HC Deb 11 May 1967 vol 746 cc1805-36
Mr. Wingfield Digby

I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 25, to leave out '1971' and insert '1972'.

As the Bill stands, the Shipbuilding Industry Board will come to an end at the end of 1970, and the Minister has power to prolong it for one year. The object of the Amendment is to give him power to prolong it for a second year. That does not mean that we hope that this will happen, but we think that it is, possible that it may be necessary and we realise that it might be difficult for him to return here for the power to do so. We therefore think it more prudent to put this into the Bill.

As I have said before, we believe that conditions have changed since Geddes reported, and I regret to say that I think that they have changed for the worse in several respects. I wish to quote three cases, starting with freight rates. They normally tend to rise at the end of the year, but last year they continued their decline and they have done so up to the present moment. Today's Fairplay International Shipping Journal says, under the heading, "Tankers Might Spark Off Freight War": Dry-cargo tramp shipowners fear that the large number of tankers now becoming redundant in the seasonally depressed oil market will spark off a freight trade war in the major grain trades. There is no doubt that there is a little anxiety in the freight market, and when freight rates are low in this industry people order fewer ships. Perhaps the tragedy of the industry in the past is that there have been these ups and downs.

Secondly, we have had a number of company reports recently, and they have not been very satisfactory. Speaking to an earlier Amendment, I mentioned the case of the Furness shipbuilding yard which, although the most modern in the country of the bigger yards, is having to make provision for no less than £6½ million of losses in the current year.

Thirdly, there is the case of the order book, which is disappointing. It is perhaps significant that that does not apply only to this country. Even in Japan shipbuilders are viewing with some alarm the decline in orders. In the first quarter of this year 34 ships were ordered of a gross tonnage of 131,000 tons, compared with 43 ships of 143,000 tons in the first quarter of 1966. The total order book now stands at not very much more than 2,000 million tons.

We get very much the same story when we look at the history of the launches. British shipbuilding has sunk to fourth place in the league with just over 1 million tons launched, against the rather staggering figure, admittedly rather boosted by tankers and so on, of 6,685,000 gross registered tons in Japan. I think that all those factors point to a rather longer and tougher job for the S.I.B. than we should like to see and than we had hoped. I therefore suggest that it might be prudent to make it possible for it to continue if necessary to make its full term 4½ years. But I repeat that I hope that that will not be necessary.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields)

I am not sure that the points made by the hon. Member are in favour of the Amendment. In some respects one would suggest that his anxiety, which many of us might share, would suggest that the vital necessity for even more rapid attention to the problems of the industry and the kind of action which is recommended in the terms of the Bill, and more speedy action by the Board than might otherwise have been thought to be required.

Whilst I see the need for a continuing period for very careful examination of the industry, I think that sometime before the end of the time provided for in the Bill, we shall need to decide what further action, if any, is required. It may be a very different kind of action and a different kind of Board of Inquiry.

I therefore feel that the Board is not the right body for that very specific type of urgent and rapid job, and that should anything further be necessary it may need to be something quite fresh after we have had experience of the next two or three years.

On that basis, I tend to feel that, while I appreciate the problems we are facing in the shipbuilding areas, the Board should have a definite date of termination and that the date in the Bill is probably as good as any.

Dame Irene Ward

I support the Amendment. I believe that the time specified in the Bill is too short. I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) that, in view of the anxieties, it is necessary to move with great speed. But, after all, extension of the life of the Board from 1970 to 1971 in any case needs permission from the Government. Presumably, the Board would have to make a case before such an extension was granted. In this Amendment, we merely take time by the forelock and give the Minister power to extend the life of the Board for a further year, to 1972.

I do not wish to be particularly uncomplimentary to the Government. I would be just as uncomplimentary if my Government were sitting on that Front Bench. What worries me so often about Government is that it takes an enormous length of time to act. We know from the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman has stressed it, that, in the final analysis, whatever the agreements made or the recommendations put forward by the Board, the power to agree to loans, etc., rests with his Department.

I have not noticed that the present Government move any more speedily—in fact, I think that they move less speedily—than my Government. It is all very well to talk about the Board and how necessary it is that it should move with speed, and I hope that it will do so. But there is the channel of communication and the length of time that elapses before one can get answers out of Government Departments. This takes so long that it is very alarming. Here we are in the middle of 1967 with a vast programme. We have not really yet had presented to us in detail how the Government and the shipbuilding industry see the future of the industry.

So many factors are now emerging in world affairs that it is difficult for anyone, even with the greatest knowledge, to assess the future. The Bill will not become law until July and there is little time for all the details which have to be arranged in the reorganisation that must be carried out after it becomes law.

I believe that this is a wise Amendment. I know that the hon. Member for South Shields feels that, by not including it, we should put a spur to the Board, but I am not so much concerned with putting a spur to the Board as with ensuring that, in all the discussions that take place, there will be adequate time to deal with all the problems which are bound to arise. The right hon. Gentleman is taking power to extend, if necessary, the Board's operations to 1971. I cannot see why we should not give him power to extend it to 1972 if that is necessary. No one knows what the situation will be. We might have to have a complete reorganisation or change to cover whatever may have happened by 1971. We might, for example, have to have another Geddes Committee. In such circumstances, we would need time for all the considerations which would be put forward and to discuss the position, both current and future.

It is always a good thing to have time in hand. The right hon. Gentleman has been very nice about our Amendments. Now perhaps he might give us one. It is easy to be nice about Amendments and say how wonderfully we are doing, but I like a bit of reciprocity and action sometimes. I like to see some genuine recognition and not just words. I am tired of words. I want a little bit of action and something which will be acceptable to this side of the House, as I am sure it would be acceptable to the industry.

In discussing these matters, there is a feeling, I find, that everything is being rather rushed. This is a new concept and a little more time in hand would be wise to have. I hope that the Minister, on this occasion, will not just say how nice we are, how well we have moved the Amendment and how co-operative and reciprocal we are. I hope that we will get something for our efforts in trying to get the best possible Bill for the benefit of the industry and all who work in it.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

I am sure that all the desires so ably expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) for the industry are echoed on this side of the House and that we are all just as restlessly animated as she is by the desire for the welfare of this great industry. I do not quarrel with the Amendment. We have created the Board for the purpose of helping to bring about a new spirit in the shipbuilding industry and, naturally, the Board having been created for a special purpose, it has been given a date line for its existence.

Obviously, it is in the interests of the industry that it should not be spoon fed too long by the Board. I have no objection in principle to prolonging the potential life of the Board if necessary, but I am certain that my right hon. Friend has all the powers he needs and that he will take whatever exceptional action may be required if he finds 1970 to be too early a date at which to terminate the activities of the Board.

I have reason for my purpose in pointing out another aspect of the Amendment—and not merely the Amendment, but the termination date inserted in the Bill. As a result of the decision taken overwhelmingly by the House last night, Britain today applied for admission to the Common Market. Under the Treaty of Rome a Bill of this nature will not be allowed to operate. Subsidies and aids——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue that subject on this Amendment, which deals with the question whether the Minister should have power to postpone dissolution of the Board from 1971 to 1972.

Mr. Rankin

I am aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am merely pointing out that, since the Amendment was tabled, a new situation has developed and, therefore, the issue as to whether or not we should prolong the date beyond 1971 is possibly somewhat unreal. The termination date of 1971 may not materialise as a result of our application, and if we are admitted to the Common Market——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am sorry, but that argument is not relative to the Amendment.

Mr. Rankin

All I am saying is that, in the circumstances and in view of what has happened, it seems unnecessary and at this stage unwise even to talk about extending the date to 1972.

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness)

While we can have considerable sympathy with the motives behind the Amendment and regard the arguments advanced in its support as worthy of consideration, it would not be wise to support the Amendment as it now stands.

It has been pointed out fairly and squarely that the difficulties facing the shipbuilding industry are not only short-term, but likely to be with the industry for many years. If it were to be argued that the Board should last as long as necessary to solve all the problems of the industry, instead of seeking to insert 1972, the Amendment would be seeking to insert 1992.

The problems with which the Board and what will follow it will deal can be divided into short term and long term. The short-term problems are those to which the Geddes Committee addressed its inquiry, the basic structure which our shipbuilding industry requires in order to win a proper share of the world shipbuilding market. Unless these problems are tackled with the sense of urgency which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said was necessary, the long-term problems will not be solved at all.

Therefore, to gauge the value of the Amendment we ought to consider Clause 9 in conjunction with Clause 11. In Clause 11(5) there is a reference to the Board's job, before its dissolution, of setting up machinery which will carry on the essential consultations which will be necessary to solve not only the continuing, but the changing problems of the industry.

There is no one in the industry who imagines that by 1971 or 1972 we shall be able to set up an industry ideally suited to build any vessel required over the next 50 years. New techniques will come and new vessels will be demanded. Some importance should, therefore, be attached to this provision in Clause 11.

I hope that my right hon. Friend, perhaps in response to the Amendment, will tell us the sort of job which he visualises this new machinery taking over when the Board is wound up. This is a job which will stretch beyond the lifetime of the Board and I think that both sides of the House would feel a little happier as we come to the end of the Report stage if we knew something of the Government's thinking on the continuity of change in the shipbuilding industry which the Government regard as being necessary.

Mr. Benn

On the face of it, of course this is a very attractive Amendment. When the House seeks to press additional powers on a Minister, it is very hard for the Minister to resist. The Amendment says, "We like your Bill so much that we do not want it to stop when you want it to stop; we want it to go on longer". The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) says that she does not like my saying that I like her Amendments. I have been looking for years for an opportunity to be courteous to the hon. Lady, but when I am, all I get is a kick in the teeth. I shall have to say frankly that the Amendment is wholly misconceived, and I shall explain why.

The longer we provide for the S.I.B. to stay in action, the slower the progress of the industry towards change will be. I go further and say that at the moment I have no intention of extending the Board beyond 1970—I am not saying that my view on this might not alter later. There will be three and a half years from enactment to the end of 1970 for the Board to do its job, and it would be a great tragedy and do a grave disservice to the reorganisation of the industry if the industry and the Board thought that they could go on and on because the Minister would go on prolonging the life of the Board so that there was no urgency.

Everything the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) said when moving the Amendment about the urgency of the problem led in exactly the opposite direction—we want to put pressure on everybody in the industry and the Board to get on with reorganisation as rapidly as possible. There is also a danger of a statutory Parkinson's Law—that the business of doing what has to be done will fill up the statutory time provided for it.

Moreover, by lengthening the provisions of the Bill, the same amount of money is spread over a longer time. If I agreed that the Bill should go on to 1971 or 1972, that would not increase the amount of grant available, nor increase the amount of loans which could be made available, nor increase the number of credits which could be guaranteed. All that would do would be to lengthen the period during which those measures could be brought into operation. In so far as the Amendment would ease the present pressure which, of course, is not Ministerial pressure but the pressure of events anyway, in certain circumstances that could actually diminish the amount of Government help to the industry in the critical years which lie ahead.

Mr. David Price

I am sure that the whole House would agree with the right hon. Gentleman on everything that he said, were it not for the existence of Clause 7. What has been worrying my hon. Friends and myself most is that the credit scheme is tied to the continued existence of the S.I.B. I agree very much with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about reorganisation and, of course, the industry should get a move on. I was attracted by his reference to a statutory Parkinson's Law and I am sure that he is right. However, it is the existence of Clause 7 which is the problem.

Mr. Benn

I shall come to that, but in practical terms the credit scheme and the amount involved are more generous than the House expected when the scheme was published. The hon. Gentleman is rather optimistic if he thinks that it will last for five and a half years without being exhausted. It is much more likely to be used up before that.

Mr. McMaster

Is the £200 million a once-and-for-all sum, or is it to be to the total amount outstanding? I thought that it was to be the total outstanding, so that what the right hon. Gentleman has just said would not be applicable.

Mr. Benn

It is a rotating fund but in any known time-scale it is unlikely that it will meet itself coming round again, if I may put it that way.

8.30 p.m.

The other point is that we are engaged in looking at an industry which has serious problems, requiring urgent action; and an industry in which the Geddes Committee made recommendations and in which we are now trying out new machinery. This new machinery, under the provisions of the Bill as it is worded, will take 3½ years to operate from July of this year; we hope earlier if another place will pass the Bill rapidly, but say from mid-1967 to mid-1970. That is 3½ years. Contained within the Bill is the power of the Minister, me or my successor, to prolong it for one more year that is to 4½ years. Whatever may be said about the short-term problems, the House will almost certainly want to come back before 4½ years, and maybe, before 3½ years, to have another look at this industry in the light of what the situation was and our experience of working with the Shipbuilding Industry Board.

I must resist the attractive invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), to say at the beginning what conclusions I would be likely to draw from the experience of the Board, in order to foresee what recommendations I would make as to how things may be handled in the future. I do not know; no one knows. The S.I.B. is a very interesting governmental technique. I want it to succeed and I think that it will succeed, particularly if it is kept under pressure, and if the industry and the Board have a time-scale. It is right that, by the time 4½ years have elapsed, we should have another look at the industry. I hope that by then it will be competitive. It is right that Parliament should come back and look at it again specifically.

If the Amendment which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) supports, were to be accepted, we would be into 1972 without another Parliamentary look at the shipbuilding industry, and this is too long. It would extend beyond the next Election and the statutory life of Parliament. It is wrong that we should leave it so long, and I hope that I shall carry the House with me in saying that we should keep up the pressure, so that the Board has an opportunity of tackling the short-term problem, leaving the long term problem to be looked at in the light of the experience of the Board, and the state of the industry.

Dame Irene Ward

At present practically no orders are coming forward at all. If no orders come forward within the next two years, to take advantage of the money that is available, nothing will have happened and it will be all the more important that the scheme goes on, and that the reorganisation provide a stimulus to build. What will happen if no orders come in?

Mr. Benn

With great respect to the hon. Lady, if no orders come in in the next two years, the scheme that I am proposing would not be a very satisfactory way with dealing with what was left of the shipbuilding industry. If the hon. Lady wanted to achieve the effect she says she wants she should have moved an Amendment to say that the Board came to an end at the end of 1969, because this would concentrate the help available in a shorter period. This period would not be practicable, and I hope that on reflection, she will see that this is just about the right balance and that she will not help her cause by allowing this to move from a short-term drastic reorganisation—because it is drastic— into a long to mid-term approach by the Government, to an industry which really needs to move pretty fast.

Mr. Wingfield Digby

I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he thought that the affairs of the industry should come back to the House about 1971 or 1972. There is a lot of force in the argument that he put forward, and in his theory that Parkinson's Law applies to legislation. I agree with everything said by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). Unfortunately I must point out that the mergers are not going as quite as fast as they might do. They have been described in the shipping papers as reluctant marriages. This is because the situation has deteriorated on account of the results of company reports and the lack of orders, in the way that I have indicated. Nevertheless, I can see the logic of the line that the Minister is taking on this. Because of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Benn

I beg to move that the Bill be now read the Third time.

I do not propose to detain the House long in moving the Third Reading. It seems that this is a Bill that meets most of the requirements of a Third Reading. It was born after very full consideration of the problems in an industry in an important report published just over a year ago. The scheme was warmly welcomed by all sides of the industry and was rapidly accepted by the Government.

I accept criticism of delay, but not in this case. The Government very rapidly welcomed the report. It quickly brought forward a Bill which was sympathetically received by the House on Second Reading, rigorously examined in Committee, expeditiously returned to the House, and promptly dispatched on Report. In fact, so welcome was the Bill that we have had the curious situation, as has been pointed out, that Report stage has been attended by a smaller number of Members than Committee stage, which was not at all the intention of Erskine May in providing for our procedures.

It is a Bill urgently required by the industry, and I do not think I can say more than that in recommending it to the House. However, if I may describe the Bill as a ship which we are launching, I would like to say a word about the waters into which it will be launched, namely the prospects for the industry. A year ago Geddes was optimistic about the world demand for shipping, but he recognised, and rightly so, that the estimates of world demand were themselves uncertain and that, in any case, figures based upon tonnage alone were not necessarily the best indication of what this would mean in terms of specific orders. In 1965–66 world orders were a record of 18 million tons. In the first quarter of 1967 we had about 4½ million tons, which is maintaining a fairly high pattern of orders. But there is anxiety about the future character, scale and volume of orders, which is obviously felt by the industry. Also, there have been some fairly drastic falls in the proportion of orders which have come to British industry. They went down from 9.6 per cent., in tonnage terms, in 1965 to, I think, 2.7 per cent. in 1966—a very sharp fall. The position in the early part of this year still did not give us much ground for immediate satisfaction.

In addition, as was pointed out by some speakers on Report, the financial position of some shipyards is very serious. Some of the losses which have been reported in recent annual reports which have reflected losses on past orders—not the likely losses on orders which have been more discreetly taken on board more recently—are bound to create in the industry a psychological barrier to action —a sort of paralysis—unless we are very careful. The industry has been more hesitant as a result of the experience of the last few years at a time when it needs to approach the task of reorganisation more urgently.

There will be a big management task for the industry. We have been talking about statutory and financial provisions, but I hope that nobody underestimates the task of management, not only in relation to labour relations but in relation to managing resources, which the industry has to take on board.

The Shipbuilding Industry Board already has working groups working on different possible grouping schemes. We expect their reports to be made soon. The real test will come—and the House and industry should be in no doubt about this—when the working parties have made their reports and the industry is considering whether it is prepared to accept them. Against the background of a difficult situation, with a not easy financial situation for the firms, this will be the moment when we learn whether Geddes was just a pious hope or the beginning of a new start for the industry.

Some people say—I have heard it said—"Is it worthwhile to engage in this operation in view of all the difficulties facing the industry?". I am not given to declarations of faith, despite what may have been suggested in response to an earlier point which I made. But I have great confidence in the future of this industry if, with the help of the Board and substantial help from the Government, it is prepared to take the plunge. It is not an act of faith alone, because the preparation of the schemes will have been done with great expert care. The conception of the Board has arisen from the Geddes Report and all that has followed and preceded it. The waters, though stormy, should not sink the ship which we are about to launch.

In that spirit, I invite the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby

The Bill is of great importance to an industry which, if somewhat localised, was proud to lead the world for a very long time. Those proud traditions die very hard. I have every confidence that the industry can take a new lease of life.

We have discussed some of the adverse factors which have arisen since the Geddes Report. There are other adverse factors in view—for example, the increasing competition from air freight. A few days ago, a seminar on containerisation was told that the volume of air freight was increasing by about 25 per cent a year, and that is just one more factor. At the same time, there are 2,000 ships being built in the world each year, and what we have to ensure is that the British shipbuilding industry is able to retain a reasonable proportion of that quantity.

I agree that the Government have acted promptly in getting the recommendations of the Geddes Committee on to the Statute Book, but it must be remembered that what we find in the Bill which is receiving its Third Reading tonight is not exactly Geddes. There are some pluses and minuses. There is the plus of the credit scheme, and the Government are to be congratulated on it, although I should have preferred it not to be tied to the life of the S.I.B., but able to go on longer, like the credit schemes of other countries.

Then there are omissions from the Bill. We have discussed trade union development into, it is hoped, five unions in the end. However, that is probably not a topic which would be suitable for inclusion in a Bill. Another omission which is of considerable importance is some preferential rate for heavy plates. That was one of the cornerstones of the Geddes Report and, for a long time, has been a fact of life of the industry. Only during the last few days, we have received Answers from the Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Power indicating that it is now intended to reject this help to the industry and, in that rejection, there was a suggestion that the industry had agreed to it in some way.

However, I do not believe that to be the case at all, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have another look at it. After all, the steel industry has now been nationalised, and there can be little argument for not helping it in the national interest when the Minister of Power is in a position to do so.

With the Third Reading of the Bill, we are handing over to the S.I.B. The task is now the Board's. We are all agreed that it has a difficult task to perform in the three and a half years which lie ahead of it. It has the advantage of being small and compact, and it has made a good impression wherever it has been. It has £5 million in grants and £32½ million in loans at its disposal. If that is spent wisely and quickly, I am sure that a great deal can be done, despite the new difficulties of the industry.

I do not wish to end on too pessimistic a note, and I remind the House of some of the opportunities for the industry. We read a great deal about containerisation and the tremendous benefits which it has to offer to transport. The order for the first six special container ships has already gone out, though, unfortunately, only one has come to this country. However, there are new container ships to be built, and they offer a great challenge to our shipyards. In some cases, apart from ships, containers are being built in shipyards. Many containers will be required all over the world, and that is a further line which United Kingdom shipyards could develop with benefit.

Then there are warships to be built. Unhappily, we have turned down orders for submarines from South Africa only in the last few months. The South African Government have gone to French shipyards instead, and no doubt other South African orders will be lost in the same way as long as the Government are not willing to accept them. It is a great pity that the lost orders cannot be replaced with an acceleration of the naval programme for our own use.

Then there is the replacement of the Liberty ships which is coming up in a big way at present. I am told that, throughout the world, there are no fewer than 10 different types of replacement available for the Liberty ship. There are in this country ships like the SDH Austin and Pickersgill, which, on the face of it, compare favourably with what the German or Japanese yards have to offer. In this replacement of the Liberty ships there is a further opportunity for our shipyards and I hope that this is something which the Shipbuilding Industry Board will not overlook.

It is a pity that the Bill does not do anything about steel, but it enacts the main provisions of Geddes. It has been unable to take account of the latest changes in conditions since Geddes reported, but I wish the Board very good fortune in the task that it has undertaken.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I think that everyone in the House regards this as a very important Bill. It is a good example of practical Government initiative, which we may find repeated elsewhere. It is a form of development which is exciting in its possibilities. The important thing is to try to keep up this sense of urgency if we are to make progress, and, indeed, if we are to have an industry at all within three or four years' time.

One is to some extent concerned lest the initial interest which was generated when the Geddes Report was first published has waned, and there are some signs that this has happened. I have been a little disturbed at some of the meetings which I have attended, because there did not seem to be the same kind of fervour of excitement which was exhibited a year of two ago. It is, therefore, of supreme importance that it should be made very clear that there is no reason at all for any further delay. The Bill provides the opportunities which have been demanded from the Government for a long time, and further action must now come jointly from management and the trade unions. There must be no gainsaying this. There must be no excuses for not implementing immediately the projects which have been under discussion for a considerable time.

In the groupings which are to come—we all hope very quickly—we trust that the forward-looking, thrustful managements will come out on top. It will not be easy to ensure that this happens, but I hope that this will be very much to the forefront of the Board's mind in the actions in which it will be involved in the immediate future. Already, I imagine, the Board has a good idea of what it wants to try to achieve in the industry. I hope, therefore, that there will be no delay on the part of owners in placing orders, because the Board will be able to give a good indication of the way its mind is turning. There should, therefore, be no excuse for further delay, particularly as an Amendment has now been made to the Bill to ensure that credit facilities for orders will be available from the date of publication of the Bill.

I hope that everyone on both the management and trade union side will do all that they can to maintain interest and make sure that this potentially exciting and dramatic Bill has the effect which we all very much hope it will.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. McMaster

I am afraid that I cannot share the enthusiasm expressed by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) for the Bill. I have no doubt that what he says is true and that we shall probably have other Bills of this kind. The longer the Labour Party remains in office the longer trade and industry will get into difficulty and require the bailing out that we find in this Bill. The Bill provides too little assistance for the shipbuilding industry, and it is being given much too late.

I shall not oppose the Bill's Third Reading, any more than I opposed the Second Reading, because it is better to have half a cake than no cake. As the Minister of Technology said, however, the situation facing the shipbuilding industry has deteriorated quite a lot in the short time since the Geddes Committee reported just over a year ago. Since then the position of both naval and civil shipbuilding has deteriorated. The British share of world orders has fallen, and continues to do so.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that there is no doubt about the importance of the industry. We are a maritime nation. We need our shipyards, first, for defence and then for trade. Our shipyards have been considerable money earners in the past, both directly, in that we have built boats for the whole world, and also indirecty, in chat we have been the main suppliers to British shipping companies, which have brought in a considerable amount of invisible earnings. The shipbuilding industry has been a vital contributor to our balance of trade, but assistance is needed.

I do not want to weary the House with details at this late stage, but it is accepted that the industry needs help, and the £32½ million made available directly by the Government is not adequate. I was shocked when I heard the Minister say that building docks were not to be included in the assistance provided under Clause 4. The Minister referred to the building of specialised boats, implying that building docks were not required for the smaller boats. I would point out to him that a vessel built on an old-fashioned slipway has to be built at an angle. The more complex the boat the more important it is to build it in dock, where it is flat. Every bit of machinery installed before the boat is launched has to be installed at an angle, and an adjustment has to be made afterwards. It is, therefore, much better—and this is evident from the concentration which the Japanese are giving to the matter—to construct more building docks, and to provide not merely one or two but several per yard, as is done in Japan.

I would have thought that this was one technological innnovation in respect of which the Government would have provided assistance and encouragement. The Government say that they cannot. Why? This bears out what I said in Committee, that too little is being done to help shipbuilding, and too late.

Great play has been made of the £200 million to be provided by the banks, but in Committee the Minister admitted that he hoped that this would not cost the Government anything. This assistance is provided not by the Government, but by the banks—mainly the joint stock banks, but also, to a lesser extent, the merchant banks, who do not like these long-term commitments.

If the banks are providing it, someone has to pay. Probably their customers will pay slightly higher bank charges to cover the difference in interest rates. If the Minister says that this is not so, presumably there is no subsidy and no difference in interest rates and no advantage from the guarantee. If there is an advantage, the banks will be lending money at less than the market rate.

Up to £200 million will be made available to British shipowners to build in this country and the banks' customers will have to pay the bill—the man in the street and the shareholders—and perhaps bank staff will even have to accept smaller pay increases.

I was also disappointed by the lack of direct encouragement to the trade unions to make the industry efficient. The Geddes Committee paid great attention to this aspect of the problems of the yards. I know from experience in my constituency that the unions have done a great deal over the past years to avoid problems, to settle disputes amicably and to avoid holding up building. The vested interests of the skilled trades in the shipyards are recognised. It is only fair that, if men who have served long apprenticeships to acquire special skills have to give up some of their special advantages, they should be compensated.

Nothing is done in the Bill to cover this. The Minister even refused an Amendment to Clause 7 today which would have helped to extend the provisions with respect to guarantees to shipyards where the trade unions were being co-operative. This is important——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to pursue this, because one cannot refer on Third Reading, as he is aware, to what is not in the Bill.

Mr. McMaster

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and leave that point.

I regret that ship-repairing is mentioned only briefly, although the body which is set up is to cover both shipbuilding and repairing. It would be much more equitable if the repairing yards could share in these advantages.

The long hand of the Common Market is stretching out even this early, when we have made our application only today. You have ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we cannot discuss the Common Market. We have applied to join, however, and we passed through this House a Motion requiring the Government to do so. This is bound to affect our yards and the industry.

They will be covered by some of the Articles in the Treaty of Rome and it is a great pity that these matters cannot be discussed here because——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Common Market was discussed for three days. We are now discussing the Third Reading of the Shipbuilding Industry Bill.

Mr. McMaster

I agree that it was discussed for three days, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I now want to discuss how it affects the Bill and the industry. I am sorry if I am out of order in doing so, but——

Dame Irene Ward

On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you ruled the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) out of order on the ground that he could not discuss the Common Market as it applied to shipbuilding on an Amendment. It did not occur to me at the time—I may be absolutely wrong—that it would not be possible to ask for an interpretation on Third Reading. Am I not right in thinking——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

When I ruled the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) out of order we were discussing a very narrow Amendment. We are now on Third Reading and the debate that is permissible on Third Reading of a Bill is very strictly confined to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. McMaster

I would not seek to dispute your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I conclude by saying that if our appli- cation to join the E.E.C. is successful, this may be reflected on the needs of the shipbuilding industry. This is another reason why the provisions of this Measure are not up to date and are insufficient.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Rankin

I suggest that we record our appreciation of the competence and understanding with which my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary conducted the Committee operations of the Bill. We should also record that the hon. Member who led for the Opposition in Committee was extremely helpful and proved worthy of his task.

I wish to consider some of the potential difficulties of the shipbuilding industry, including the carriage of cargoes by ships. The challenge from the air was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) and I agree that that challenge exists. However, I do not believe that it will prove as much of a menace as many people think, particularly if we go ahead quickly with the building of container terminals and container ships.

Certainly many avenues which have provided work and cargoes for ships are disappearing. However, other avenues are opening—and, for example, the transportation by ship of motor cars to the Continent is an increasing trade. More and more school children are now being educated by the use of ships. A larger number of pupils than ever before now spend a reasonable part of their school lives being educated aboard ships and also in the sense that they are seeing how other people live in different parts of the world and are meeting children of other countries. That is an expanding trade and is another avenue being opened for the shipbuilding industry.

It has been suggested that the Bill will create a new era for shipbuilding. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that it gives us an opportunity to create a new era, though I would go so far as to say that the new era is before us, if only we can seize the opportunities presented by the Bill.

The Bill means that there must be a reorganisation of the industry, not only between and among the yards, but within the yards, and at all levels. If it means that we have to look at the problem of trade union numbers within the yards, we must do that, though we know that it will present difficulties. If it means that we must look carefully at the resistance which may be offered to a reduction, if necessary, in the number of yards, we must face that, too. At the same time, we must carry with us in understanding all the people employed in the yards at both floor level and management levels. We must see that those at the top level of mangement who seek the orders necessary to keep the yards going examine their systems of approach for acquiring this new type of business.

During the Committee stage I referred several times to the Fairfield shipbuilding yard in my division. Something new is being done there; not merely at board level but at floor level. When the men understand what the board wants, and when the board is prepared to co-operate with the men in securing what is best for the yard and its continuance as an operating factor in shipbuilding, we get that community of endeavour which results in success.

That was recently shown when Fairfield's got an order for a great new container ship, in the face of world competition, when every other yard in Britain failed. Yards in Britain, in an effort to get such a ship, formed a company specially for that purpose, yet even their united effort failed while that of one Scottish yard succeeded.

The Scottish yard won through because it abandoned a system of quoting for ships which has now become a handicap, and one of the big disadvantages from which shipbuilding is suffering. Although this Measure gives shipbuilding as much aid as Government can be expected to give, unless the firms modernise their approach to the securing of orders the Bill will not operate as successfully as we all want it to operate. The old system of quoting for ships on a cost-plus basis is no longer efficient. British shipbuilding yards must realise that the system of estimating when entering into world competition must be based on cost allied to productivity. That is the system which Fairfields adopted and it is succeeding.

Under that system, with the new type of management and the new spirit in the yards and with this Bill which my right hon. Friend has so successfully conducted to its final stage, British shipbuilding will succeed. Because I trust British ship- building I believe that, presented with this challenge, it will succeed. This Bill will prove one of the great aids in bringing about the new spirit for success which we all want to see in our own shipyards.

9.11 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward

Like everyone else, I welcome the Bill and wish it well.

It is most curious that during the whole of Report stage and Third Reading, we have not had one word about marine engineering, although this is included in the Bill. Whatever the future for British shipbuilding and shipping, there are very grave doubts about the future of British marine engineering. I should like the Minister to deal with this matter, which is important to many of our rivers. On the Tyne, the Wallsend slipway has been closed, and on the Wear George Clarke and Company has closed its marine engineering works.

We have not discussed a controversial subject, but I must mention it because I always like to put the point of view not only of the shipbuilders, but of the men in the industry. They have a feeling, whether rightly or wrongly I could not say, that when the industry gets into operation again as a result of the Bill the tendency may be to import engines from abroad to the detriment of our own marine engineering works. I could not allow the Bill to pass its Third Reading without drawing attention to the fact that the future for marine engineering gives all of us very great cause for anxiety.

I, and I imagine my hon. Friends, do not like the provision which allows for the handing over of equity shares to the Shipbuilding Industry Board. I regard this as a move which could eventually be used for the purpose of nationalisation by the back door. I am not in favour of any more nationalisation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) pointed out that we shall not get what we hoped to get—some concessions in regard to steel for the shipbuilding industry. Once the power is put in the hands of the Government, it goes beyond our control. When the Board is broken up, any shares which may be held—I hope there will be very few—will be transferred from the Board to the Minister of Technology. That I view with very great disapproval and regret. I am glad to be able to put that on record.

I am dealing only with points which have not been covered, because we have had a good debate on all the essentials of the Bill. Can we be told how the shipbuilding areas will fare in view of the Government's determination to reduce defence expenditure? We can have a good home market for shipbuilding only if we can also have some naval ships to be built. I would like an assurance that the Bill will have the benefit of the backing of a considerable number of naval orders and that in the defence reappraisal the shipyards will not be deprived of what was a very attractive part of their livelihood in the past—large naval orders. I should like to be told what we can look forward to during the next three and a half years under the Board. What help will the industry get from the Ministry of Defence by the placing of naval orders?

I know that I cannot discuss the Common Market, but as a supporter of Britain's entering the Common Market I should like to ask for an assurance on this matter, because it is causing great anxiety. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir B. Craddock) drew attention to Article 92(3,c) of the Treaty of Rome, which deals with European shipbuilding.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Yesterday's debate is over.

Dame Irene Ward

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to debate the matter, but may I not just ask whether, as the Secretary of State did not answer the point made yesterday by my hon. Friend, we could have an occasion in connection with the whole future of the industry when the right hon. Gentleman will be able to describe the application of the Treaty of Rome to it?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady may ask that, but not tonight.

Dame Irene Ward

At any rate, I have got it on the record. I am very grateful for that.

Mr. McMaster

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A Ruling has been given. I am very worried about it. It seems that the sovereignty of the House is being affected by the Chair's prohibiting any discussion of the effects of the Common Market and our application to join it on matters we are considering in the House. At the moment, we are considering the Shipbuilding Industry Bill, which could be affected——

Mr. Speaker

Order. Let me help the hon. Gentleman who is trying to advise the Chair on what is in order. On the Third Reading of a Bill one can discuss what is in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman should know that by now.

Dame Irene Ward

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to deal with this prohibited matter, but would I be in order in saying that the whole of the Bill could collapse? Would I be in order in asking: will the Bill work, or will it not work? Will there be a Bill in operation in two and a half or three years' time, or not? Would I be in order in discussing that?

Mr. Speaker

I will tell the hon. Lady when she goes out of order.

Dame Irene Ward

I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker. I will not try your patience too hard.

I just want to put it on the record that for the future of the industry it is tremendously important, this scheme which has the approval of both sides of the House having been devised, that nothing in the outside world should prevent it from being fully made use of and fully implemented. I will not go further, because I could go out of order.

I wish the Bill well, and I hope that, before very long, we shall talk of the future of the industry with greater confidence. We all have grave anxieties. I was glad that the Minister did not skate over the difficulties facing shipping and shipbuilding at present. The state of affairs is really serious, and what we now need is orders. There is the credit of £200 million to be used, but we must have the shipping people to put the orders into the yards. If the situation of the industry as a whole develops adversely, the credit facilities will be useless.

Therefore, although we all welcome the Bill, there are certain aspects of the future which cause us great anxiety. However, this does not detract from my good wishes for the Bill. We all wish it well, and I hope that, before very long, we shall be able to discuss the affairs of the shipbuilding industry with a sense of greater confidence that its future is assured.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Booth

The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) says that we all welcome the Bill. I should like to feel that that was so, but, if the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) were intended as a welcome, it was one of the sourest welcomes I have ever heard.

The Bill is directed to the problems of an industry in which things change rapidly. Even between the time when the Bill was introduced and its Third Reading tonight, things have happened which bear very much upon whether the Bill will or will not succeed in its purpose. The Bill covers the setting up of a Shipbuilding Council. Even while we were discussing it in Standing Committee, one of the members of the Council withdrew his attendance because of a lockout in the shipbuilding industry. Perhaps one of the happiest auguries for the Bill's success is that, at the next meeting of the Shipbuilding Council, that member, the general secretary of my own union, the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians Association, will return to the Council because the lockout has come to an end.

On Monday, the gates of the shipbuilding industry will be reopened for the first time in nine weeks to all the people it requires to do its job. I hope that those gates will open on an industry in which we are right to declare our faith, a faith not in the industry as it now is but in an industry with the ability to change and to grasp the new world markets which must open up with increasing trade.

It is principally for this reason that I welcome particularly the power which the Government will have under the Bill to take equity shares in the industry. As I see it, the Bill is principally a declaration of the public interest in the industry, and it is appropriate, therefore, that provision should be made for a public equity shareholding. The success or failure of the industry is not just a matter for ship owners and builders or for seamen and the men who work in the yards. It is a matter of concern to the whole British public.

I hope that it is in that spirit that we shall pass the Bill on Third Reading, praying that it will have the success which it ought to have but which it can have only if we believe in the ability of the industry to change and to take a growing part, the part which it must have, in the expanding markets of the world.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. David Price

The Bill provides an opportunity, and that is all. It does not provide any guarantee of success.

In his criticism of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) said that he thought that it was too little. I do not want to go over all the detailed measures in the Bill, but I think that the public moneys being provided in it go to the limit. I do not believe that we are entitled to give more public money at the moment towards the reorganisation. That is why I agree with the Minister on the need for speed.

I hope that before the currency of the Bill, through the efforts of the Government and other Governments, the Minister will be able to ask leave to withdraw the credit scheme because we have persuaded the other Governments of the world to withdraw subsidised credit to their shipbuilders. What we want to see is fair trading terms, and the reason Clause 7 had to be introduced is that that condition has not prevailed. It is on that basis that we on this side of the House support the credit scheme.

Mr. McMaster

Is my hon. Friend not aware that the Japanese offer credit terms 1 per cent. better than we offer, and that as long as that continues the provisions in the Bill can hardly be adequate to enable us to meet that competition from Japan?

Mr. Price

I believe that that modest difference is not really significant. My hon. Friend may be right, but the evidence I have is that there are far more fundamental factors involved. Hon. Members who know the current state of shipbuilding technology better than I do would agree about that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) said, we have a background of still declining order books at the moment. According to the figures of 31st March this year, the order book is 22 per cent. down in tonnage compared with the same period in 1966. That does not mean too much, but it is also 19 per cent. down in value, and that is significant. That is the situation against which we are giving the Bill its Third Reading. The situation has deteriorated since Geddes, and even since Second Reading.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) drew attention to the marine engine side where, as we said in Committee, the situation is a great deal worse. I hope that in giving the Bill a Third Reading neither we nor the public are under any illusions that the Bill will of itself bring orders to British yards or to British marine engine builders.

A very serious situation faces the industry. But I believe that the Government have broadly produced the right measure, and we have supported it, except for certain matters on Clause 6 and so on about which we disagreed. We therefore wish Sir William Swallow and the Shipbuilding Industry Board the very best of luck. But let nobody be under any illusion—the Bill does not of itself secure the future for British shipbuilding.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Dell

I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) for the manner in which he summed up the debate from his side of the House. I shall return to what he said a little later.

I wish first to deal with some of the matters raised by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) referred to the question of steel prices. The hon. Member for Dorset, West appeared to consider that it should have been dealt with in the Bill. I do not see how it could have been. Nevertheless, a decision had to be made here in respect of a specific recommendation of the Geddes Committee, and the Government decided that it could not implement that particular recommendation.

Mr. Wingfield Digby

I did not mean that it should necessarily have been dealt with in the Bill, but I thought it very disappointing that we should be told just before the Third Reading that it would not be dealt with in any other way either.

Mr. Dell

Nothing was said in the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power gave to a recent Question which had not been said before in the House, both by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and by me in answer to other Questions.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

I know that this is hypothetical, but if steel were to be made for ship builders surely the shipbuilding industry should be subsidised rather than that the steel industry should be asked to carry an uneconomic price to one set of customers.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are getting beyond the scope of the Bill. We are on the Third Reading.

Mr. Dell

The position with which the Government were faced was clear. It was impossible for the Government to give directions to the steel industry which would affect the commercial decisions of the industry. The Government therefore had to decide whether to go ahead with the Bill, despite the fact that this condition indicated by the Geddes Committee had not been fulfilled. We consulted the shipbuilding industry and the industry was with us in deciding that, despite the fact that we could not implement that condition, we should go ahead with the Bill. I am not saying that the industry accepted the Government's decision, but it agreed that, despite the Government's inability to implement that recommendation, we should go ahead with the Bill.

I do not think that the industry has any real complaint on that score. It is true that, if the industry goes ahead with the reorganisation which the Bill makes easier for it to achieve, then, in its negotiations with the steel industry, it should be able to provide for itself more satisfactory prices for steel than it has had in the past.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) emphasised something that has been emphasised many times from both sides of the House —the need for urgency and thrustful management in the new groups which are to be formed. I accept all that he said. He is right. Since the Bill was introduced, there have been important and significant signs of progress. Working groups have been set up and I hope that, in the near future, other working groups will be set up to tackle the problems of merging in other parts of the country. It is a good sign. It is vital that speed should be maintained and that there should not be any failure of decision when the working groups make their reports.

The lack of enthusiasm that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) has for the Bill has been known to us throughout, and was repeatedly expressed, despite all the discouragement I could give, in Committee. I prefer to accept the judgment of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who said that the Bill was an historic step in the industry. It really is a bit much of the hon. Member for Belfast, East to suggest that the problems of the industry are due to the present Government. Those problems are of very long standing indeed.

The difference is that the present Government established the Geddes Committee and on the basis of its Report the Bill was introduced, and the Bill provides more assistance for the industry in meeting its problems and making itself competitive in world markets than has been given by any previous Government. We accept that the situation in the industry has deteriorated since the Geddes Report and that there is a serious lack of orders. But the lack of orders merely emphasises the urgency of the decisions which the industry has to take, and which it can now take with the assistance of the Board.

Mr. McMaster

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. In fairness to the last Government, I should point out that they made £75 million available in assisted credit to shipbuilders—a scheme not equalled in the Bill.

Mr. Dell

The last Government did that to provide an opportunity for the industry to reorganise, but it did not take that opportunity. The difference now is that, not merely are we providing a very much greater sum of credit to support the industry in getting orders from home ship owners, but we are providing financial assistance to it to reorganise, and are giving considerable encouragement to it to reorganise by the means by which guarantees will be provided in respect of these orders. It should be understood why the situation in the industry has deteriorated and why there is this lack of orders.

There is no lack of world orders for ships. In 1965 and 1966 world orders for ships were at a record rate and in the first quarter of this year that rate continued. It is in this situation, and not in a situation of a shortage of orders, that the British industry has been failing to secure its share. It has been in a situation of boom.

We are faced with the fact that orders for home owners have been going abroad to an enormous extent. Our share of orders placed, not under conditions of subsidy in one's own country, but for registration abroad, has been falling year by year, as the figures show. When we talk of this lack of orders, let us appreciate the background against which it is taking place and let us understand that this lack of orders precisely illustrates the importance of the industry making itself more competitive, and doing so rapidly.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East said that we should have provided a larger sum in loan money so that shipbuilding docks could be built by shipyards. If shipbuilding docks are to be built by shipyards, it must be remembered that there are other sources of capital, if, in their commercial judgment, that is the right thing to do. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that in future all capital provision for the industry should come from the State. If he is, I must warn him that with that would go the equity option which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth continues to dislike, despite my attempts to dissuade her in Committee.

Mr. McMaster

I thought that I had made this clear. As long as the country faces the type of assistance which other countries give to their industries, there is an obligation on the Government to assist our industry as competitor countries assist theirs.

Mr. Dell

I accept the obligation, and the obligation is being fulfilled, but when I refer to the decline in our share of world orders, I am referring to the decline in our share of orders placed for registration in third countries, and in those countries the industry's competitiveness enters the question very closely.

I agree entirely with the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan on the need for reorganisation of the industry being expressed within the yards as well as in the grouping of the yards. My hon. Friend and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth spoke of the possible incompatibility of the Bill and membership of the E.E.C. I dealt with this matter on Second Reading, and if the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend will look up my speech, they will find that I indicated that there was no such incompatability.

The hon. Lady dealt with a matter which clearly arises and which concerns the Government—the state of the marine engineering industry. As I said in Committee, this industry's condition is intimately connected with the fate of shipbuilding generally. The marine engineering industry, as the shipbuilding industry itself, must implement, with the assistance of the Board, the recommendations of the Geddes Report. It must specialise and it must concentrate on units which make a significant number of marine engines each year and can therefore make them competitively.

At the moment, there are too many marine engineering shops which make two or three engines a year and which on that basis cannot possibly be competitive and which, to sustain themselves, have to do a lot of jobbing engineering outside the provision of main engines for the shipbuilding industry.

One can see the future mode in which the marine engineering industry should concentrate, and I hope that it does so rapidly so that it, too, can play its part in ensuring the future of the British shipbuilding industry.

The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth feared that marine engines might be imported. I do not think that there is any great danger of any great number being imported, but, nevertheless, it is essential that marine engines should be produced competitively in this country, because if they are not and British marine engines have to be used in British ships, that would be a factor which would make the British shipbuilding industry uncompetitive.

I explained in Committee, and I do not think that I need repeat, the relationship that would exist between the guarantees which my right hon. Friend will give in respect of orders for ships placed in this country by home owners and imports of foreign components.

Finally, I come to the words of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), who so excellently summed up the real situation over the Bill. He said that the Bill provided an opportunity, but provided no guarantee of success. I wholeheartedly echo those words. This is an opportunity of which the industry must avail itself, and all the facts go to confirm that it will be no easy task, just as it is a task that cannot be delayed. There are an enormous number of problems in the way. There is the enormous strength of the Japanese industry, there are the foreign subsidies which have been referred to again and again, and there is the increasing competition from air freight to which the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) referred.

These are the difficulties, but in the Bill is an opportunity, and it might be added at this point that the opportunity in this respect is not just an opportunity for the shipbuilding industry. The industry, in a sense, is a front for the engineering industry, and in undertaking the task of being competitive in world markets and in reorganising itself, I hope that the industry will have the support of all those elements of the engineering industry which supply it with so much of the final ship as it eventually sets to sea.

I would be failing in my duty, in ending this debate if I did not pay a final tribute to the work of the Geddes Committee, upon which all our considerations have been based. It has guided us throughout these debates, it has provided a foundation for the Bill. This excellent Report is a landmark in what a Committee can do to assist an industry, when it really has the expertise to understand its problems. May I also wish the Shipbuilding Industry Board and the industry well in the important job of reorganisation which both must undertake together.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.