HC Deb 09 March 1966 vol 725 cc2319-44

2.13 a.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East)

I should like, first, to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation for being here at this late hour to deal with the problems which I wish to raise. It is perhaps fortunate that I am here, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be the first to acknowledge when he hears that when flying over to Belfast today, two of my colleagues and I were nearly caught in a burning aircraft. Due to the prompt action of the crew we all got out of the aircraft safely and I was able to continue my journey, speak at two meetings in Belfast, and return to raise this subject in the House.

That short introduction illustrates one of the points that I wish to make. It illustrates the large and growing part which air transport is playing in the life of the community and the important rôle that it plays in enabling not only Members of Parliament, but others, to carry on business in two widely separated cities on the same day. This is a rapidly increasing need, and I should like that fact to form the background to my remarks.

With an aircraft industry growing as it must do to meet rapidly developing civil requirements, both for transport and for freight planes, it is a great pity to see the kind of action that we have seen during the past year and a half of a Labour Government, whereby this country's aircraft industry has been cut down, and, indeed, undermined, by many of their policies.

This particularly affects the firm of Short Bros, and Harland, in my constituency. This firm, as I mentioned in the debate on the Plowden Report, has a long and proud history. It was the first company in the world to produce aircraft in series. It produced the first all-metal aircraft in 1920, and a wonderful range of flying boats, which all hon. Members will acknowledge, particularly the Empire flying boats, which were used to extend the operations of British Overseas Airways and develop the reputation of that company before the war.

During the war the famous aircraft produced by this company included the Sunderland flying boat and the Stirling bomber, and since the war the designers of Short Bros, have produced many advanced projects, including the multi-jet vertical take-off plane, which led the world in this type of development, and the SC5, which had a variable sweep and which led the way to the variable geometry aircraft upon which Britain will be embarking with France.

The company has been operating in Northern Ireland for about 30 years, and in that time has built up a large team of very skilled craftsmen and aeronautical engineers. The firm now employs about 8,000 men, and provides very valuable employment in this part of the United Kingdom, where we experience more difficulty in finding work—particularly skilled work of this nature, for men— than any other part of the United Kingdom. With an unemployment rate of over 6½ per cent., which covers 7.2 per cent of all males employed, the threat to the firm of Short Bros, is particularly disturbing.

The company has the technical ability to produce aircraft which are as good as those produced anywhere else in the world. It is situated in Belfast, where there is an ample supply of skilled labour. It has an apprenticeship training school, which is a very valuable asset in Northern Ireland. If there is a rapid rundown in employment in Short Bros, it would be practically impossible for the 4,000 men mentioned in the Plowden Report to find alternative employment of a similar nature in Northern Ireland.

The company has always been a technological leader. It has helped Northern Ireland to attract other new industries, particularly since the war. It has helped the Government of Northern Ireland—and the Ministry of Commerce in Belfast, in particular—to establish to the satisfaction of any interested manufacturers, the ability of the workmen of Belfast to carry out the most intricate and skilled operations. They have only to walk round Short Bros., and to see such things as the missile factory producing the Seacat, which is one of our biggest export earners in missiles; the work of analog computers; the aircraft factory, and the production of the vertical takeoff aircraft—the SCI—to be convinced that the workpeople of Belfast are as good as any that one can find anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Therefore, if the factory is to be run down or closed down Northern Ireland will lose this technological leader—this firm which is an example of the skill and craftsmanship of the Northern Ireland workers, and which has also been a training base for many skilled men—men who, in the recent craft examinations, won several first places in skills among entrants who came from all over the United Kingdom. The product of Short Brothers and Harland is ideal for the economy of Northern Ireland. There is difficulty in Northern Ireland in finding an industry which will work efficiently and which is not hampered by the process of bringing material from Great Britain and elsewhere and then exporting the product.

The product of an aircraft factory has a very low material content and a very high man-hour content. Therefore, such a product is ideal for Northern Ireland. It can be flown out from an aerodrome which is right on the doorstep, and the raw materials can be brought to the doorstep. I do not apologise for labouring this point, because I should like to draw to the attention of the House certain statements made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers during the course of this Parliament.

The Prime Minister said on 2nd February, 1965, of the aircraft industry as a whole: What this House wants to ensure and what the state of our economy demands is a healthy and balanced aircraft industry, an industry which never again becomes virtually dependent for its existence on one highly costly venture of this kind"— He was referring to the TSR2. …the Government believe that, properly deployed on the right types of work, the aircraft industry has an important and vital role to play both in provision for our defences and in its contribution to the national economy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 936.] I would stress that that last sentiment applies more particularly to Short Bros, and Harland than to any other firm in the aircraft industry.

This point is brought home by a reading of a statement by the Secretary of State for Defence on 6th April, 1965: While we in this country cannot afford in the future to undertake a wide range of highly sophisticated projects by ourselves, it is the Government's firm intention to retain a lively and viable aircraft and equipment industry of a size consistent with our resources and needs, both in military and civil aviation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1965: Vol. 710, c. 338.] The former Minister of Aviation, who is now Home Secretary, said on 9th February: I turn from employment to projects which, geared to its resources, can offer the industry a successful role in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1965: Vol. 706, c. 239.] In a leaflet circulated in Preston before the last election, the Labour Party said: There is a good future for the British aircraft industry under a Labour Government. What did this statement lead to? On taking office, the Government cancelled three of the most advanced projects of the British aircraft industry—the HS681, the new freighter project, the P1154, the supersonic vertical take-off aircraft being developed by Hawker Siddeley, and the TSR2, which was probably one of the most advanced strike and reconnaissance aircraft being developed anywhere in the world, and with a performance which I do not think any other aircraft would be able to equal in getting in low following the contours below the radar barrier and striking home to the heart of any potential enemy.

The former Minister of Aviation said on 9th February, 1965: In this country today one of our greatest shortages is skilled labour. If we are to improve our economic performance we just cannot allow that most vital national resource to be used other than to the best possible advantage. I am not convinced that this is so in the aircraft industry today. But there is no point in releasing labour unless it is to be quickly reabsorbed in more productive work. In any changes we shall, therefore, have the fullest regard to where and how far that is possible. We are determined not to leave skilled labour lying idle. If retraining is necessary it will be energetically provided. The aircraft industry is spread fairly widely over the country. Much, but not all of it, is in areas of very full employment. If redundancies are necessary, we shall look to the firms to consult fully with us—they live, after all, on public money—and concentrate these redundancies in the most labour-scarce areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 706; 9th February, 1965: Vol. 706, c. 236.] I repeat—the Minister of Aviation said that we should concentrate the redundancies in the most labour-scarce areas. Would he apply that passage to the position of Short Bros, and Harland? What steps have the Government taken to provide alternative employment?

A consultants' report released to the Government at the end of last year advised diversification at Short Bros, and Harland. What steps have been taken to further that objective and what retraining has taken place in the last three months? The Minister of Aviation said in the debate on the Plowden Report that there would be a substantial rundown in the next 12 months—a rundown of 4,000 men in Short Bros, and Harland. The position is urgent, but nothing has been done in the last three months.

The former Minister of Aviation said that such a rundown would not take place in an area such as Northern Ireland, but would be concentrated in labour-scarce areas. The Government have blatantly broken the promise in that statement.

May I quote from two other speeches? The first was on 13th April, 1965, when the Minister of Defence, speaking of the dollar costs of a possible TSR2 replacement, said: The bulk of our dollar payments would be spread fairly evenly over the following eight years. There is every reason to suppose that if we make proper use of the released skill and resources that will result from this cancellation there should by then be a substantial improvement in Britain's balance of payments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1965; Vol. 710 c. 1204.] What steps are being taken to make proper use of the skilled men who are to be released in Short Bros, and Harland? Does the Minister realise that many of these highly skilled men are leaving the country?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 6th April, 1965, speaking of the TSR2: It has, and would have, diverted hundreds of factories employing thousands of skilled and semi-skilled men from other work of national importance, including exports in particular…Although there will be a significant number of redundancies in the aircraft industry, employment conditions generally are at the moment very favourable. There is an intense demand for highly skilled men of the kind who are working on this project, as has been shown by the eagerness of employers to recruit the men who have been released by our earlier aircraft decisions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1965; Vol. 710 c. 282.] What eagerness on the part of employers? It has been eagerness by the employers of South Africa and the United States to take up men from our aircraft industry. The Minister knows that the Lockheed Company have set up a design centre in the United Kingdom to employ skilled men discharged from our aircraft industry—to employ them in designing for the United States. Is this the way in which we are to use these highly skilled men?

The Home Secretary, then Minister of Aviation, said on 9th February, 1965: There is a problem for the design staff, and we are looking at alternative means of employment but on these figures there is no question of destroying, or coming near to destroying, our design capability…. Even design teams are not usefully employed in the industry unless they are designing planes for which there is a real demand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1965; Vol. 706 c. 239.] I am sure the hon. Gentleman heard my right hon. Friend the shadow Minister of Aviation in the defence debate, two days ago reporting the great anxiety felt by the British Aircraft Corporation at the loss of its leading designers. Since then I have heard from one of the leading directors of Hawker Siddeley, who is apprehensive at the loss of design staff. What applies to the British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker Siddeley also applies to Short Bros. & Harland. This industry is being completely demoralised.

I have read statements made by the Government during the past year, which have either been recklessly and carelessly made or have been deliberately broken by the Government. The first Secretary of State said in Belfast on 28th May last: I would repeat the assurances given here by my colleague, the Minister of Aviation, only the other day. 'Shorts is part of the British aircraft industry and will remain part of it'. I can assure you that Shorts will fulfil their commitments in the matter of delivery or after-sales service to anyone who has bought, or intends to buy, aircraft or guided weapons from your production lines here in Belfast. American and other competitors take note. The former Minister of Aviation, the present Home Secretary, is reported in the Financial Times of 19th May last as having said: 'Shorts is part of the British aircraft industry and will remain part of it'. He affirmed the Government's intention that the company should continue its work in the missile as well as the aircraft field. He also said that Shorts is a unit of great technical value, not only to Northern Ireland but to the United Kingdom as a whole. The first Secretary, replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), who I am pleased to see is present, said: Certainly. The Minister of Aviation has said this."— that was the pledge which the Minister of Aviation had given on the future of Shorts, and with which my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry had taxed him. He continued: I repeat it here and now. I think it would be very good for Shorts, and for Northern Ireland, if there were diversification of its interests and if it were not linked to this one form of enterprise; but, having said that, we have both of us made clear—using exactly the same words—that Shorts is in the aircraft industry, it will remain part of the aircraft industry and anyone who has bought or is thinking of buying any of its excellent products can be quite sure that the company will be able to fulfil its after-sales service and so on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1965: Vol. 713, c. 1933.] The right hon. Gentleman is reported on 2nd February, 1965, as saying: The hon. Gentleman can go and find out. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to note these words: I am making a carefully considered statement and I think that he will find that Short Bros, and Harland, and Belfast, are looked after by this Government far better than by the last."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1965; Vol. 705. c. 1017.] How can any Minister make a statement like, that Short Bros, and Harland is looked after by this Government far better than by the previous Government, when the company is being cut in half by the Government? I ask the House to consider carefully the position of Short Bros, and Harland.

The Minister of Defence said on Tuesday in the House that the Government had decided to purchase the C130—that is, the American Hercules freighter—instead of the HS681. Had the Government considered buying some Belfast freighter aircraft instead? Had not the Government realised that the Hercules is an old aircraft—that it is, in fact, the Hercules F and K and model stocks of the A? Instead, the Government could have bought the Belfast freighter, which has twice the hold, 12 × 12 compared with 9 × 10, a hold one-third longer than the Hercules which proved useful the other day in taking a hovercraft to New Zealand. No other aircraft in the world could have done that.

The Belfast is capable of taking a Chieftain tank and has an enormous range. The Belfast has a tremendous capacity for "stretch" and, with a developed engine and an enlarged propeller—of, say, 18 to 20 ft. instead of its present 16 ft.—it would have an even increased carrying capacity. In any case, why did the Government choose the Hercules when the Belfast can carry 30 tons, which is almost double that of the Hercules?

Remembering that the Belfast is a new aircraft, why could not the Government have purchased 10 more of these in place of at least part of the order for the American Hercules aircraft? Are the Government not aware that this country must pay all the development costs of the Belfast and that, by buying Belfasts, we would be paying for only the material and labour, the development costs having been written off, anyway?

Have the Government been "taken for a ride" by the Americans? How was the Minister of Defence able to say on Tuesday that he had been promised a fixed price of £2½ million for the F111, an aircraft which requires substantial modification and further development and which will not be in production for several years? If the United States Government are offering a firm price for the F111 and a substantially cut-priced Hercules, are they not doing so deliberately to damage the British aircraft industry?

Have the Government considered the export figures of the British aircraft industry compared with the American industry? Our industry, which is about one-fifth the size of the American industry, has recently exported about 50 per cent. in value of what the United States has been selling abroad. In 1958 and 1959 the British industry exported £150 million and £142 million worth of aircraft respectively, compared with American exports of £340 million and £269 million for those two years.

Since the war the British aircraft industry has earned for Britain £1,600 million in foreign currency. During the first 10 months of last year it earned £107 million, which represented an improvement on the previous year, when it earned £90 million. The British aircraft industry is, therefore, a small, lively industry which has exported aircraft in the civil field—with, for example, the Viscount—and in the military field—with, say, the Canberras and Hunters. These have been some of the main competitors of the American aircraft industry. We have been a thorn in their flesh.

If one wants proof that the American Government and that country's aircraft industry wish to destroy the British aircraft industry, one need only think of the fantastic guaranteed prices which have been quoted for the F111 and other aircraft. The Australians recently bought some F111s and had to pay a good deal more than we will be paying. Why? Do we have a guaranteed price for the spare parts which we will have to pro-chase from the Americans? If, as a result of these purchases, the British aircraft industry goes to the wall, and if Hawkers and B.A.C. go, so that we cannot obtain the necessary skilled technical staff and designers—the cream of the industry—what price will we then have to pay for the next generation of American aircraft? And does not America know this? Why are we not buying the F111 from the company producing it? Why have we to buy it from the American Government? This, again, I suggest is a "phoney" arrangement.

I am afraid that the Government's policies will leave Britain completely dependent on the United States for this vital link of our defences. It is essential for this country that we have a strong and viable aircraft industry, but how can we have a strong and viable aircraft industry if the Government take the guts out of it by cancelling all military orders? Do they not realise—have they not compared the position of the British aircraft industry with tht of other aircraft industries in the world—that about 80 per cent. of American orders for their aircraft industry are to be found in the field of defence?

In the United States, about 60 per cent. of the orders come in the field of defence. These military orders are used to subsidise the American aircraft industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman opposite does not think that we can take away all the military side and leave the civil side to get on with it. We are placing our civil side of the industry at a tremendous disadvantage if we do not have a military side to help with the design and research necessary to make us viable in the civil field.

I have already mentioned the Belfast. Before this Parliament comes to an end, I should like the Government to say that they will reconsider their decision to buy the C130 Hercules aircraft and, instead, taking some more Belfasts, for the reasons I have given; that they will consider developing an Improved Tyne engine, because it is only with an aircraft like this that we can meet our world-wide commitments, particularly if we are not to have an aircraft carrier programme in the future. How do they expect to transport large numbers of men and large quantities of equipment during the next 15 years? Will the Hercules still be in service? It is almost obsolete now—what aircraft is to be used when the Hercules comes out of service?

Short Bros, has developed the Skyvan on its own. It is to be noted and welcomed that within the last two days a notable order has been won from Anseit. Who is this man Ansett? He is the man in Australia who considered the Trident, and turned it down. He bought the Boeing 727 instead. He considered buying the BAC111, and turned that down for an American aircraft. He considered buying the VC10, and turned that down. He is one of the toughest customers in the world today. He considered an American aircraft and the Skyvan, and decided that the Skyvan was the best aircraft available.

This represents a tremendous breakthrough for Short Bros, and Harlands, which may well lead to the sale of many more Skyvans. The number might run into hundreds. But what are the Government doing about providing this aircraft? Would they not consider laying down a production line, as must be done, for the Skyvan? Already 20 of these aircraft have been built, there have been a number of confirmed orders, and the prospect of more, not only from Australia but from Canada, and even from Italy.

The Skyvan is particularly suited to tough conditions where there are high-altitude airfields with short runways and high humidity. Ansett intends to use them in, among other places, New Guinea, one of the toughest areas in the world. But, at the same time, it is being purchased by an Italian airline. The Italian company has decided that the Skyvan is the appropriate and ideal type of aircraft for the better conditions in Europe.

This is an aircraft in which the Government should have some confidence. They should show their confidence by laying down a line so that we could produce the aircraft and offer reasonable delivery dates and terms of delivery. Otherwise, we shall find the market running from under our feet because we have not the courage of our convictions. What would Boeing or Douglas do with a plane such as the Skyvan which is showing such promise throughout the world?

The Government should look again at their missile requirements. Short Bros, has developed the Seacat which has earned more for this country than any other single missile. The firm has developed a version suitable for the Army, the Tigercat. It has been bought by the R.A.F. Regiment. Why do the Government not buy it for the Army? It is a light and easily handled missile which would be very suitable for protecting the Army from low-flying attack. It is a missile which we are already using and which would cost little to service. If it were sold to the Army and there were large-scale production there would be the prospect of many sales overseas. Another missile is the Blowpipe. I put a Question in the House asking the Minister to reconsider his decision in respect of this missile.

My final point concerns the VFW614. This is a sorry story. Shorts has been collaborating with Fokkers for the production of the F28. As a result of that successful collaboration, which was applauded by the Plowden Committee, Shorts was invited to collaborate in producing a twin-jet small passenger aircraft to take the place of the Dakota DC3, a plane for which there is a wide market. Fokkers is one of the most successful aircraft companies in the world. It saw a great potential in this aircraft and asked Shorts to take a 40 per cent. share in the production. What are the Government doing about this? I have read the pledges given by the Government to Short Bros, and to the aircraft industry as a whole. The Government have refused to advance the necessary £6 million to allow Shorts to take a 40 per cent. share in the production of this aircraft.

This would be a reasonable investment for the Government because the £6 million would come back in a short time in sales. If the Government fight shy of paying £6 million, why do they not suggest that Shorts should take some other share to continue to work with Fokkers on this project? For example, it would be possible for the expenditure of £2 million to have a 15 per cent. or a 20 per cent. share in the production. The Parliamentary Secretary might ask why we should back Shorts in this project. If the Government are to fulfil their pledges to the aircraft industry and particularly to this company, they must be prepared to back the type of collaboration recommended by the Plowden Committee Report. If the firm of Shorts does not collaborate with VFW, the chances are that VFW will find another partner, perhaps in France, to produce this aircraft.

The Government have been pushing Hawker Siddeley, but the consortium in Europe does not want to collaborate with Fokker on the Hawker Siddeley project, which is a larger plane with larger seating capacity. It is not an aircraft to meet the requirements envisaged by Fokkers who are already producing their own Fellowship aircraft, the F28. To ask them to collaborate with Hawker Siddeley would be to ask them to collaborate on the production of an aircraft which would be a direct competitor of an aircraft which they are now trying to sell themselves. What they want is a smaller aircraft and they are still anxious that Shorts should share in its production.

For all the reasons I have given, I ask the Government to reconsider, to reconsider in order to support not only Shorts, but the British aircraft industry as a whole and to help it to remain viable and strong, to reconsider a promising project, a project of the kind which this country wants to develop in the type of collaboration with manufacturers abroad which was highly recommended by Lord Plowden's Committee.

Finally, I ask the hon. Gentleman to make a definite statement. As the House knows, we have been asking for a statement month after month for the year and a half that the Government have been in office. Shorts was threatened with the early cancellation of the HS681. The previous Government promised Shorts one third of the work in manufacturing the air frame of that plane and that would have provided employment for 6,000 or 7,000 men. But we were told that a committee had been set up and that no definite statement could be made until it had reported. We were told that a special firm of consultants, Arthur Little, was looking into the position of Short Bros, and Harland. But by the end of the debate on the Plowden Report there had still not been a clear statement about the future of Shorts.

Eighteen months have gone by since the first cancellations. In the debate on the Plowden Report the Minister admitted that a rundown was imminent and that it would be heavy—about 50 per cent. The Government cannot possibly leave office without having made a clear statement about their intentions if returned to office—and I pray to goodness that they will not be for the sake of the aircraft industry—about the future of Shorts and the industry. They should do that for the sake not only of the 4,000 men at Shorts, but for their wives and families and the traders who depend upon them for their livelihoods. If Shorts is to be run down, the Government must give some indication of what other work they are to provide for these men and say how urgently they regard the problem and when they are to get on with it.

2.53 a.m.

Mr. Ted Fletcher (Darlington)

I hope that the House will not think me impertinent for taking part in a debate concerning Short Bros. and Harland. The only thing which my constituency in County Durham has in common with Northern Ireland is a B.B.C. broadcasting wavelength. My interest stems from the fact that before coming to the House I was for many years an official of the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union. Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity of meeting a deputation from Shorts, representing about 800 clerical and administrative employees in that firm.

As a result of that meeting, I said that if the opportunity arose for a debate on this matter, I would endeavour to advise the House of the situation as the members of that deputation saw it. Apparently, they had little faith in the present representation. I asked them whether they had taken up the matter with Members of Parliament for Belfast and they said that they had done so on many occasions and that they were highly dissatisfied with the sort of attention which was being given to their problems—

Mr. McMaster

Does not the hon. Gentleman know that last Friday there was a symposium of all the trade unions at Short Bros, and Harland which was attended by the Ulster Unionist Members and that a motion was passed, with loud acclamation, in praise of the work done by the Ulster Members on behalf of Shorts and that we were asked to continue our efforts and to press the Government most strongly for a clear statement before Parliament was dissolved?

Mr. Fletcher

I am well aware of that meeting. The hon. Member did not allow me to conclude my sentence. I was about to say that they were highly dissatisfied with the fact that the hon. Member and his colleagues have been Members in office for 13 years when unemployment in Northern Ireland has been very much in excess of the present 7 per cent. on many occasions.

The hon. Member appears to be shaking his head, but this is true. It has been heavier than it is today. His right hon. Friends did little or nothing to bring industry to Northern Ireland and yet he makes, with synthetic indignation, an attack on the Government for not doing in 15 months what he and his hon. and right hon. Friends have failed to do over the last 13 years. Little wonder, therefore, that many workers at Shorts are dissatisfied with what has happened in the past.

I have great sympathy with the situation of the employees at Short Bros. Beginning in June of this year about 4,000 workpeople will become redundant. I have been dealing with this problem in my constituency in connection with the closure of railway workshops and I think that the workers at Shorts have a case for saying to the Government that if redundancy is taking place alternative industry should be directed to the city. I know that at the moment, arising from the Plowden Report and the consideration which the Government have given to the question, it seems likely that the future labour force, perhaps at the end of the year, will be in the region of 4,000. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation whether he has considered the representations which have been made to him to finance some portion of the production that may arise from the discussions which have taken place about the F28 and the replacement for the DC3—the VFW614.

I know that this will require a good deal of capital and that it is essential that the Government should estimate what sales there are likely to be if Government money is invested. No reasonable person can expect the Government to invest funds in an aircraft industry if it is a hidden subsidy. We have these problems of transition on the railways and in the coalmining industry where work is no longer viable, where mines and railway lines are no longer economic and as a consequence the labour force has to be cut. The Plowden Report suggests that the labour force in the aircraft industry must be reduced from a quarter of a million to 200,000. Although the labour force is contracting by about 20 per cent. in the country as a whole, it is contracting in Northern Ireland by 50 per cent. and one would be justified in asking whether Northern Ireland is taking an unfair share of the contraction in the labour force.

This problem should have been tackled in 1957, when the previous Government produced their White Paper, because Short Bros. was excluded at that time from the suggested merger which has now come into fruition. Consequently, Shorts is now suffering from the fact that it has been left out on a limb. The Government should explore every avenue to try to bring additional aircraft work to Shorts. I know that this will not be easy. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) said that the Government should give more and bigger contracts to our own aircraft industry, but he must realise what the reality of the situation is. The Americans, with their world market and a huge internal market, can produce runs of 1,000 aircraft much more economically than our own industry can with production restricted to runs of 100 instead of 1,000. Obviously, one result of their economic advantage is that the Americans can scoop the market. No one can justify waste of money by the Government. It is as uneconomic for us to buy our own aircraft at twice the price which we should pay the Americans for a similar machine as it would be to tell 1,000 men to dig a hole in the ground and another 1,000 to fill it in again. It is a waste of the nation's resources.

The industry must first be a viable industry. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give us facts and figures about the discussions which have taken place, and are to take place with European manufacturers, in order to see whether we can get a viable scheme going, subsidised by Government funds. If nothing is possible in that direction, then the Government ought to be in a position to tell us what alternative industry will be allocated to Northern Ireland. The effect of 4,000 workers being made redundant at a time when unemployment is about 7 per cent. will not be to add just 4,000 to the number of unemployed. There will be others affected in the service industries, shop keepers, and so on, so that unemployment can be expected to grow rapidly.

We have had this problem in the North-East, in an area of high unemployment, but, thanks to the measures which the Government have taken, our level of unemployment is now just a little over 2 per cent. Nevertheless, because Northern Ireland has been so badly misrepresented in the past, and is likely to be in the future, largely because of its geographical position, people there are suffering economically. It is ironic that, while the labour force in Belfast is to be reduced by 4,000, the aircraft industry in Preston tells us that it is 1,000 skilled men short. It seems that there is a maldistribution of aircraft work.

I have taken part in the debate because, as a former official of the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union, I was particularly impressed by the deputation which came to see me to put the problems of the clerical workers to me. I promised that deputation that, if I had an opportunity to intervene, I would pass on those representations to my own Front Bench. Has every investigation been made to see whether we can secure a satisfactory outcome from co-operation with European firms? Is it possible for the Government to invest in an economic way, that is, with the prospect of a return, in such a project? If so, what effect would it have on the labour force?

Next, what about alternative employment? I make the point in this context as I have done it in the context of railway workshop closures in my own constituency, where I have agitated for new industries to be brought in to absorb people displaced by redundancy. Therefore, I am bound to ask whether the Government have any plans for other engineering projects to be steered to Northern Ireland to take up this slack.

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Belfast, East made a pre-election speech—we have had many of them in the last week or two—but I think that the workers in Northern Ireland must recognise, and certainly would recognise if they were in this House, that the most effective way of getting the Government to take an interest in their problems is to elect people who understand the problems of Northern Ireland, people who would be prepared to back the Government.

The hon. Member said that he hopes that the Labour Government will not be returned at the General Election. But I am certain that many tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland thank the Labour Government for what they have done in their short term of office. It is true that unemployment is very high at the moment in Belfast and Northern Ireland, but it is certainly lower than it has been in many periods of the 13 years of Tory rule. I think that as a consequence of this many working people in Northern Ireland are very grateful that we have had a Labour Government, and that this will be reflected on 31st March.

I should not be in the least surprised if some of the hon. Members representing Northern Ireland did not receive a shock as a result of the General Election.

3.7 a.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark (Londonderry)

If my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) made a somewhat comprehensive speech I make no complaint of it, even though he took from me most of the points that I wanted to make. I am grateful that he made the speech, for it has been worth my while to stay here to pay tribute to the pertinacity with which he has pursued the case of his constituents. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary nodding in agreement.

This is entirely in contradistinction to what was said by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher). We can dismiss his speech for the rubbish that it was. If he had been in the House a little longer he would have known that not only trade unionists, managements and many others have paid tribute to my hon. Friend's dogged determination in these matters, but so have hon. Members on both sides of the House and from the Government Front Bench. However, we must not deny the hon. Member for Darlington the last few hours which he will have as a Member of Parliament. He must enjoy them to the full while he can. I will not spoil them for him now.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done tonight. After a little mishap in an aircraft going to Belfast this morning—not a Shorts aircraft, I am glad to say—he managed to get there and made two speeches and then flew back here to represent his constituents tonight. This is an example that the hon. Member for Darlington, if he ever gets the opportunity again, which is unlikely, might follow.

My hon. Friend would, I know, have been supported by other Members representing Belfast constituencies and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) had they known of the debate in time.

I shall now confine myself to asking the Minister one or two small but important and specific questions. My hon. Friend showed a very proper concern for the firm's employment position, in particular. There is, of course, a grave situation. While he was speaking of it, he paid tribute, very rightly, to the great record of Short Bros, and to the management for what it has tried to do in the past.

My first question to the Minister concerns the position of the Skyvan. We have been very glad to hear that there has been something of a breakthrough in recent times. What does he visualise as the future employment force in regard to the Skyvan? I know that this is a difficult question to answer, because we cannot tell just how far the breakthrough will go, but he may be able to give it as a figure in some ratio to the Plowden figure of 4,000. If he can give us an idea of the employment possibilities in relation to the Skyvan we should like to know.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us any forecast about the likely employment situation at Shorts for missiles, the prospects for the Seacat, which has the great record which my hon. Friend mentioned, the Tigercat and the future of the Blowpipe?

My hon. Friend stressed the problem which we in Northern Ireland as a whole face concerning unskilled labour. In this connection he very rightly expressed his concern about the Shorts school. If the Plowden figure comes about and the reduction in employment is 4,000, does the Minister see any danger to the future of that school? Is there a serious danger that that great technological training asset, which has played a considerable part in the economic life of Northern Ireland, might be in jeopardy? We would like reassurance about this.

I can confirm from personal experience during the last few days that what my hon. Friend has said about other countries looking for the skilled labour which, they have been led to believe from statements which we have heard from time to time, might unfortunately become available from Shorts is only too true. I heard of a team from the United States being in Belfast for this very purpose only a few days ago.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the question of the consultants' report. The Minister will remember that this was first mentioned in the House on 2nd February, 1965, quite a long time ago. I do not underestimate the difficulties which the consultants will have, particularly if they are looking for new forms of diversification. We all know of the diversification which Shorts itself has undertaken—milk churns, analog computers, and the rest. I do not know whether Shorts actually made a Dalek, but it would not surprise me to hear that it had. It has tried almost everything under the sun. Can we now have news about the consultants' report? Has the Minister anything new to tell us in that respect?

The other prospect which must worry my hon. Friend, representing Belfast, East, is the loss of spending power which must occur as a result of any further rundown of Shorts. This is a serious matter in a part of Belfast which particularly needs that spending power, perhaps more than any other.

I am tempted by the unfortunate intervention of the hon. Member for Darlington to engage in polemics and to read some extracts from the manifesto upon which Labour candidates in Northern Ireland fought the last Election, but I shall restrain myself. I merely suggest to the hon. Member that he might turn it up for himself, and that if he does I think he will feel some sense of shame.

What we are anxious to hear tonight is whether the Minister can tell us that he can give some alleviation of the anxiety which the Plowden Report and the Government's attitude thereto have caused to those working in the firm and whether he can hold out some comfort for them. For a reason which is not wholly inexplicable, during recent days we have had a great many statements, well designed for their purpose, by a great many Ministers in the Government. We must simply hope that this Minister, too, has something comfortable to offer us tonight by way of reassurance.

3.15 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. John Stone-house)

The House has heard a very useful debate in the last hour, and we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) who took the opportunity of pursuing this subject. I should like to agree with those remarks which have been made about his pertinacity in pursuing the interests of his constituents, as he has on a number of occasions in the last 17 months.

I only regret that the hon. Gentleman's speech, which had a great deal of information in it, was marred by a number of excessive and exaggerated comments, though I appreciate his concern about the future of Shorts and the future employment prospects of his constituents who have relied on Shorts in the past. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions, and I shall do my best to reply to them, though in a fairly short speech, for I am sure the House does not wish to be delayed too long.

Before proceeding I should like to say how glad I am that the hon. Gentleman is in his place, having escaped what perhaps might have been a more unfortunate accident than the one in which he was involved today on his way to Belfast.

The position of Shorts is that it has relied to a very large extent on projects which are bound to run down within the next year and a half. In particular, the 10 Belfast aircraft which are being bought by the R.A.F. will be constructed and finished within the next 18 months, and 27 per cent. of the manpower of Shorts are employed on this construction. Furthermore, about a quarter of the manpower of Shorts has been employed on the construction of the front fuselage of the VC10 for the R.A.F. This work also will run down during the next year and a half. Shorts has been unable to find major aircraft work which will take up the slack of the men who have run out of the work I have referred to.

The Ministry has done its best to assist Shorts in trying to find customers, particularly for the Belfast, but although we pursued a great number of enquiries and have had detailed talks with prospective customers, from the United States to Afghanistan, regrettably those companies have not seen their way clear to buy the Belfast. Also regrettably perhaps to Shorts, the R.A.F. sees no further requirement for the Belfast. The 10 it is buying are sufficient for its requirements. I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, East, speaking on behalf of his constituents as taxpayers, will agree that it would be quite wrong for the R.A.F., in order to keep employment going at a particular firm artificially to buy more aircraft than it requires, and that would have been the position if the R.A.F. had been made to buy more.

As for the Skyvan, we are very pleased indeed that Ansett, of Australia, have decided to buy three of this plane. I was in Australia two months ago and had the opportunity of speaking to Mr. Ansett about the prospects of the Sky-van. I gave the assurance on behalf of the Government that there would be every guarantee that Shorts would honour its commitments with regard to the supply of spares and after-sales service for the Skyvan, and I am glad to repeat that here tonight, and what my right hon. Friends the First Secretary of State and the Home Secretary have said on this question I fully endorse. We know that Shorts will honour its commitments to any customers for the Skyvan in years to come.

I now deal with the particular question about the numbers of men who will be employed on Skyvan development and production. Unfortunately, it is a small aircraft which absorbs only a small number of men, particular compared with the number of men employed on the Belfast. Only about 650 men are employed on Skyvan, and even with a great many orders for this aircraft it will only be a question of some hundreds and not thousands of men being employed. The problem of redundancy concerns 4,000 men. We cannot expect the majority, or even a large proportion, of them to be employed on Skyvan production.

It is quite untrue to say, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, that we have not given support to this Skyvan production line. We have given support. We supported the first batch of 10 aircraft, and we have guaranteed a bank loan for the second batch of 10. There has been a request made to us in the last few weeks for a further batch of aircraft to be produced, and we are now considering this proposal.

We hope that the Skyvan will have many more customers, because it is a very good aircraft. I am sure that, particularly in Australia, there will be many more demands for it, and we hope that it will be a success. Unfortunately, in the short term, it will not make a sizeable impact on the employment position at Shorts.

Mr, McMaster

I should like to make it quite clear that the company and everyone I know are most appreciative of the work that the hon. Gentleman did in Australia in helping to sell it. In case we leave a wrong impression about the Belfast, it should be made clear that the R.A.F. welcomes it. I have spoken to people who have flown it both in the Middle East and in Britain, and they think that it is a very fine aircraft.

Mr. Stonehouse

Yes. However, the R.A.F. does not have a requirement for any more Belfasts, so it cannot have any influence on the employment position in the years ahead.

A number of questions have been raised about the VFW614. That project is a German design, as the hon. Gentleman said, intended as a replacement for the DC3. There is obviously a need for such a replacement, but, in our view, that aircraft does not have the market prospects that it needs in order to justify the expenditure proposed to be put into it. Certainly, an investment of £6 million by the Government could not be justified for an aircraft that will not be a success.

It is quite wrong to assume that we can make a success of a project simply because we collaborate with European partners. It may be that we will share the penalty of a failure, but in our view it is not wise to go ahead with projects, either on our own or in collaboration with Europe, unless we are satisfied that they can be successful. We do not believe that this design will be.

If the main airframe firm developing the plane, assuming it goes ahead, invites Shorts to become a subcontractor, that has not been ruled out. We hope that it will have an opportunity. Certainly, we do not rule that out. We do rule out the possibility of the Government putting a very large sum of money into the development of an aircraft for which we see no great market in the future.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the apprenticeship school. I agree with him that it is a very important school. I saw its work for myself last year when I went to Belfast, and it is our hope that the work of the school can continue. It is an important factor in the economy of Belfast.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about missile development. There are orders for Seacat which will keep 15 per cent. or so of the manpower at Shorts fully employed for the next five years. I have nothing to add at present on Tigercat and Blowpipe.

The House heard a most interesting and well informed intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher). I was glad that he spoke, because he helped to put a number of points into perspective. It is true, as he said, that the unemployment position in Ulster is better now than it was during many years when the Conservatives were in power.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

Has the hon. Gentleman ever looked back to the days of the first Labour Government, since he is going back in his memory? Would he care to look back and see what was the unemployment figure then, because he would be truly appalled if he did?

Mr. Stonehouse

I do not want to go back that far, but, two years ago, the number of wholly unemployed was 37,300. Today, it is 30,400, which means that there has been a drop of 7,000. Two years ago there were 1,300 unfilled jobs, today there are 3,600, so what my hon. Friend said is correct. The unemployment position is not as serious now as it was even just two years ago.

We have been able to make a sizeable impact on the position there, and we hope that we can make an even bigger impact in the years ahead, because we want the people of Northern Ireland to have opportunities for useful and constructive work. We do not want them, and I am sure that they do not want, to be made the objects of charity, sustained in an industry which is not producing products which are economically viable. We want them to be involved in useful, viable employment, and that will be our objective. When we come back here next month, we shall be pursuing every possible means of providing other work for the men who will be made redundant from aircraft work at Shorts.

I give an assurance that every endeavour will be made to provide retraining for those who cannot immediately be absorbed in some other employment. Many of the men who will be made redundant will, I understand, be absorbed fairly quickly. Our concern is to see that the others who cannot be absorbed immediately will receive retraining to fit them for some other employment.

I am grateful to the hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, and I hope that my speech has helped to clear the air.

Mr. McMaster

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member has made a long speech. I hope that he will not seek to intervene again. Some hon. Members have been waiting 11 hours already to take part in this debate.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Does the hon. Member wish to intervene?

Mr. Chichester-Clark

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman referred to the improvement in the unemployment figures, and we welcome this. This has been a fairly steady process, which has not come about overnight, but as a result of a lot of preparation. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to try to attribute to his side of the House the fact that the unemployment figures have improved. I do not think that either side of the House ought to claim that it has by itself improved the unemployment figures. This is largely a matter to the credit of the Northern Ireland Government—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I thought that the hon. Member was intervening. He must not make a second speech.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

I am just finishing, Mr. Speaker. The Northern Ireland Government manage to offer the highest inducement to industry of any Government in Europe.