§ 51. Mr. CLEARYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make representations to shipowners whose applications under Part II of the British Shipping (Assistance) Act are approved to so spread their orders that as many of the depressed areas as possible may benefit therefrom; and whether, in connection with the five new vessels covered by approved applications but yet to be placed for contract, he will press the claims of Merseyside, having regard to the fact that eight such vessels are to be constructed on the North-East Coast?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) on 25th July, to which I have nothing to add.
§ Mr. CLEARYDid that reply refer to the five orders to be placed which are mentioned in my question?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe reply given on that date was to refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 3 of the White Paper issued a year ago, which gives the necessary information.
§ Mr. CLEARYCan the right hon. Gentleman make any rely with regard to the question of the five orders to be placed and the making of representations for those orders to be so spread as to give the maximum benefit through the areas, including Merseyside.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANNo, Sir, we have allowed the shipowners to place the orders where they could do so to the best advantage.
§ Mr. CLEARYAs this is a matter where public money is concerned, could not friendly representations be made by the right hon. Gentleman's Department to the shipowners?