HC Deb 10 April 1972 vol 834 cc851-8
Mr. Benn (by Private Notice)

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the further Government support announced today for Harland and Wolff's shipyard in Belfast.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw)

I have been asked to reply.

It was announced on 6thJuly, 1971, that the Northern Ireland Government would take up 4 million £1 shares at par and that a grant was to be made to Harland and Wolff of a sum to be professionally assessed which would be sufficient to ensure that the actual and prospective losses on the company's order book as it stood on 3rd March, 1971, had been fully provided for. In addition, the Ministry of Commerce has been working closely with the new management of the company on plans for the future. All these matters are under discussion at present. I expect that they will be completed at an early date, after which a statement will be made. I am well aware of the need to encourage the economic development of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Benn

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, though somewhat surprised to find my Question answered by him.

On behalf of the Opposition, I warmly welcome the decision to go ahead with these negotiations and hope that they will come to a successful conclusion. When does the right hon. Gentleman expect a full statement to be made? Under which Vote will the money be carried—under his Department or under the Department of Trade and Industry? How many extra jobs does the right hon. Gentleman hope to create if these negotiations come to a successful conclusion? Will he himself be directly answerable to the House now that the Shipbuilding Industry Board has disappeared and there is direct rule? Can he guarantee that the job discrimination on religious grounds that has occurred in Harland and Wolff will not be possible under the further moneys made available by the Government under the new arrangements recently announced?

Mr. Whitelaw

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I believed, as I understood that this came within my responsibility, that it was right for me to answer the Question. I am sure that the House will realise that I am going into these matters as fast as I can, together with many others, and if some of my replies at this stage are not as full as they might be, I am sure that the House will appreciate that.

As to a full statement, I cannot say exactly when, but I shall make it as soon as I can get round to dealing with the points raised. I realise the urgency.

On the question of Votes, again, my Department, both here and in Northern Ireland, is at the moment being established and welded into one as fast as I can make it. I shall have to get the accounting procedures clear in my own mind. I will also do that as early as possible. As for the extra jobs, I cannot say as yet. As for being directly answerable, I am anxious, as I said earlier, to be directly answerable to this House for the matters affecting Northern Ireland so far as I can see them. There may be some for which other Ministers may be answerable, but so far as possible I shall be answerable for what happens in Northern Ireland.

As for the question of job discrimination, I have already been given an assurance by the Chairman, Lord Rochdale, and by the management of the firm that there is not job discrimination at Harland and Wolff, and it is my earnest intention to see that that is so.

Mr. McMaster

Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of the money spent by the Government over the past two years the shipbuilding facilities at Harland and Wolffare now the most up-to-date of any in the world and that in spite of all the troubles and disorders over the past three years productivity has risen very sharply there? In view of the great importance of this firm to the economy of Northern Ireland in these troubled times, will he take every step to ensure that moneys equal to those made available to other shipbuilding yards in the United Kingdom are made available to Harland and Wolff?

Mr. Whitelaw

During my very short stay in Northern Ireland there were some limited discussions on this front because I have been concerned with very urgent matters indeed. I have found that industrial relations in Northern Ireland for a considerable time has been extremely good and that productivity in Harland and Wolff has been very successful. I will do everything I can to gain all money which is possible for the economic development of Northern Ireland, both in the shipyards and elsewhere, because I regard it as extremely urgent and one part of the very major problem confronting me. Of course, the ending of violence would do more than anything else to help the economic development of Northern Ireland. These two must go hand in hand.

Mr. Orme

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us welcome the injection of this capital into Harland and Wolff because we recognise the urgent need for economic development in Northern Ireland? Will the Government own the equity and have some control, or will the money go directly to the firm, without any control?

Second, with regard to discrimination, the Minister said that he would meet the management and that he wanted to discuss with them productivity and job allocation. Will he also meet the shop stewards of Harland and Wolff, who are central to this issue, and urge upon them a return to the standards which existed only a short while ago but which have unfortunately deteriorated during the recent trouble?

Mr. Whitelaw

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My problem is that I have not been able yet to make the full statement to the House that I should make on all aspects of this matter. I have promised that it will be as soon as possible. When I make it, I will certainly take into account what the hon. Gentleman has said.

As for job discrimination, I can only say that I met the trade union leaders in Northern Ireland last week and had a very full and interesting discussion with them. The more that we in this House can give the message to Northern Ireland in all its aspects that that community is one community which we will do everything in our power to help the better it will be. It is one community, and we must make it appear so in everything we do.

Captain Orr

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while we very much welcome what he has said about economic development in Northern Ireland, there is an urgent necessity now to restore order so that the kind of incident which happened to Mrs. McGuckin over the weekend cannot happen again? Can he say what is now being done to bring the perpetrators of this dreadful outrage to justice?

Mr. Whitelaw

If one sees the scene in Northern Ireland as I have done over the last week one cannot but gain some small encouragement at the increasing number of people who are speaking out for an end to violence. But I should be absolutely wrong if I gave the House any indication that that had necessarily gone far enough or that acts such as we have seen recently will not occur again. I am afraid that they will occur in future. Anything which one can do to stop them—anything that the House can do—is vitally important, but we should not delude ourselves that there are not those who are still seeking to continue the violence. Everything that can be done will be done to bring them to justice in the proper way.

Mr. Heffer

But would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the question of financial aid to Harland and Wolff goes beyond Northern Ireland and raises the whole question of the future of the shipbuilding industry? Is it not clear that we as a nation are constantly having to finance various shipbuilding companies? If we are to have a viable industry which can compete in the world, is it not time that this Government, having dropped some of their dogmatic Ministers from the Department concerned, now considered the whole question of public ownership of this industry?

Mr. Whitelaw

This goes very much wider than the Question, which was concerned with Harland and Wolff. If the House at present finds me particularly parochial about the special problems of Northern Ireland as I see them, I am sure that it will understand that. All the problems—economic and others—go together. They are very special problems indeed, and I shall regard them as my special responsibility. I do not wish to be drawn further than that.

Mr. Wingfield Digby

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the order book of this yard is quite adequate? Will his proposals mean that the annual rate of output is likely to be increased, and if so by how much?

Mr. Whitelaw

I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in these matters. Perhaps he will await the full statement which I will make in due course.

Mr. Callaghan

Is the Secretary of State aware that it is somewhat surprising to hear that Lord Rochdale says that there is no job discrimination? Is it not the case that out of about 8,000 jobs in Harland and Wolff at least 7,500, if not more, are occupied by Protestants? Although this discrimination extends far beyond Harland and Wolff, and one could find firms in Northern Ireland where the reverse position would apply—although not on such a great scale—is it not the case that if public money is to be injected into the firm—taking into account the difficulties—the Secretary of State and the management should try to get a better balance between the communities in this firm?

Mr. Whitelaw

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. That is entirely my purpose in all the matters that I shall undertake, and I am prepared to have discussions on that basis.

Mr. Douglas

Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that in trying to get this yard viable it is essential that he has discussions with the ship owners concerned? What the House wants to know is what proportion of future funds to be made available to this yard will go into capital development and what proportion will cover losses on fixed-price contracts. Further, will the Minister himself and his Department have to answer to the Public Accounts Committee for the future disbursement of funds?

Mr. Whitelaw

At this stage I should be careful about what my Department will or will not be answerable about to the Public Accounts Committee. I shall have to look into these matters. But I shall be anxious to ensure that, wherever they are so, it will be done. As for my particular responsibility with my other right hon. Friends, I should be given time to check up where my responsibilities lie and not stray beyond them.

Mr. McMaster

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any way of correcting a statement, which was totally inaccurate, misleading and provocative, by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), when he unfairly and inaccurately stated the numbers employed in Harland and Wolff?

Mr. Speaker

It cannot be done on a point of order.

Mr. Callaghan

Further to that point of order, if it was one—

Mr. Speaker

I ruled that it was not.

Mr. Callaghan

Would you allow me to say, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, that if I am found to be in error on these numbers I will gladly apologise? My information was that, of 8,000 employees, at least 7,500 were Protestants, but if that information is incorrect, I will withdraw it.

Mr. Bob Brown

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I appreciate that the statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been concerned with Harland and Wolff and that the right hon. Gentleman must be anxious to give the House details about his decision in this matter, may I seek your guidance about the making of such a statement?

Is it not an abuse of the House that there has not been a statement about the shipbuilding industry generally? The right hon. Gentleman's statement today has developed into an insolated matter regarding Harland and Wolff. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made the statement rather than the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. This procedure has precluded hon. Members who, like myself, represent shipbuilding constituencies from asking supplementary questions about the general financing of the industry as a whole.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman raises a point which relates to a difficulty in which the Chair finds itself. I allowed a Private Notice Question. I certainly would not have allowed this one if I had thought that the matter would broaden out into a general discussion of the shipbuilding industry. I thought it appropriate today to allow the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) to ask a Private Notice Question related solely to Government support announced for Harland and Wolff. The Private Notice Question was about that subject and the supplementary questions must be, and should have been, on that topic.

Mr. Benn

Further to the point of order. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that we are in some difficulty because before direct rule questions relating to Harland and Wolff were answered by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Thus, the point at issue is a point of considerable substance. It is that if the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is to subsidise one shipyard, then one is talking about a decision which might have an impact on other shipyards which are supported by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There is here, therefore, a problem of co-ordination.

Everybody wishes the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland well in his task. We welcome what he has done. There are genuine problems, nevertheless, over the need to enable hon. Members with a legitimate interest in their own local shipyards to try to see that the balance of Government support does not act adversely on unemployment in their areas.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman has a point, but I do not feel that it is a point of order. It is, however, certainly a point which may affect the Chair in deciding whether in future to allow Private Notice Questions. This is one of my difficulties in deciding whether or not to allow a Private Notice Question. Today I allowed what I thought to be a restricted one. If every time I allow a Private Notice Question it develops into a general debate, then the only answer is for the Chair not to allow Private Notice Questions to be asked; in view of what I have said, I will now ask the Clerk to proceed to read the Orders of the Day.