HC Deb 19 October 1961 vol 646 cc334-45
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the replacement of the "Queen Mary". [HON, MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

The Government have considered the statement which the Cunard Company has made public today of the reasons why the company does not feel able to place an order at the present time for a ship to replace the "Queen Mary".

The company has expressed to the Government its hope that until it has completed the reappraisal referred to in its statement, and has been able to advise the Government as to the action which, in its opinion, should then be taken as regards the replacement of the "Queen Mary", the question of financial assistance from Her Majesty's Government should be held open pending a final decision.

The Government's agreement to assist the building of a ship to replace the "Queen Mary" was based on the understanding that an order for the new ship would be placed this autumn, and that the ship would be in operation at the earliest possible date thereafter. The decision which the company has now reached creates a new situation—[Laughter.]—and the Government must reserve their right to consider, without prior commitment, any proposals which the company may put forward at a later date.

Mr. Strauss

It will be clear from the way in which the Minister of Transport's statement was received—

Mr. Rankin

On a point of order. In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister is even more deeply committed than the Minister of Transport on this matter, ought he not to be here in support of that statement?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Strauss

In view of the way in which the statement by the Minister of Transport has been received, it is clear that there are mixed feelings about it in the House. The Minister will remember that when this matter was discussed during our deliberations on the North Atlantic Shipping Bill, many hon. Members, on both sides, expressed the view that our national resources could be better used and greater benefit conferred upon the shipbuilding industry by other means than the building of a "Queen" as a replacement.

I should like to ask the Minister some questions on his statement. First, are not the arguments put forward today by Sir John Brocklebank, in justifying the Cunard Company's decision, exactly those expressed by many of us within this House and at the time strenuously refuted by the Government?

Secondly, whatever merits there may be now in abandoning this enterprise, is it not clear that in doing so the Conservative Party is breaking yet another General Election pledge? Is it not a fact that both in the official election manifesto of the Conservative Party and, more specifically, in the Prime Minister's speech at St. Andrew's Hall, Glasgow, during the course of the election, the replacement of the "Queens" was promised if the Conservative Party was re-elected? Is the Minister aware that this pledge induced many people in the shipbuilding areas throughout the country to vote for the Conservative Party? Is this not yet another warning to the nation never to believe Conservative election promises?

Finally, what alternative plans has the Minister in mind for assisting the shipbuilding industry?

Mr. Marples

To answer the last part first, the Government must wait until the Cunard Company has completed its reassessment. In reply to the first part of the question about the opinions expressed in this House, the Opposition did not divide on Second Reading, nor did they divide on Third Reading of the Bill. The only hon. Member who voted against the Bill on Third Reading was the Leader of the Liberal Party—

Mr. S. Silverman rose—

Mr. Marples

—assisted by two very able Tellers from just below the Gangway, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and the hon. Member far Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). They were the Tellers, but they did not vote.

On the second part of the question, Cunard stated quite clearly in its published statement that the passenger trade has slumped, particularly in the second half of this year, first-class traffic has fallen and operating costs, including wages, have risen enormously.

As regards the election pledge, the Government went to great lengths to vindicate their honour.

Mr. Montgomery

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a statement made by the Cunard Company in 1960, when it said: We believe that the ship we are hoping to build is the right ship and exhaustive examination and research have led us continually back to that belief. What reason is there for the Cunard Company now to change its mind, having made a mockery of so many of our shipbuilding firms? Has any thought been given to the cost or effort put in by these firms who tendered to no avail?

My right hon. Friend has said that when this question is considered again by the Government, they will look into the matter. May I ask him, first, to read the Conservative Party's election manifesto? If he does not take any notice of it, I shall remind him of it in the House in debate. I happen to represent one of the shipyards that would almost certainly have got the contract had the order been placed. The people in my constituency will be very angry about the whole business.

Mr. Marples

This is a matter of commercial judgment for the Cunard Company. The traffic has altered in character just recently. Concerning the question of a successful tenderer, the Cunard Company announced, I think, that Swan Hunter and Vickers submitted the best tender. It is, however, a matter for the Cunard Company, but I am told that it will discuss with Swan Hunter and Vickers the question of that firm's expenses in tendering. This question would arise only the case of one firm—that is, the successful tenderer.

Mr. Bence

I believe that I heard the Minister say—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

The hon. Member started it all.

Mr. Bence

Is it not a fact, Sir, that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) is responsible for all this?

Mr. Speaker

It is no good asking me. I did not even hear what was said.

Mr. Bence

I believe that I heard the Minister say that we could not expect the Government to give a pledge in this House concerning the replacement of one of the "Queens". Why should the Prime Minister, in Green's Cinema, Glasgow, and in a letter to me, give a pledge during the election, when this House was not sitting, that when returned to office the Government would finance the replacement of the "Queens", and yet today the Minister says that he could not give such a pledge?

Mr. Marples

It must be quite clear that the Government have fulfilled their pledge. We have passed in this House an Act, which is on the Statute Book, to help the Cunard Company; but the Cunard Company has now decided that it does not wish to go forward. My statement said that the Government must reserve their right to consider, without prior commitment, any proposals which the company may put forward at a later date".

Mr. Shinwell

Does the Minister recall that during the Second Reading debate on this matter, and during the prolonged further stages of the Bill, hon. Members on both sides demanded that the report of the inquiry preceding the Government's decision should be made available to hon. Members, but the Minister resisted that demand for some unaccountable reason? May I ask the Minister whether he will place that paper on the order of the House so that hon. Members may study it and come to a conclusion about why the Cunard Line has now decided not to proceed with the building of this vessel?

Secondly, as one of those who, all along, declared his doubts as to whether the ship would ever be built—and the Minister is aware of that—may I ask him whether, during the debate, he did not stake his reputation over and over again on the building of this ship? Quite seriously, ought he not to consider resigning?

Mr. Marples

The answer to the last part of the question is "No, Sir". The answer to the first part of the question, about the publication of the Chandos Committee's Report, is that at the time the Chandos Committee was set up it was said that its report would be confidential and it was, therefore, able to get information from shipping companies and shipbuilders which otherwise it would not have got. Therefore, the Government cannot go back on that pledge. The Report cannot be published.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan

In the light of his statement today, can my right hon. Friend say what steps he will take to see that support is given for the continuation of the North Atlantic British express passenger service, to which such great importance was attached during the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Marples

The Government must wait for the reassessment by the Cunard Company.

Mr. Short

Is the Minister aware that the two statements which have been made today will be received with shock and dismay in shipbuilding circles throughout the country, particularly on Tyneside, which, we are told, submitted the lowest tender and the most imaginative design?

Is the Minister aware that we from Tyneside do not for one moment accept that the reason for abandoning this project is that commercial prospects were not adequately investigated? We cannot believe that a firm of this experience did not properly go into the prospects before asking for tenders. Is the Minister aware that we shall want to debate this subject? We shall want to know a great deal more about why this decision has been taken. I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell): the only honourable thing that the Minister can do now is to resign.

Mr. Marples

The question of having a debate is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I realise that this announcement will be a disappointment to the shipbuilding industry, but I am quite certain that if the Cunard decision is right on commercial grounds the shipbuilding industry would not wish to have a ship built which would not be successful.

Mr. P. Williams

Will my right hon. Friend not now agree that he has wasted a great deal of the time of the House during the last few months, and perhaps his own as well? Therefore, for the future, will he give an undertaking that he will apply as much vigour in promoting the interests of British shipbuilding, more especially with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to taxation, and representing the needs of British shipping in America—two things which are absolutely vital to the survival of British shipping? Will he devote as much energy to those two matters as he has done in trying to frustrate sensible policies in the last twelve months?

Mr. Marples

I am sorry that I cannot agree. I find that, as usual, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on shipping matters.

Mr. Thorpe

I ask, in the temporary absence of one hon. Member who did vote against this in a Division forced by two other hon. Members in front of me, whether, as the right hon Gentleman says that he is keeping this matter open, he does not think that it is preferable, instead of the pay pause, that this whole idea should be scrapped completely? Will he bear in mind that many people find it very distasteful that public money should be used to subsidise private capitalism without any public control at all?

Mr. Marples

The reason for the subsidy to this particular express passenger service was that every other North Atlantic express passenger service is subsidised to some extent. To that extent I think that this subsidy was justified. The Government have reserved judgment, without prior commitment, on any proposals which the company may put forward at a later date.

Mr. Peyton

My right hon. Friend appeared to ignore the fact that there was a quite important Division at another stage of the Bill, in which a large number of hon. Members took part, when they divided against what he said at the time was the substance of the Bill, so I think that what my right hon. Friend said just now was rather misleading. In this new situation, which some of us would welcome, will my right on. Friend really take to heart the lessons which are there to be learned?

Mr. Marples

I really think that the only thing the Government can now do is to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign"]—wait for the reappraisal by the Cunard Company.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

Since the Minister, like a good many of us, has always wanted the Q3 to be built, can he say how many months will it be before he becomes impatient with the company in its reappraisal? Secondly, in view of the unemployment in many of the shipbuilding areas, will the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing in a Bill to enable the Government themselves to build this liner?

Mr. Marples

The answer to the second part of that supplementary question is, "No". The answer to the first part is that the Cunard Company says that it does not expect to be able to complete its reassessment before the second quarter of next year.

Mrs. McLaughlin

May I remind the Minister that the people of Northern Ireland will view this statement with great regret despite the fact that a tender from Northern Ireland was not the successful one? Will he now, despite the necessity of waiting for Cunard's reassessment, energetically look into other means of helping the shipbuilding industry with a view to seeing whether, if it is not possible to replace the "Queens", further shipbuilding can go ahead without undue delay?

Mr. Marples

That is another question.

Mr. Bence

It is the same question all the time.

Mr. Popplewell

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise what this statement really means to the whole shipbuilding industry of this country, particularly on Tyneside and the North-East? Does he not understand that this is the second decision which has been taken to abandon shipbuilding in the North-East, as only a few days ago an 18,000-ton tanker was abandoned on the Wear in spite of the Wear's having put in the lowest tender? Now we get the abandonment of this passenger ship.

When will the Minister realise that he has a duty to the shipbuilding industry? Is it not peculiar that even in this announcement the Minister had not the courtesy to pay a tribute to the new design and propulsion propounded by the Swan Hunter Company? When will he show some interest in this type of thing? In view of what he has now said, is not the only honourable thing he can do to admit his complete failure in this and in all other transport matters and resign forthwith?

Mr. Marples

The answer to the last part of that question is, again, "No." But I do realise that to the shipbuilding industry this is a very bitter disappointment, because, naturally, it wishes to build a ship of this class which would be unique in the world. At the same time, I must repeat that I do not think that the shipbuilding industry would wish to build a ship when the people who were to operate it think that the conditions have changed and that it would not pay.

Mr. S. Silverman

Will the right hon. Gentleman at least admit that what has now happened is a complete vindication of all those on both sides of the House, and not merely on one side, who opposed this proposal from the beginning? Will he bear in mind that, although three of us voted against the Third Reading, the whole of the Opposition voted against the only substantive Clause of the Bill—

Mr. Shinwell

The Minister said that it was a wrecking Amendment.

Mr. Silverman

—that vote being to the same effect and what the right hon. Gentleman described as a wrecking Amendment? Is not the moral of this whole situation the unwisdom, to say the least, of making election promises which you know perfectly well you have no possibility of fulfilling?

Mr. Marples

I think that, as I said before, the Government, by passing the Act, fulfilled their election pledge. I am bound to say that if hon. Gentlemen opposite really were so certain I simply cannot understand why they did not vote against the Second Reading.

Mr. Silverman

I did.

Mr. Strauss

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one simple and direct question? The Conservative Party, in its official election manifesto, said: We intend to support the replacement of the Queen liner. Will the Minister now tell us whether that is still so?

Mr. Marples

That is exactly what the Government did by passing the Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, that is exactly what the Government did by passing the Act, but the company which was to run the ship decided that the conditions have now altered and has withdrawn from its side of the bargain, and, to put it crudely, has said, "All bets are off." We say now, "Reassess the position, let us look at it when you have reassessed."

Mr. G. Brown

Will the Minister answer the question? The election manifesto of the Conservative Party is not something for which the Cunard Company has responsibility. The Tory Party said: We intend to support the replacement of the Queen liner. The Cunard Company has now withdrawn. Does the Conservative Party still stand by its election pledge? If so, how does it intend to bring it about?

Mr. Marples

The Government brought it about by the support which they said they would give to the project. The Government supported the replacement of the liner and carried out their pledge by putting on the Statute Book the Bill which this House passed. There was a genuine movement on the part of the Government to support the Cunard Company. If the Cunard Company does not go ahead it cannot be said that it was because the Government did not support it.

Mr. Brown rose—

Mr. Speaker

I have to bear in mind that a very large number of hon. Members are wanting to speak in the debate which follows. I really think that we cannot debate this important matter now, without a Question before the House.

Mr. Brown

May I raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker? The Minister has purported to answer a question I raised; he did so in terms which had nothing to do with the question I raised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am still putting a point of order to Mr. Speaker.

The question I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, is that the terms of the election manifesto by the Government party were the supporting of the building of a "Queen" liner. It will be apparent to you, Mr. Speaker, that there was, in that manifesto quotation, nothing about the Cunard Company, but simply a statement about the replacement of a ship, to which the Government committed themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the point of order?"] My point of order to you, Mr. Speaker, is this. If the Government spokesman insists upon answering the question in terms which have nothing to do with the issue we are raising we are then forced to return to it and take away from the Govern- ment time which otherwise they would not lose.

May I, therefore, not submit to you that it would be better if the Minister answered the question we have put, here and now? Do the Government stand by the election pledge which they gave in the terms in which they gave it?

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has stated his question which, I hope, will be apparent in the OFFICIAL REPORT and go echoing down the centuries in that form, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I take the view that we really cannot debate this matter now.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order. Would you permit me, Mr. Speaker, or some other hon. Member, to put a question to the Leader of the House on the possibility of the Government setting a day aside for a debate on this subject? This is the only way that I can put the point to you.

Mr. Speaker

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I hope that it would be quite sensible to think that perhaps that question might better be put on the first business day of the new Session, because there does not seem much opportunity for a debate on a general view at this time. I hope that it will be thought that this suggestion is acceptable. I want to get on to the debate if I can.

Mr. Short

On a point of order. I understand that it is not possible to move the Adjournment of the House today under Standing Orders since the debate is on the Adjournment and the subject of debate is agreed between the two sides of the House. In the circumstances, as this matter is a great grievance to people in the shipbuilding areas, which this House ought to reflect, would it be possible for the sitting to be extended by one hour tonight to enable us to discuss it?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a matter for me, as the hon. Member knows.

Mr. Rankin

On a point of order. As the Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company tendered for this vessel and that company is in my constituency, Govan, could you not have given me the chance to ask a question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

The time of the House does not always allow us to go round the shipyards, nor, indeed, am I informed as to who tendered. I am sorry, but I think that we ought to get on with today's business.

Forward to