HC Deb 02 August 1963 vol 682 cc849-67

2.8 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

Mr. Speaker, I hope you recognise that we are seven minutes behind schedule in starting this debate.

This debate arises directly out of the statement made by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty on 29th May concerning employment prospects in the dockyards. Perhaps I might, at the outset, say that I was inspired to seek this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who apologises for not being here today. He had arranged an important engagement before he knew that I had been successful in getting this debate, and he sends his apologies to the House.

The first point that I wish to put to the Civil Lord concerns the way in which the initial pronouncement was made. It was made like so many other Government pronouncements these days. It was leaked to the Press before Parliament was informed. It was, I know, preceded by a meeting between the Civil Lord and Conservative back benchers representing dockyard constituencies, but no Labour Member representing dockyards was present. Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson), in whose constituency Rosyth is situated, nor I, though my constituents work there, was invited to the meeting.

Perhaps the Minister will defend that exclusion on the grounds that Rosyth was not adversely affected by his announcement; that there was to be no reduction in the work load in Rosyth dockyard. In fact, I learned that from the Press leak before he made his announcement on 29th May. I think that the effect of the not-so-secret meeting of the Tory back benchers was to compel the Minister somewhat to tone down his statement in the House on 29th May. It had the same meaning, in effect, but it was couched in much less brutal terms than it might otherwise have been.

I want to examine that statement in a little detail, and I think that when the Civil Lord has heard what I have said, he will not disagree with my submission. The hon. Gentleman announced that there would be an examination of the work load in all the docks for the next year or so. He announced, as I have said, that there was to be no reduction in the work load at Rosyth. I recall asking a supplementary question and expressing satisfaction at that announcement, although I am bound to say that it is rather a negative satisfaction. What we want is an increase in the work load in Rosyth.

The Civil Lord to the Admiralty (Mr. John Hay)

They will get it.

Mr. Hamilton

Not immediately, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some good news because we desperately need it.

Looking at the unemployment percentage rates in the dockyard areas, I find that the current rate in Portsmouth is 2.3 per cent. which is slightly above the average. In Chatham, it is 2 per cent., which is slightly below the average; I am not sure about Devonport——

Miss Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)

It is 2.7 per cent.

Mr. Hamilton

I thought that it was about 2.7 per cent.; that is above the national average. That must give the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) some cause for disquiet.

In the Rosyth area, which is included in the Dunfermline—Inverkeithing group, the rate of unemployment is 5.2 per cent., despite the fact that this is a development district and has been for a long time.

There is, of course, an increasingly serious situation relating to school leavers in the area. In answer to a Question of mine on 31st July, the Minister of Labour gave me the latest unemployment figures. In Fife, there were 70 unfilled vacancies for boys, and there were 552 boys registered as unemployed of whom 315 were school leavers. That is an extremely serious situation, and I hope that the Civil Lord will be able to announce an increase in the availability of apprenticeships in Rosyth, even though subsequently these apprentices might leave Admiralty employment. I would not regard it as a national disaster if they left, for they are a national asset, and the fact that they are trained as tradesmen is a national and not just a narrow Admiralty concern.

I should like to know from the Civil Lord whether it is possible to extend the employment opportunities for men who are being prematurely retired from the coal mines surrounding Rosyth. I have, in fact, written to the hon. Gentleman on two or three occasions in the last few weeks about men in their late 50s who would normally have worked in the coal mines till their retirement age but who, because the mines have been closed for economic and other reasons, find themselves in very difficult circumstances. They find it almost impossible to get work other than in the Rosyth dockyard and other Admiralty establishments in the area.

I must admit that the Admiralty has been rather helpful in dealing with the case that I have brought to its attention, and for that I am grateful, but I hope that the Civil Lord will take these representations in the spirit in which they are made and will see what he can do to help these men in these very difficult circumstances.

I now turn to the second part of the Minister's statement, which, I think, was rather more serious, although it did not affect my area. The work load at the three southern dockyards will clearly have adverse effects on employment opportunities. There can be no doubt about that, and I do not think the Minister will disagree with that assessment of the situation. As he explained, it is due largely to the completion next year of H.M.S. "Eagle" and the conversion of H.M.S. "Triumph". He admitted that there was no immediate prospect of any similar job taking the place of that work, although what effect the £60 million aircraft carrier will have on their prospects I would not know. Probably it is rather too early to make any firm pronouncement, and I would not ask the Civil Lord to do so.

However, the hon. Gentleman might care to express some opinion on the next part of his statement, in which he referred to some classes of refit work which might lessen the impact of the expected rundown. The Civil Lord asserted that the whole problem could be dealt with by four factors: first, what he referred to as normal wastage, a phrase which was in no way qualified in the original statement of 29th May. He used the expression "normal wastage" completely unqualified. The number other factors were: the adjustment of overtime, a fall in the number of men employed over the age of 65,and a restriction on adult entry.

These were the four developments which he said would go, not the whole way, but a long way towards a solution of the problem. He also said that there was a possibility of actual discharges or redundancy. He said that this could not be excluded, but it would not be on a large scale. Whatever the next effect, there might be some imbalance between trades. Finally, the hon. Gentleman promised consultation with the trade unions as soon as his examination of the situation had gone far enough. I do not think that that is an unfair summary of the statement of 29th May.

In reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East the Civil Lord said that he could not forecast exactly how many jobs would be lost. He did not deny that some would be lost, but he could not forecast the exact figure. He implied that it would be possible to give a figure soon, and I hope that he will be able to give us some indication of the sort of figure that is running through his mind at the moment—or perhaps he intends to wait till the middle of the Recess; I do not know.

The only slight criticism of the statement from the opposite side of the House came from the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). None came from the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Critchley). He talked about the possibility of trade union consultation and the rest, but he offered no harsh criticism at all. Perhaps he had done that in the privacy of the meeting upstairs. There was none from the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport. At that point, she was anxious about achieving development district status. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) was, as usual, absent. There was no reaction at all from that side of the House.

The Whitsun Recess intervened and we could not pursue the matter until we came back. Immediately we came back, further information was sought by my hon. and indefatigable Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East. He thirsts for knowledge on these matters. On 19th June—his Question is recorded in column 450 of Hansard—he asked for figures of the annual wastage of manpower in each of the southern dockyards. The Minister will recall that this was one of the factors which, he said, would take care of the lost job opportunities. In reply to my hon. Friend, the Minister gave the following figures for the estimated annual normal wastage rates: Portsmouth, 1,600; Devonport, 1,200; Chatham, 900.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East made what I thought was the quite reasonable assumption that the total decline of manpower would be rather more than this. It was one of the four elements which the Minister said would take care of the problem. Adding those figures together, my hon. Friend made the logical assumption that 3,700 for one of the four elements taking care of the problem meant that the total measure of it would be in the region of 5,000. That may well have been an under-estimate—I do not know—but it is not a bad guess. But the Civil Lord rebuked my hon. Friend, saying that he should not jump to that conclusion. He refused to give his own estimate. He refused to say whether that figure was too high or too low. He did not know. He was very non-committal.

If the Civil Lord was at that time unable to give a figure, how could he say, on 29th May, that this unknown figure would be taken care of by the four factors which he mentioned in his statement? I rather suspect that the hon. Gentleman, when he gave those specific figures to my hon. Friend, committed the fatal error of giving specific information in answer to a Parliamentary Question. The Minister never does that as a rule, but he did on this occasion, and he immediately proceeded to hedge it all round with all kinds of qualifications. It was a very interesting parliamentary exercise, and I must congratulate him on the way he did it. Wastage, he said, "can cover a great many things … There is a lot of room for misunderstanding of what wastage can mean…One has to be a little careful in using the expression 'wastage' ".—[Official Report, 19th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 450–1.]

Having given specific figures, the hon. Gentleman said that they did not really mean anything. He almost convinced us that "wastage" was a dirty word. But he had used it unqualified in his original statement of 29th May. The hon. Member for Gillingham was in no doubt about what wastage meant. It meant simply jobs lost. These were his words: It really means that when a man retires from a job there is not another job for another man looking for employment". On 26th June, further attempts were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and myself to extract information. We sought to get an estimate from the Minister of the number of men over 65 years of age who would be retired this year in each dockyard. By this time, the Minister had learned the gross error of his ways the week before and he did not give any figures at all. He said that no estimate had been made. He could not help us at all, and we did not get any worthwhile information.

Thus, out of the four ways in which the Civil Lord had said on 29th May that the problem would be solved, in regard to only one had he ventured to give figures, and those he very hastily sought to discountenance immediately after giving them. It was again left to his hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham to "spill the beans". He said: Does not my hon. Friend realise that this constant uncertainty is most damaging to the morale of everybody in the dockyards and in the dockyard towns? He went on to ask for a much more tangible answer in the debate next week".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 1322.] I think that the Civil Lord said that he would give information the following week if the opportunity arose. He would be as helpful as he could, and all that sort of promise.

The debate duly took place on 1st July. It was really an Estimates Committee debate. It was, perhaps, rather difficult to raise this particular aspect of the matter, since it was to a large extent a discussion on dockyard administration. Whatever the reason, no opportunity was taken by hon. Members opposite to question and harry the Minister on the matter, which I regard as a grave dereliction of duty on their part. The Minister can well imagine what would have happened to him on that occasion if Rosyth had been adversely affected by what he told us about on 29th May, The debate would have been monopolised by Scottish Members if Rosyth had had a reduction in its work load. But there was not a cheep from hon. Members opposite and the Minister did not choose to reply on this point.

Mr. Hay

In fairness to a number of hon. Members who are not present today, like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I must point out that several hon. Members commented on this matter, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke). There was comment on the matter, but it so happened that no criticism of the rundown situation in the dockyards was developed at any length because hon. Members were concerned with the organisation of the dockyards. It is not true to say that there was no criticism, because there was a lot.

Mr. Hamilton

It is a matter of opinion. I have read carefuly the Official Report of the debate. I agree at once that the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West made some comments, but he offered no stringent criticisms of the uncertainty admitted by the hon. Member for Gillingham. There was nothing really rough for the Minister to answer. He got away with it very smoothly on that occasion.

We are still left completely in the dark. According to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East—representations have been made particularly to him—there is great concern among the workers involved.

The Minister said in answer to his hon. Friend that he thought that the anxiety had been removed. I assure him that that is not the information which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East has.

I wish to ask the Civil Lord some specific questions, and I hope that he will be good enough to try to answer them. First, can he be more specific about the number of jobs to be lost in each dockyard? It is important that the men should know where they stand. I must say, in parenthesis, however, that I do not have much hope of anything very specific, judging from the replies which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East this week. Secondly, to what extent will other classes of refit work help to offset this decrease in the work load? This was one of the categories which the hon. Gentleman said would lessen the impact of this problem on the dockyards. Thirdly, can the Minister be more specific about the imbalance between trades, which is a likely result of this rundown? Which trades are likely to suffer? What will be the effect on skilled manpower? Again, I think that the men concerned will be very interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Fourthly, can the Civil Lord say how far the adjustment of overtime has gone, or whether any progress at all has been made? The hon. Lady the Member for Devonport and others and myself are concerned about the low wages of many of these men, a number of them skilled craftsmen. If, in addition, they are to have a reduction in overtime they will be passed by, by the affluent society. If overtime is slashed there will be a reduction in purchasing power which in turn will have adverse effects on the business community in the dockyard towns.

Perhaps the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport will tell us about the wonderful new town centre in Plymouth, if she catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. None of us would want that to become a white elephant as a result of a loss of purchasing power among the employees in the dockyard.

Fifthly, can the Civil Lord say to what extent adult entry is being or has been restricted? Can he give us the number of adults who entered the dockyards last year, for instance? Can he give a quantitative measurement of the problem? Sixthly, can he yet say whether any discharges will be necessary, and, if so, how many and when? Finally, what degree of consultation has there been to date with the trade unions concerned?

I hope that the Civil Lord will be more forthcoming today than he has been hitherto. The men concerned deserve the very best that we can give them, and it seems to me that the least we can give them is a measure of certainty about their future employment.

2.34 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)

I am glad that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) has raised this subject. I should like to say to him, first, that I certainly did not attend any conference. There may have been a Press leak—that is nothing to do with me—but there was no meeting of Conservative Members.

I wish to follow up the point which the hon. Member made about job security. I referred to this particularly in the Estimates debate because it is very important that men should have a sense of security. I went so far as to say that one could not blame the men for going slow on H.M.S. "Eagle" if they thought that they might work themselves out of a job. I pointed out that they were not doing that, but one could not have blamed them if they did.

I reckon that there will be about 200 fewer jobs in future in Devonport. When I first came into the House in 1955, there was 4 per cent. unemployment. In 1959 we became a development area. The figure is down to 2.7 per cent. For that reason, I was not particularly anxious. We are very much better off than we were. However, I wished to point out that if there was to be no extra work in the dockyards, and if work was to be cut down, we should like to be reinstated as a development area because when we were a development area we were particularly successful in obtaining additional factories which provided 9,000 extra jobs.

I completely agree with what the hon. Member says about apprentices. I hope that the number will not be cut. There is a White Paper which deals with Government training centres, and, if all the apprentices cannot be used in the yard, there is no reason why this should not be a Government training centre. All the equipment and "know-how" are available and I should have thought that this would have been an excellent way to use it should it become necessary.

When the subject of this debate was put on the Order Paper I thought that we would talk about the future of the dockyard towns. Instead, we seem to have been going over past history. I am interested in the future and I suggest to the hon. Member for Fife, West that the future depends on four things. The first is that the Navy is kept up to its present standards. In view of the announcement about the aircraft carrier and the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence described the future of the Royal Navy, we can see that there will be no rundown at present, which is very helpful to dockyard towns.

Secondly, adequate notice should be given to an area such as a dockyard town if there is to be any major change so that it can if it wishes apply to become a development district. Thirdly, there should be adequate machinery to enable the dockyard to compete with private industry. Fourthly, there should be an adequate career structure within the dockyard so that we keep the highly-skilled men. They are apt to leave because they can go into private industry and get better pay and conditions.

I thank my hon. Friend the Civil Lord for the consideration which he has given to dockyard towns in the short time that he has been in his present office. He has visited all the dockyard towns which may have less employees in future. He has had discussions not only with the Whitley Industrial Council and the trade unions concerned—I can only speak for Devonport here—buthe was also kind enough to come and meet a deputation of aldermen and councillors to discuss the effect that a rundown in the dockyard would have on the city itself. It was recognised, I think, that the problems of Plymouth and of the dockyard are indivisible. This was a very helpful gesture, and we were pleased to get an assurance from my hon. Friend that if in future there should be any major change in the Devonport dockyard, particularly in view of its very difficult geographical position far from the centre of any industrial towns, he would give us at least three years' notice, because it is reckoned that from the time that the plans and agreements are made to getting the first people working in the shops at least two years elapse. Therefore, we wanted the three-year breathing space which my hon. Friend agreed to give us. This will be of very great advantage in planning in future. I understand that Admiralty Estimates are made three years ahead, so that this is possible.

With regard to the future, I suggest to my hon. Friend that consideration should be given to this matter. I realise that the hulk of the new carrier cannot be made in Devonport, but this is the only deep-water port in this country where a ship of this size can come alongside. The men in Devonport acquired exceptional "know-how", particularly of electrical work, on the refit of H.M.S. "Eagle," which cost £30 million, about half the cost of the new aircraft carrier. I therefore hope that if the ship cannot be built in Devonport, interior fittings may be carried out there or some men will be allowed to go to whatever yard it is built in so that their skill is not wasted and they are given the chance of better employment. Over the last 10 years, there has been investment of about £8 million in Devonport, £4 million in works and another £4 million in machinery. It does not, therefore, appear as though there will be any rundown in this dockyard.

In view of my hon. Friend's visit, we are looking forward to constructive proposals later in the year as to the future of the dockyards, and particularly for Devonport the prefabrication shop for the making of ships. We are indebted to the hon. Member for Fife, West for raising the subject, but I hope that when my hon. Friend the Civil Lord replies to the debate, he will deal not simply with past events, but will show us how the dockyards can serve the country in future.

2.41 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. John Hay)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers),I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton), who had the opportunity of this Adjournment debate, chose to discuss at length exchanges in the House by Question and Answer as long ago as the end of May rather than the subject which he had put down—the future of the dockyard towns.

I make no complaint, because I am quite willing to deal with the past if it were necessary to do so. I only regret that we had to go to some length" to get full information to deal with the position of the dockyard towns, whereas the questions which have been put were concerned basically with the dockyards themselves. Never mind, I think that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity.

First, and following the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, I should like to put on record what we conceive to be the position of the dockyards and our views about their future. The House knows that the dockyards are required to repair, refit and maintain Her Majesty's ships. The amount of work to be done at any given time is dependent upon the shape, size and character of the Fleet. In addition to being refitting, repairing and construction bases, the dockyards are also bases for the Fleet where ships berth, store, victual, commission and recommission for service abroad or in home waters.

By tradition, and because it is undoubtedly necessary to get proper training for both the men and the management in the dockyards for design, over seeing and repair work, and to enable them to keep abreast of modern techniques, the dockyards at home carry out a proportion of new construction for the Navy. At present, it is about 10 per cent. of the total and costs are strictly comparable with those obtaining in private shipyards. I do not want the House to be in any doubt that this is a pretty big business that we run.

We employ, I understand, about 41,000 industrial staff and about 8,000 non-industrial—that is to say, about 50,000 men and women. We have a lot of highly valuable equipment. We occupy a substantial area of valuable land and I can say, especially in the light of the visits which I have recently paid to the southern dockyards, which my hon. Friend was kind enough to mention, that our dockyards stand good comparison with private shipyards and ship-repairing yards throughout this country and abroad.

I add by way of gloss that I have not had the opportunity since 1940 of visiting Rossyth dockyard, but I certainly hope to do so, I will not say in the immediate future, because I have certain other preoccupations for the next week or two, but certainly within the reasonably near future, and I hope, perhaps to see the hon. Member for Fife, West when I come.

The dockyards undoubtedly are a substantial source of employment for all the dockyard towns and naturally, in our planning of the future of the dockyards, we are anxious to ensure that their unique position vis-à-vis the dockyard towns is fully taken into account.

The load of repair and refit work in the dockyards at any given time is determined by several factors. First, the shape, size and character of the Fleet as a whole is an important element. Then, there are the characteristics of each ship, its hull, its machinery, the electrical installation, which nowadays is so vital and extensive in any ship, its weapons, equipment, accommodation, and so on. All these things have to be taken into account. There is the number and type of Fleet units which operate on the station and where one wants to refit and dock as frequently as possible on the station rather than sending the ships for a long journey to another part of the world or even of the country.

We are working now towards a longer refit cycle for ships. We have a much more modern Fleet than at any time since the war. This inevitably has meant that over the last few years, there has been a heavy load of work in all the dockyards. Having once modernised the fleet, however, as we have fairly well done, the length of time which must elapse between refits can be expected to be much longer, because we are dealing with much more modern or modernised ships. This in itself is an important element to be taken into account in planning the future of the dockyards.

The capacity of any Royal Dockyard to handle the load of work which comes forward is one of the matters to which we give the greatest possible attention. The dockyards require to possess a balanced labour force, consisting of all the necessary trades in suitable numbers, to meet the full load which can arise from the factors which I have mentioned. I emphasise the importance of a balanced labour force, and when I deal with the misunderstanding, as I think it was, between the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and myself, I will again return to this point.

In all our forecasts, we are dealing not with a gross total number of men, but with individual totals of men in a number of different trades. It is that one factor which, more than anything else, makes it difficult to forecast with precision some distance ahead exactly what the effect of any reduction in the work load on the dockyards will be.

We have to adjust the capacity from time to time up or down to meet the fluctuations which inevitably arise when policies or operational plans are changed, but in recent years our underlying aim has been to ensure, by all the means available to us, that the load on the dockyard should, as closely as possible, equal its capacity to handle it. A number of methods can be used to adjust either the load or the labour force, which is the other side of the equation, and some of those things were mentioned in the Answer which I gave on 29th May to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Critchley) about the future work load.

In practice, there are limits to the extent to which the various regulating devices such as I have mentioned can be used and there are limits to the period over which they can be used. Our aim is to plan the dockyard programme so that one does not have to resort to devices of that kind unless one is forced to do so. One does not, for example, want to say to men who have reached retiring age but who, for their own benefit and for our benefit, too, have continued in work beyond that age and remained with us after nominal retirement, that they must go. This is not something that we want to do.

Nevertheless, if there is to be a rundown in the amount of work that the dockyards have to do, and if, consequently, there is less work for the labour force to do, I regard it as perfectly legitimate to look at that kind of expedient, if necessary, to ensure that the blow is cushioned in its impact upon the active working force. As I say, however, we aim to plan our programme so that methods of that kind do not have to be used except in exceptional circumstances.

Our plan proceeds in two parts. There is, first, the short-term dockyard programme review, which covers the immediate two years ahead; and this is in some detail. Then there is the longer-term programme review, which goes as far as ten years ahead and which must, obviously, in the very nature of things, be a much more sketchy operation than the immediate review. These reviews are undertaken within a year and the resulting plans are based on the latest approved policy of the planning assumptions which we can make including our employment forecasts for the Fleet.

If I may come to recent events, the latest reviews were carried out last autumn and this spring. We now have a much more modern Fleet than we have had for a long time and the reviews which we carried out show there will, in fact, be a greater reduction in the amount of work coming to the dockyards than we had previously foreseen for the financial year 1964–65. It was that fact which gave rise to some concern, and because we saw this situation was emerging we decided to carry out a more intensive study of the position and it was the first results of that study which I announced to the House in the Answer to a Question on 29th May.

We are examining the workload in great detail, but it is still not yet possible to state precisely what the effect will be on each yard. May I just explain why this is so? The need for the reduction in capacity in terms of the labour force required does not arise simply from the completion of the modernisation of H.M.S. "Eagle", the aircraft carrier at Devonport, or the conversion of H.M.S. "Triumph," from an aircraft carrier to a heavy repair ship. It also arises from the trend I have touched on towards longer running periods for Her Majesty's ships between refits.

While this is true, the increasing complexity of ships, the new developments in their propulsion, their weapons and their equipment, have resulted in greater demands on the dockyards and on the skill and versatility of their labour forces and managements. Nevertheless, they cannot entirely offset the net decline in the work load due to the fact that we have now got large scale modernisation and conversions which were undertaken some years ago and which already affect the requirements in particular trades. In short, while the docking and refit programmes for all the yards remain full for the next nine to twelve months there will not be in general so many tasks of magnitude for them to undertake after that.

That is the situation which we now have to live with, a picture of a declining work load in the dockyards. We require, therefore, measures to be taken to ensure that we do not have a superabundance of labour to handle a lesser amount of work than has been the case for some time.

It is quite untrue, I must tell the hon. Gentleman, to say, what seems to be popularly believed, and was reported at the time in the Press, that an initial announcement about this was to be made in the House of Commons, but as a result of back bench pressure it was not made. It was said by the hon. Gentleman that I held a meeting with Conservative back benchers. That is not so.

Mr. W. Hamilton rose——

Mr. Hay

Perhaps I might just finish before the hon. Gentleman leaps to his feet.

What I did, as part of the process of a Minister coming new to a particular type of responsibility, was to have a talk with one or two of my hon. Friends. Not all of them by any means. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport was not one of them. I had a talk with them about this to find exactly what their views were about their dockyard problems, because, naturally, a dockyard is a very important element in a dockyard town, and I wanted to talk to them and find out what their views were, and I discussed these matters in some degree of confidence with them.

It is not for me to say how these matters leaked to the Press, but they were certainly not leaked by the Government. As so often happens when leaks take place, the facts were distorted and completely false impressions given. Many thousands of men, it was said, would be affected and get the sack.

It is quite untrue, and I am very glad to have this opportunity of standing at this Box and to say, what I have already told the unions in the Admiralty Industrial Council and the Whitley Committees in the three southern dockyards, that it is untrue.

Mr. W. Hamilton

Will the hon. Gentleman explain to me how it came about that one of his hon. Friends told me, before he made his announcement, that Rosyth was not affected?

Mr. Hay

I have no idea. I have not the remotest idea. The hon. Gentleman had better go and ask the one who told him.

Miss Vickers

I said that it was not affected, because when this came out I asked whether my dockyard was affected and I was told that it would be, but that not all, and I was told that Rosyth was not. I did not know it until it came out, and, naturally, I went to find out, and I met the hon. Gentleman on the stairs and informed him he need not worry.

Mr. Hay

There we are. That clears that one up.

So far as Rosyth is concerned, let me give the hon. Gentleman a little information, because he sought information about it. The truth is that in Rosyth, quite different from the situation in the southern dockyards, where there will be a declining work load, there will be an increased work load because, as was made clear, Rosyth will build up to a situation where it will be undertaking refitting and repairing of the nuclear submarines.

We do not consider that there is any doubt about the future of Rosyth. We believe that approximately 400 additional employees will be required at Rosyth. That excludes those concerned with what are called works projects. It is too early to be precise about the manpower at Rosyth, but we have already started. The labour force will start to increase as soon as we can recruit suitable craftsmen. When they have had training in nuclear work a small number of staff will be appointed to Rosyth dockyard to plan for the facilities which are required. Our aim is to have Rosyth ready for emergency work on submarines from 1965, and for additional refits as soon as possible thereafter.

A word about apprentices, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We have already announced that we increased the intake of apprentices during the last five years, when the number rose from 71 to 98 and then in the following year after that to 145, then to 167, and in this year to 190. I cannot yet speak about the year 1964 and beyond, but I say frankly that I do not expect there to be any kind of decrease as I foresee a situation in Rosyth where there should be plenty of work ahead for a long time to come.

Finally, a word about the disagreement between the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and myself. I am sorry that I cannot say exactly what the numbers are that are involved in our calculations. There are one or two factors which we are now evaluating as a matter of considerable urgency, and if, in fact, we get favourable answers to our evaluations, as I hope we shall, then the whole situation about the three southern dockyards will be substantially transformed and the forecasts we were making a few months ago will be changed considerably for the better. When I am ready to tell the trade unions exactly what the position will be—and I hope that will be by 19th September, when the Admiralty Industrial Council is next to meet—I shall tell them.

I have given them an undertaking that they will be consulted ahead of anyone else. This is the right course for what, I hope, is enlightened management to adopt in the circumstances. We believe that they have the major stake, and that we should tell them first—if we have our sums finished, as I hope we shall, by 19th September. But it is wrong to say that figures of 4,000 or 5,000 are involved.

I can understand how the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East fell into that pitfall. He credited me with a great deal of Machiavellian ingenuity in this matter, but that is not true. The words that I used perhaps gave the impression that since 3,700 men normally leave our service of their own accord, for one reason or another, in southern dockyards, and since a normal wastage of that kind was one of the factors we take into account, one could say, q.e.d., that there must be more than 3,700 involved, because there were three other matters that I referred to.

But it is because of the imbalance between trades—the difference between the different trades—that one cannot say that this problem, which is less in total numbers than 3,700, can be easily got rid of simply by normal wastage. We may well be able to deal with the problem of excess numbers of men by relying on normal wastage in one trade, but in other trades we cannot rely upon it, because in those we may be short of men. In some of the electrical trades we are very short of men, and we shall have to go on recruiting electricians. We cannot say that this is a simple matter, and that we can do the whole thing by normal wastage. If we could, we should be happy, but it does not work out like that.

I apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) for having gone on for so long, but even now I have not answered all the points that have been raised, and this is an important matter. At any rate, I am glad that I have been able to clear up some of the misunderstandings that have arisen.