institute study suggests that it is only during the first few years, if then, that a new factory established in a high unemployment area suffers any competitive disadvantage. (W. F. Luttrell, Factory location and industrial movement, NIESR, 1961.)

^{page 53 note (12)} D, ‘There should be some form of taxation differential which would enable areas like the North East to expand at a faster rate than the congested areas’, page 21.

^{page 54 note (1)} A, chapters 7 and 8; B, page 29; C, page 13; D, pages 17-19; H, page 5.

^{page 54 note (2)} A, chapters 17 and 19; B, pages 27 and 86; E, page 26; H, page 5.

^{page 54 note (3)} A, chapter 15; B, pages 40-43; D, page 18; E, pages 24-5.

^{page 54 note (4)} A, chapter 6; B, page 58; D, pages 18 and 20; H, pages 5 and 7.

^{page 54 note (5)} C, pages 12-13; F, page x.

^{page 54 note (6)} A, pages 164-5; D, page 17.

^{page 54 note (7)} E, Section B.

^{page 54 note (8)} D, pages 17-19.

^{page 54 note (9)} C, page 12.

^{page 54 note (10)} F, page xv.

^{page 54 note (11)} H, page 4.

^{page 54 note (12)} G, page 343.

^{page 55 note (1)} A, page 157; E, page 14; G, page 355.

^{page 55 note (2)} F, page 42; G, page 345.

^{page 55 note (3)} The Economist, 2nd March 1963, page 803.

^{page 55 note (4)} Standing Conference on London Regional Planning, Report by the Technical Panel on Population, employment and transport in the London region : the years ahead, 3 1 st May 1963.

^{page 55 note (5)} Town and Country Planning, June 1963.

^{page 55 note (6)} F, page 43.

^{page 55 note (7)} G, pages 344-5.

^{page 55 note (8)} White Paper on London—Employment : Housing : Land, Cmnd. 1952, 25th February 1963.

^{page 55 note (9)} Town and Country Planning, June 1963, page 248.

^{page 55 note (10)} The Economist, 8th December 1962, ‘North to Elizabetha’.

^{page 55 note (11)} E, page 24; G, page 356; The Economist, 2nd March 1963, page 803.

^{page 55 note (12)} G, pages 355-6.

^{page 55 note (13)} G, pages 357-8.

^{page 56 note (1)} H.C. Debates, 5th series, vol. 613, col. 31.

^{page 56 note (2)} The Times, 23rd May 1963.

^{page 56 note (3)} G, pages 350-51.

^{page 56 note (4)} Standing Conference Press Notice no. 3, 30th March 1963.

^{page 56 note (5)} The Reshaping of British Railways, page 57; and G. F. Ray, Transport : Notes and Comments, National Institute Economic Review, May 1963, page 25.

^{page 57 note (1)} G, pages 352-4.

^{page 57 note (2)} ‘Chaos or balance’, Architects' Journal, 17th January 1962. See also ‘Counterdrift’, Aspect, March 1963.