§ 26. Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he had with the fishing and shipbuilding industries in Scotland before agreeing to the decision to allow the building of fishing vessels in foreign shipyards with the aid of subsidies provided by the British taxpayer.
§ Mr. MaclayNone, Sir.
§ Mr. HoyThat is a surprising Answer. How does the Secretary of State know that this will best serve the interests of the fishing fleets, as was stated by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in a Written Answer on Monday, if he did not consult the fishing industry? Is this another case of the man in Whitehall knowing best?
§ Mr. MaclayThe hon. Gentleman's Question has two parts. Consultation with the shipbuilding industry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. This cannot be to the detriment of the fishing industry and, therefore, I did not consider that any consultations were called for.
§ Mr. HoyDoes not the right hon. Gentleman know that his right hon. Friend stated in a Written Answer on Monday that the Government decided that consultations were not necessary because the decision was in the interest of the British fishing industry? Is not this going much too far? If a decision like this is to be made, ought not the 1346 industries concerned to be consulted before it is made?
§ Mr. MaclayThe hon. Gentleman has referred to a reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to which I would not add. I have explained my position in regard to that part of the Question relating to consultations with the shipbuilding industry, and I have given my view about consultation with the fishing industry.
§ Lady TweedsmuirDoes my right hon. Friend realise that this decision is of very great importance to the wellbeing of Scotland as a whole? Had he consulted shipbuilders who happen also to be trawler owners, he would have been informed that the shipbuilders themselves are against this decision because they already have to compete against hidden subsidies to foreign competitors and, as trawler owners, they are against it because they do not like to see their own taxpayers' money used to subsidise foreign firms.
§ Mr. MaclayI have sufficient faith in the skill and ability of Scottish boat builders to believe that they can hold their own with anyone in the world.
§ Mr. ManuelDoes not the right hon. Gentleman understand what a monstrous mistake he has made in this decision? Is not he aware of the poverty, unemployment and worrying problems which the smaller shipyards throughout Scotland are experiencing at present? Why has he proposed this misuse of public money, taxpayers' money, to subsidise foreign yards to build ships of a type which are indigenous to Scotland and which should be provided by Scottish workmen?
§ Mr. MaclayThe hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the object of these subsidies is to help the fishing industry. As I have said, I do not for a moment accept that Scottish— or British— yards cannot compete with anyone in the world.
§ Mr. P. WilliamsMay a Welshman representing an English constituency intervene, since this subject goes much wider than just Scotland? This is a matter of confidence in the Government's ability to look out for the 1347 interests of the shipbuilding industry, which is highly suspect. Does not my right hon. Friend understand that this decision is a regrettable one, whether the yards be Scottish or English yards? Would it help my right hon. Friend if some of us on this side were to put down a Question so that this decision could be reversed next wek?
§ Mr. MaclayMy hon. Friend will appreciate that the Questions directed to me relate to Scotland, and I should not be right in entering into other discussions at this moment.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
§ Mr. SpeakerThere is another Question today which goes right into the same subject matter.
§ 29. Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what regard was had to the difficulties facing the smaller shipbuilding yards in Scotland which build the inshore fishing fleets when it was decided to make grants and loans available for vessels built in foreign ports.
§ Mr. MaclayThese grants and loans are given for the benefit of the fishing industry, but, of course, the position of the smaller shipbuilding yards was taken into account.
§ Mr. Wolrige-GordonAll of us share my right hon. Friend's faith in the Scottish boat building industry, but what these people are afraid of is hidden subsidies assisting foreign yards to build our kind of boats at a disadvantage to ourselves. Will my right hon. Friend take some action to ensure that the same kind of assistance and work is given to these yards to do the work which they do so well?
§ Mr. MaclayI sincerely hope that they will go on getting their full share of orders. I am advised that, if there were a question of a problem created by subsidised foreign yards, it would be open to the shipbuilding industry here to make an application under our antidumping legislation if it were suffering from or were threatened with material damage as a result of ships being built by and purchased from subsidised yards.
§ Mr. ShinwellAs this matter affects not only Scotland but the whole country, will the Secretary of State explain why these orders are going abroad? Is it because foreign yards are able to build the ships at lower cost after tenders have been sent out, or is there some other reason such as the question of delivery? What is the reason why the ships are not being built in this country?
§ Mr. MaclayThis is the difficulty if I get drawn too far on this question. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about something which has not yet happened. This is something which will happen in the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Will it?"] I do not say that these orders will go abroad in the future, but the questions relate to something which has not yet happened.
§ Mr. Wolrige-GordonHow will antidumping duties be applied in restricting boats being built abroad and then being sold in this country? My right hon. Friend made some mention of it, but how will the thing work, and will it be effective?
§ Mr. MaclayThat is a matter which is under consideration, and the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
§ Mr. HoyThe right hon. Gentleman has said that he hopes that British shipyards will receive their share in the future, but is not he aware that every ship built under the grants and loans scheme has been built by British shipyards so that any reduction of orders must by that amount mean less work for British shipyards and British workers?
§ Mr. MaclayI do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so certain that they will not be able to compete and get the orders.
§ Lady TweedsmuirIs my right hon. Friend aware that, because of the difficulties facing shipbuilding generally, it is not only the smaller shipyards referred to in the Question which are affected but also larger shipyards which now rely on trawlers for orders because they cannot get the bigger boats which they used to build in the past? Does not my right hon. Friend realise that this inexplicable decision will adversely affect Scottish shipyards?
§ Mr. MaclayI do not think that I can add to the replies I have already given.
§ 30. Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fishing vessels of 40 ft. overall length or over have been built in Scottish yards in each of the last five years; and how many are now being built.
§ Mr. MaclaySince the beginning of 1957, 373 fishing vessels of 40 ft. overall length and over have been built with grant aid in Scottish yards and 16 are in course of construction. With permission, I shall circulate the numbers for each year in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that I have no information about the number built without grant aid.
§ Sir J. GilmourDo not the figures indicate that, since many of the shipbuilding yards are in development districts, there is an urgent need for my right hon. Friend to stimulate the building of ships in these yards at this moment?
§ Mr. MaclayI am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it would not be right to stimulate the building of fishing boats if there are not fish for the boats to catch or if the owners do not consider that there are.
§ Sir J. GilmourIs my right hon. Friend aware that there is a very large body of opinion in this country which wishes to see this country's fishery limits extended so that the fish would be caught by British boats instead of by foreign boats? If that were done, should not we be able to build more boats?
§ Mr. MaclayThat is definitely another question.
§ Mr. HoyIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that any falling off in the number of boats being built at present has been due to policies adopted by the White Fish Authority, backed by the right hon. Gentleman, to restrict the number of boats built under these schemes? While that situation obtains, is it not all the more difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman has made the decision to which we have been referring?
§ Mr. MaclayThe hon. Gentleman will know that the White Fish Authority had consultations with the trawler owners before coming to its decisions.
§ Following is the information:
| Totals | |||
| 1957 | … | … | 68 |
| 1958 | … | … | 82 |
| 1959 | … | … | 67 |
| 1960 | … | … | 87 |
| 1961 | … | … | 55 |
| 1962— completed | … | … | 14 |
| still building | … | … | 16 |
| 389 |
§ 31. Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the international obligations that compelled him to agree to allow fishing vessels for British owners to be built in foreign shipyards with the assistance of British subsidies.
§ Mr. MaclayThis decision was taken by the Government having regard to the interests of the fishing industry and our international obligations. These obligations are that, under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and the Convention establishing the European Free Trade Association, special facilities to purchasers may not be restricted to purchases in the country giving those facilities.
§ Mr. HoyFirst, how does the right hon. Gentleman know that it was in the interests of the British fishing industry when he did not consult the industry? Secondly, if this was done, not with a view to helping the fishing industry, as the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, but to satisfy the needs of countries other than Britain, does not he think that, in view of this iniquity, he should reconsider it and cancel it immediately?
§ Mr. MaclayClearly, a number of considerations were involved in this decision. I do not think that I can add to what I have said in answer to a previous Question.
§ Sir J. DuncanAlthough my right hon. Friend is getting the thick end of the stick this afternoon, he was in various answers mentioned two other Ministers— the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture. Will he therefore reconsider the whole matter in consultation with those Ministers and with the Cabinet?
§ Mr. MaclayI have carefully noted all that has been said, but I cannot add to the replies which I have given.
§ Mr. HoyIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of all these replies, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am in difficulty, because the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) also gave notice in respect of something which I think he described as "this matter". Can the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) help by confining his notice to a numbered Question?
§ Mr. Emrys HughesOn a point of order. Since notice has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), in obedience to my Front Bench I will withdraw my notice.
§ Mr. SpeakerI should still be assisted if the hon. Member related the notice to a particular Question.
§ Mr. SpeakerI will accept it in relation to Question No. 31. The other Question is out of time.
§ 33. Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many protests he has received from local authorities concerning the proposal to give grants and loans to foreign shipyards in respect of vessels and engines built for British owners; and whether he will consult with such authorities to ascertain their detailed views on the matter.
§ Mr. MaclaySo far I have received protests from eight local authorities regarding the Government's decision to make grants and loans available to our fishing industry for vessels and engines built abroad. This decision has been taken in the interests of the fishing industry, as I said before, and because of our international obligations, and the question of consultation with local authorities does not arise.
§ Mr. HamiltonDoes not this Answer and several other Answers which the right hon. Gentleman has given this afternoon show the flat-footed attitude and approach of the Government on this issue and an arrogant disregard of the democratic processes even to the point of the form in which the announce 1352 ment was made to the House originally? In view of the opinions expressed on both sides of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps within the Cabinet to rescind this decision?
§ Mr. MaclayIt is always a very nice point to decide how many people one should consult or should not consult before coming to a decision as a Government. I am sometimes criticised for consulting too many people. In answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I cannot add to what I have already said.