HC Deb 17 May 1960 vol 623 cc1095-7
Mr. Grey

asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Minister for Science to the Royal Institution of Naval Architects on 22nd March regarding the rationalisation of the shipbuilding industry represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Short

asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Minister for Science on 22nd March regarding rationalisation of the shipbuilding industry represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)

I have been asked to reply.

My noble Friend made no statement of policy in his speech, but drew attention to a number of questions of concern to the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries.

Mr. Grey

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Minister for Science did not make any statement of policy he was certainly thought to do so, and, that many people in the North-Bast, and indeed in the whole of the country, thought he was flying a kite, and viewed with concern the statement made to the Royal Institution of Naval Architects? As a matter of fact, many people thought that it was a kind of tolling of the bell for small shipping. In view of the fact that we are deeply concerned about the position of the shipyards as a whole, can we have an assurance that before any reorganisation takes place there will be full agreement between the trade unions and the employers concerned?

Mr. Butler

I think that the hon. Gentleman has put a wrong interpreta- tion on the position, and so would his hon. Friends put it if they followed the line of the argument he adopted in his supplementary question. Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the difficulties of the industry, but, as we announced on 30th March, we have set up a sub-committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee and the sub-committee has now started its work. I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friends principally concerned the request made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Short

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Prime Minister that I, for one, and I imagine many of my hon. Friends, will take an extremely serious view of any proposals for rationalisation of the shipbuilding industry on the lines of Shipbuilding Securities Limited in the inter-war years? Will he bear in mind that the structure of this industry is quite different from that of the aircraft industry and that, if anything, the smaller yards are doing better than the big ones? Finally, with regard to his last reply, will he say whether the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee's sub-committee is to consider any proposal for rationalisation of the shipbuilding industry?

Mr. Butler

I do not think that the wider fears to which the hon. Gentleman gave expression are likely to be realised. I will investigate the question put by the hon. Gentleman in relation to the terms of reference of the sub-committee so that I can give him an accurate answer, and I shall be glad to do that if he puts down a Question. In relation to his other fears, I hope that what we are doing will indicate that we are aware of the problems of small shipbuilders.

Mr. Gaitskell

Is not the right hon. Gentleman making rather light of this matter? The Minister for Science is reported to have said that shipbuilding production in the United Kingdom may fall heavily in the next five years. He is also reported to have said that perhaps the future lies with fewer and larger units. What is the position of the Government in this matter? Are they in agreement with the Minister for Science that in fact production is likely to fall heavily in the next few years? If so, what is the Government's policy on this matter? What steps are they taking to deal with the situation?

Mr. Butler

My noble Friend's speech consisted largely of a number of rather fundamental questions about the future of the shipbuilding industry, a number of which I have before me here, which seem to me to cover the subject and do a public service by attempting, with the aid of the public and with the aid of the House, to elicit answers to fundamental questions affecting one of the more important and major industries. I do not share the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman. We have appointed a subcommittee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee to give us information, and I feel sure that at the right time the House will be informed.

Mr. Gaitskell

I am not concerned whether the right hon. Gentleman shares my anxiety but whether he shares the anxiety of the Minister for Science. I am not criticising the noble Lord. I think that it is an excellent thing that these frank questions should be asked and frank statements made, but this puts an obligation on the Government to say what their position is in the matter.

Mr. Butler

It is because we are not frightened of this fundamental problem and are aware of the problems of the shipbuilding industry that we welcome my noble Friend's intervention.

Dame Irene Ward

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, although the point of view he has expressed today is understood, there are those who are engaged in shipbuilding, ship repairing and shipping, both on the employers' side and on the trade unions' side, who have been anxiously awaiting his reply? Will he bear in mind that, though he may be quite satisfied with the speech of the Minister for Science, it has caused deep concern? Will he please convey that impression to the Minister for Science so that in future he will make it perfectly plain that he is not enunciating Government policy in this matter?

Mr. Butler

I am not in the least complacent about the shipbuilding industry. Indeed, I recently paid a visit to the North-East to try to examine what was happening. I am satisfied that it is much better to examine the fundamental problems raised by my noble Friend than to ignore them, as was done by the party opposite.