§ Q3. Mr. McMasterasked the Prime Minister whether he will grant the Minister of Shipping a separate Department and raise his status to Cabinet level.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. The present arrangements, whereby responsibility for shipping rests with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, assisted by a Minister of State specially appointed for the purpose, are working well and I see no reason to change them.
§ Mr. McMasterI do not wish to reflect in any way on the present Minister, but, in view of the substantial contributions of both British shipbuilding and shipping to our foreign trade income, in view of the type of subsidised and ruthless foreign competition we are facing, and in view of the national importance of both these industries in peace and war, does not the Prime Minister feel that, as with aviation for some time in the past, the interests of these industries would be best served by having a separate Ministry with a Minister of Cabinet status in charge?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with a great deal of what was in the preamble of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, though not with the conclusion which he draws from it. The hon. Gentleman will, I think, have taken encouragement from the fact that, as a result of the measures we introduced in January for interest rates in respect of export orders, the export orders of the shipbuilding industry in the first quarter of this year were double the export orders received for the same quarter of last year and that the total tonnage placed in British shipyards in the first quarter of this year is the highest for any first quarter of the year since the immediate post-Suez shipbuilding boom.
§ Mr. WoodburnHas my right hon. Friend seen the remarkable tribute in this morning's Daily Express attributing this tremendous increase entirely to the very sensible arrangement between the Government and private enterprise?
§ The Prime MinisterIn fact it was still true, even before the Daily Express printed it. This has been a remarkable reaction, perhaps more than any of us expected, to the success of the new provision for export credits in respect of shipbuilding which I remember that one or two right hon. Members opposite dismissed as meaningless when we introduced them.
§ Dame Irene WardArising out of the Prime Minister's Answer and his declared satisfaction with what the Government have continued to contribute to what we did in the past, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I should now be right in assuming that all that the shipping and shipbuilding interests want, and which is embodied in Amendments to the Finance Bill, will be acceptable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that we can see them accepted when we move the Amendments to the Finance Bill accordingly?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Lady is always very persuasive. I am glad that it was she and not her own Front Bench who called attention to the shipbuilding measures of two years ago in 1963. The difference is that we have now introduced something of help to the shipbuilding industry, especially in relation to shipbuilding exports. Right hon. Members 1509 opposite introduced once-for-all financial aid to the shipbuilding industry.
§ Dame Irene WardJolly good it was, too.
§ The Prime MinisterYes, very nice, and neatly timed to last for 12 months ending in the June before the last General Election.
§ Mr. HoggWill not the Prime Minister acknowledge more candidly that the purpose of that action in 1963 was to break the cycle created by the loss of shipping during the war and to anticipate the natural recurrence of orders at an interval of 20 years from that period? Does net the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it achieved its object?
§ The Prime MinisterIt did not achieve its object in fact. The plain fact about this situation is that it was introduced in June, 1963, and was designed to last for 12 months till June, 1964, which was the time when right hon. Members opposite at that time hoped they might be able to stage a General Election.