INDUSTRY [MONEY]

HC Deb 22 May 1972 vol 837 cc1134-52

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise grants towards expenditure on the provision of assets for industry in certain regions in Great Britain, to authorise the provision of financial assistance for industry in those regions or elswhere, and provisions about credits and grants for the building of ships and of offshore installations, it is expedient to authorise payments out of money provided by Parliament of the sums specified below. 1. Grants to meet the prescribed percentage of expenditure incurred, before the passing of the said Act of the present Session or later, in—

1. (a)providing buildings or works in the assisted areas, and
2. (b)providing new machinery or plant, or mining works, in a development area,

and, subject to any order made by the Secretary of State, the prescribed percentage shall be 22 per cent. if the assets are provided in a special development area as defined by the said Act, and 20 per cent. otherwise. 2. Payments by the Secretary of State by way of financial assistance to industry, but, except where the financial assistance is to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in the assisted areas—

1. (a) no payment shall be made after 31st December 1977 except in pursuance of an undertaking given on or before that date, and
2. (b) the aggregate of the sums paid by way of financial assistance, plus the liabilities under guarantees given by way of financial assistance, shall not exceed £550 million.

3. Where arrangements are made to finance the construction in the United Kingdom of a ship or mobile offshore installation and its equipment—

1. (a) payments to fulfil guarantees of sums payable under the arrangements, and
2. (b) loans to creditors to whom such guarantees have been given, so long as—
1. (i) the aggregate of the liability under the guarantees, plus the liability under guarantees given under section 7 of the Shipbuilding Industry Act 1967, plus 1135 sums paid to meet such guarantees, does not exceed £1,400 million, and
2. (ii) the loans do not exceed the aggregate in paragraph (i) above.

4. Grants for the construction in the United Kingdom of ships or mobile offshore installations begun before 1st January, 1975 as follows:—

• 10 per cent. of any part of the contract price attributed to the year 1972;
• 4 per cent. of any part of the contract price attributed to the year 1973;
• 3 per cent. of any part of the contract price attributed to the year 1974,

but subject to any special provisions for calculating the amount of grant for a partially constructed ship or installation. 5. Any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister under any provision of the said Act of the present Session. 6. Any increase in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament attributable to the amendment by the said Act of the present Session of any other Act. That for the purposes of this resolution 'the assisted areas' means the development areas, intermediate areas and derelict land clearance areas for the time being specified by orders under the Local Employment Act 1972 and also, for the purposes of paragraph 2 of this resolution, Northern Ireland; and the amounts subject to the limits in paragraphs 2(b) and 3 of this resolution shall not include sums repaid to, or recovered by, the Secretary of State, or liabilities in respect of interest.

And that it is expedient to authorise any payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.—[Mr. Chataway.]

10.0 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)

I have four grievances, Mr. Speaker, on the Financial Resolution. I realise that there is a convention that those who have spoken on Second Reading of a Bill are usually selected for the Standing Committee; I do not know whether that applies to those who speak on the Financial Resolution, but I am doing my best.

Paragraph (1) of the Resolution states that …the prescribed percentage shall be 22 per cent. if the assets are provided in a special development area as defined by the said Act, and 20 per cent. otherwise". In the debate we have just had the point raised whether it was clear that the marginal difference between a special development area 22 per cent. and an ordinary area 20 per cent. was enough. That point was not answered. I realise that we have had previous answers, one, I think, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer seeking to show in the Budget debate that the figures were more comparable than those which previously existed, and that therefore the changes could be justified. I am not convinced.

Mr. Speaker

Order. There really is a great deal of conversation going on. I would much rather listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Mabon

I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker; that makes two of us, anyway.

If we allow the Financial Resolution to pass, it means that when the Bill is in Committee my hon. Friends will not be allowed to move for anything in excess of 22 per cent. We may be permitted by the Chair to suggest that the 20 per cent. should be less, and thus try to establish a greater margin, but I would be opposed to any reduction of the 20 per cent.

My first grievance, therefore, is that we are being asked to pass a Resolution containing a figure of 22 per cent. without our being given any justification for its being said that the margin between 20 per cent. and 22 per cent. is fair compared with that in the previous legislation which will be repealed by the Bill. We therefore feel justified now in asking for an explanation of these figures. After al, it is not an ideological matter but a matter of good sense and distinction as to whether the margin is sufficient.

My second complaint relates to a comment made in the debate, but not answered by the Minister—though I agree that he had a lot to reply to. A point was made in relation to the position of those manufacturing marine equipment. We know that marine equipment comprises some 75 per cent. of a ship. Clause 10(1) states: Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may make a grant to any person who has entered into a contract to construct a ship…". Are those who supply the "innards" of these great ships persons who have entered into a contract to construct a ship? For example, if the Lower Clyde people enter into a contract they are persons constructing a ship. But let us suppose that they decide to enter into a joint contract. Hasties, a firm of great distinction in my constituency, is a supplier of steering gear. Suppose that Hasties entered into a joint contract. Would Hasties then come within the definition of a person who has entered into a contract to construct a ship?

Some manufacturers of marine equipment are aggrieved that they are not covered by this. I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to receive a deputation from the association which has made representations to hon. Members on both sides of the House before the Bill goes to Committee and, in respect of the Financial Resolution, in the knowledge that we know that the Resolution will not exclude clarification of this point. We have missed this in the debate. Those who manufacture these very expensive items are still wondering what will happen to them under the Bill.

My third grievance is about paragraph 5: Any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister under any provision of the said Act of the present Session. I presume that those administrative expenses embrace the new structure of the Ministry. I much prefer the system under the Bill to the system we had previously. I do not wish to be disagreeable to anyone when I say that I prefer the system which the Government have proposed. But I am not quite certain how it will function. It is certainly more direct in the way that Ministers can act. But are the administrative moneys dealt with in the Financial Resolution concerned only with the Industrial Development Executive officers and with all the civil servants recruited to the new Ministry? Do they not include those within that structure who are not civil servants but who can advise, for example, the Industrial Development Board within the new Ministry?

Are those people civil servants? Are not many of them outsiders taken from the City and from private industry to offer advice not only to the officers but to the Minister and right up to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? That being so, are these people covered? I should like a better explanation of what is proposed. Let us suppose that in Committee we feel that this structure, though commendable, is not adequate and that we wish to extend it. Will the moneys mentioned in paragraph 5 embrace this?

My fourth and last grievance is about paragraph 6: Any increase in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament attributable to the amendment by the said Act of the present Session of any other Act. I turn then to Clause 12(6) in which there is a new power which amends the present powers attributed to the Industrial Estates Corporations in England, Wales and Scotland. I do not know how the position in Northern Ireland is affected, and perhaps that is under other legislation.

The new power is very extensive. According to the evidence given to one of the Select Committees on land use, the Scottish Office has said that there are 110 sites of over 100 acres in Scotland identified as suitable for industrial development. I have argued—and others have accepted this as not unreasonable—that if the Industrial Estates Corporation gets this power, which I welcome, it could buy land in advance of industrial development, as we build factories in advance of industrial development—for example, the very large areas of land which would be needed for an oil refinery, a petrochemical complex or development at, say, Hunterston. It would give us the edge on the Belgians, the Dutch and others, who are able to offer immediately facilities to people coming to certain areas to settle down quickly.

I would see this as a land bank. It involves a lot of money. I want to know whether I am right in assuming that this is in order within the Financial Resolution or whether the Resolution is drawn so tightly that one could not envisage the amount of spending which in Scotland would be for 100,000 acres of land if we are to take the Scottish Development Department's evidence. That represents a lot of money and I want to know whether it is intended to be of this order.

In pointing out the grievances I am saying to my hon. Friends who will serve on the Committee and to hon. Gentlemen opposite who will pilot the Bill through Committee that I do not want them to fall out with each other on the ground that at this stage we forgot to make sure that the Financial Resolution was properly drafted. I should not like the Minister to have to come back to the House with an amended Financial Resolution to allow him to do in Committee what the Financial Resolution may prevent him from doing. I have made four constructive points not to delay the House but because they are serious points, and I hope that the Minister will respond in the same spirit.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell (Birkenhead)

I should like to ask some questions about paragraph 1 of the Financial Resolution in an attempt to clarify what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry meant when they said that the new system was guaranteed until 1st January, 1978.

I have been trying to find this out by Questions to Ministers. When I first asked the question of the Secretary of State I was told by his Under-Secretary that I should wait for the Bill. When I asked a supplementary question a few weeks ago I was told that the grants were now so large that I could hardly expect that they would be further increased, although what I am interested in is whether they can be moved either way and whether the intention is to move them either way before 1st January, 1978.

Finally, I tried another Question, and the Minister for Industrial Development told me that what was guaranteed was, first, the system of free depreciation as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech; secondly, the regional development grant system as in Part I of the Bill; and, thirdly, the selective assistance system as in Part II of the Bill.

I take from that—and I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will confirm this—first, that the 40 per cent. allowance on building is not guaranteed and, more specifically coming to paragraph 1(b), the 22 per cent. of assets in special development areas and the 20 per cent. in ordinary development areas are not guaranteed until 1st January, 1978, at this level and they can move either upwards or downwards. They could by the order referred to in paragraph 1 be cut in half if the Government so determined. If that is the right interpretation of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State meant when they said that the system was guaranteed to 1st January, 1978, they might have made that fact clearer than they did and not just referred in general terms to the new system being guaranteed.

Industrialists will be asking the Government what they can expect by way of grant in a development area or a special development area if they develop now. They will want to know whether this rate of grant will be available this year, next year, the year after, and to what extent it is guaranteed. If the present level of grant is not guaranteed until 1st January, 1978, is is guaranteed for two years? What are the Government saying to industrialists who come to them with that question? Presumably the Government are giving them some answer. If the Government are not prepared to give any guarantee, that will be a considerable disincentive to industrialists to develop industry in the development areas or special development areas. Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear what is being guaranteed, to what extent, and what answers he is giving to industrialists as to the Government's intention under the Bill?

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craigton)

I wish to protest about the terms of the Money Resolution. As I understand it, the Money Resolution is a determinant as to what is or is not in order when we reach the Committee stage of the Bill. That being so, it is highly undesirable in principle that the Resolution should be so precisely expressed on a number of different points about the percentages of assistance in particular which are going to be given under the Bill. So far as I am aware, it is not at all necessary that these percentages should appear in the Money Resolution, and the only effect of including them is to prohibit any discussion of them in Committee.

In paragraph 1(b) the prescribed percentage for the special development areas for certain assistance shall be 22 per cent. and in other assisted areas 20 per cent. Without going into the merits of these percentages, one might wish to argue in Committee that the differential between the special development areas and the other assisted areas ought to be greater than 2 per cent. But, as I understand it, the Money Resolution is expressed so precisely that these arguments would he out of order in Committee. We would not be able to move that the special development area percentage should be 23 per cent. or 24 per cent.—much less that it should be 30 per cent.—because we are already committed in the Resolution to a precise percentage of 22 per cent. for special development areas and 20 per cent. for other assisted areas.

For that reason, hon. Members opposite who might wish to reduce these percentages would be out of order in seeking to do so in Committee. I see no reason why we should have this kind of precision in the Resolution. We cannot either increase them or reduce them——

Dr. Dickson Mabon

Surely my hon. Friend is wrong. One would be allowed to reduce them because there is no additional money being costed to the Treasury. However, the fact is that none of us would want to reduce them.

Mr. Millan

I am not suggesting that we would wish to reduce them, but under this Money Resolution we would not be able to reduce them even if we wanted to do so.

Dr. Mabon

Yes.

Mr. Millan

Perhaps we can have an answer to this question from the Minister. According to the Money Resolution, the percentages shall be 20 per cent. and 22 per cent.—not "up to" 22 per cent. One is not able to adjust these percentages, either up or down. I am objecting to this in principle because I do not think that a Money Resolution should be drafted in these terms.

According to paragraph 2 of the Resolution, no payment shall be made after 31st December, 1977… Presumably the cut-off period could come before that, but it would not be in order in Committee for us to argue that there should be no cut-off period at all because we are already committed by the Resolution to a cut-off period of 31st December, 1977. This is wholly unnecessary in a Money Resolution.

We have the same sort of thing in paragraph 4, where grants for shipbuilders are laid down. So far as I can see, they are laid down with such precision that amendment in Committee would not be in order. I am not disposed at the moment to argue whether or not there ought to be Amendments in Committee, but I very much object to a Money Resolution being expressed in such terms that discussion of these important matters in the Bill would be completely out of order in Committee.

I hope very much that the Minister will answer these points, withdraw the Resolution and come back with something which will give rather more scope for hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, whatever view they may take of the merits of the Bill. If I misunderstand the import of this Resolution, I shall be only too glad to hear the Minister say so, but, as I read the Resolution, it is expressed in far too restrictive terms. An objection ought to be lodged in principle to this increasing tendency for Money Resolutions to be expressed in terms which cut out a lot of useful discussion in the Committee stage of Bills.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

I endorse much of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), but I shall confine what I have to say to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Money Resolution, referring to ships or mobile offshore installations. These paragraphs are very tightly drawn, and I want clarification of them along the lines requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon).

How do we assess when a ship or mobile offshore installation has been begun before 1st January, 1975? For a ship a contract could be signed, but for a mobile offshore installation no keel might necessarily be laid but there might be a great deal of background work in contractual terms before 1st January, 1975, since time installations are relatively new in construction terms to the United Kingdom. How do we know that they have been begun?

If we are to have contracts for offshore drilling rigs in Scotland—I sincerely hope that we have many—it is important to define clearly how the totality of contractual obligations going to the building of a drilling rig—or, for that matter, a ship—will be assessed by the Ministry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock made the point in relation to machinery for a ship, but the same applies to an offshore drilling rig. Is it intended to assess the contractual obligations only in relation to the main contractor? What about the subcontractors? If the main contractor draws up his contract before 1st January, 1975, for an oil company desiring a rig, will that be assessed as construction having been begun, although no actual work may be done till after 1st January, 1975. in the yard or building berth?

Further, although the cut-off points for other parts of the Bill comes at 31st December, 1977, for this part the period ends in 1974. Already, even with relatively slack order books, companies will have to have some assurances related to the period post-1st January, 1975. Although the Minister said that some haste would be given to the overall policy for the shipbuilding industry, the industry needs to know a lot more than he gave in winding up.

On paragraph 5, I am sorry to have to say that I do not agree with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock regarding the overall ministerial relationship here. I am sorry that that we have to incur administrative expenses for the co-ordinating machinery. If my hon. Friend understands the business of coordination, I bow to his superior knowledge, or crystal gazing, but, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton asked a series of Questions, which were answered on Friday, it is not clear who is to co-ordinate what.

It is no use the Minister saying "All will be well. We shall spend this money; we are all partners, and we shall get on well and co-ordinate with one another. There is no problem, since we do not play politics in the Conservative Party. The noble Lord will get on very well with me, and we shall do things in a nice cosy manner." This will not work here. We want to know exactly what expenses are likely to be incurred by the Minister under this provision in establishing the coordinating machinery, and how he intends to ensure that the people of Scotland in particular do not find themselves being taken over by a series of overlords and other people who are given lavish praise and lavish titles in the Press, and all that happens is a series of co-ordinated efforts but no action whatsoever.

10.27 p.m.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway)

The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) asked me four questions. The first related to the 22 per cent. regional development grants for the special development areas. He wished to hear a fuller justification of the reasons for choosing 20 per cent. for the development areas and 22 per cent. for the special development areas. I am conscious that if I went too far along this line I might incur the wrath of the Chair and all I can say is that in this whole package of measures substantial changes have been introduced for derelict land clearance areas, for the intermediate and developments areas and for the special development areas. It must be a matter of judgment in the end whether the differentials we have arrived at are correct.

I have already received a deputation from a development area arguing that it ought to be a special development area. One of the arguments I deployed to it was that the difference now between the development areas and special development areas is less than it was and that therefore there was less reason to argue for SDA status if it already had develop. ment area status. If we consider the problems of the development areas and the special developments areas and their relative magnitude, it will probably be accepted that a differential of this sort is about right.

The hon. Member asked about the position of manufacturers of marine engines——

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn (Bristol, South-East)

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to address himself to the point about why we should be settling this issue now on a Financial Resolution? Why could not the Resolution be drawn in such a way that we could have a long debate in Committee on the matter? I am not raising the issue of whether 20 per cent. and 22 per cent. are right, but we have to look at it and we should not have to settle it at this time of night on a Financial Resolution with no power of amendment. By doing it this way the whole principle of parliamentary accountability, about which the right hon. Gentleman made great reference only a short time ago, goes by the board completely because the House has no discretion as between one system and another.

Mr. Chataway

I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, and it was the point that was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). I do not want to suggest any detailed Amendments that should he put down by hon. Gentlemen in Committee, but if the right hon. Gentleman looks at Clause 3(1) he will see there is an opportunity to discuss at any length that may be required the levels at which the regional development grant should be set.

It is made clear in the Resolution that the Secretary of State has the power by order to make a change, and if an Amendment were passed saying that the percentage ought to be changed from such and such a date under Clause 3(1)—and I imagine an Amendment on these lines would be acceptable—there is nothing in the Financial Resolution which is at variance with that.

The financial Resolution states: …providing new machinery or plant, or mining works, in a development area, and, subject to any order made by the Secretary of State, the prescribed percentage shall be 22 per cent.… I am told that the Money Resolution follows precedents exactly and that there is no question of its being drawn more tightly than has been the case on previous occasions.

Mr. Millan

There is another Money Resolution on the Order Paper, in connection with the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Bill. That does not lay down what the Prime Minister's pension shall be, although the Bill to which it refers does, so presumably when the Committee stage of that other Bill is reached it will be possible to amend that if hon. Members feel so disposed. It is wrong that in this case all the important issues have already been accounted for in the Money Resolution. That is what we object to. It has nothing to do with the Secretary of State's later being able to vary the percentages by order. Would it be in order in Committee to amend the figures in the table on page 2 of the Bill? If not, why should it not be in order? Why should we have a Money Resolution in these restrictive terms?

Mr. Chataway

I have already indicated the means by which in the Committee, as I read the Bill, it would be possible for hon. Members to effect a change in the rates of grant if they decide that a change should be effected. I have pointed to the subsection under which it seems to me that the Chair would be bound to accept an Amendment effec- tively producing what Opposition hon. Members wish to achieve.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

Line 33 of the Money Resolution speaks of 10 per cent. of any part of the contract price attributed to the year 1972". If I were on the Committee should I be entitled to propose making it 15 per cent., to substitute "10 per cent." for "4 per cent." in the following line, or to substitute "7 per cent." for "3 per cent." in the line after that? That is the point my hon. Friends are putting. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer those specific questions?

Mr. Chataway

We were discussing the regional development grant, which comes under Clause 3, and I have indicated the means by which I think hon. Members could achieve the purpose they require under that Clause. Obviously, the exact terms of any Amendment that may or may not be acceptable in Committee will be for the Chairman to determine.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I realise that it is not the right hon. Gentleman but the Chairman who will be in charge of the Committee. But the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for having a Resolution which might tighten discussion to the point where he may not give way without introducing a new Financial Resolution. We may not be able to pursue this matter now, and the right hon. Gentleman may regret that. He has given a hostage to fortune already. Does he take the view that the figures in the Resolution are absolutely rigid—that is, that we cannot amend them—or that we can amend them?

Mr. Chataway

I take the view in regard to the regional development, about which I have spoken, that the matters which Opposition hon. Members want to discuss can be discussed under Clause 3(1). In my view, an Amendment under that Clause would be possible to have the effect that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want, which is, presumably, to vary the regional development grant percentage up or down. But, as I say, the exact terms of any Amendment must be for the Chair.

The hon. Member for Greenock asked about the manufacturers of marine engines. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they do not qualify for shipbuilding grant, and that is the Government's intention. The Government take the view that the shipbuilding grant is given only to the main contractors and that part of the justification for that grant is that they have been faced with world difficulties and with subsidised competition. The Government take the view that it would not be right to extend it to the suppliers. No doubt we shall have an opportunity to discuss that later when, as the hon. Gentleman says, he brings a deputation to discuss the matter. But I believe that it is reasonable to argue that this grant will be of benefit to the shipbuilding industry as a whole, and that the suppliers will benefit from the assistance given by these tapering grants to the shipbuilders themselves.

As for the administrative expenses of the provisions under this legislation, they refer to the expenses incurred by employees of the Department, by civil servants, as a result of the Act. The hon. Gentleman asked about the way in which the Act would be organised. I am sorry that I was not able to deal with his points during my wind-up speech. I believe that the White Paper sets out clearly what is intended——

Mr. Douglas

No.

Mr. Chataway

I am surprised to hear that there is a belief in Scotland that the provisions of this legislation take away some of the authority of the Scottish Office. In fact, no function is taken away from the Scottish Office. This Measure devolves more responsibility for industrial matters than ever before to a Scottish institution—not to the Scottish Office but to the DTI office in Scotland. There has always been a division of functions between the Scottish Office and the DTI office in Scotland. The difference under the administration now proposed is that in respect of those matters which the DTI decides a great bulk of the decision-taking will be in Scotland, with suitable advice, support and staffing of the DTI office there. That is the only change. It means more devolution to Scotland than has been the practice hitherto.

Dr. Mabon

I referred specifically to the regional industrial development boards mentioned in paragraph 44 of the White Paper. I asked whether the expenses of the boards would be borne under paragraph 5 of the Money Resolution. I asked who is to make up those boards. I understand that advice is to be sought from the City, from business men and others outside. Are they included in these boards, or are they in some other part of the organisation?

Mr. Chataway

Any expenses incurred by the board would come under this paragraph of the Money Resolution. Both at the centre, in Scotland and Wales and in the regions, there will be a strengthening of the permanent establishment, importing those with industrial and financial expertise. There will be industrial development boards, composed principally of people from industry with suitable expertise. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes"

As to paragraph 6, I can set at rest the anxieties of the hon. Member for Greenock. I am advised that paragraph 6 of the Financial Resolution would not have any limiting effect on the matters he wished to discuss.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) asked in relation to the package as a whole about the undertaking that it would not be changed until 1st January, 1978. The system as a whole will not be changed until that date. It would not be possible for any Government to give a categoric assurance that actual rates or boundaries of areas will not be changed. I can tell him that it is not the Government's intention to change it. As he will see in the Bill, the Secretary of State is given the power, by order, to change the rate of development grant, for example.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me what answer is given to the industrialist who asks what the rate will be. The answer is that he can be told that the system as a whole will not be changed. It would be fair to add that he has absolutely no reason to wait before embarking on investment because it is difficult to imagine that rates for development grant would be likely to go up further. If his anxieties relate to the possibility of people holding off further and believing that there could be still greater incentives to investment in the regions, then I do not believe that to be realistic.

The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) asked me about the provisions in relation to the shipbuilding grant and the exact nature of qualification for grant. I can tell him the way in which the grant will be paid. It relates to the proportion of the ship or rig which is completed. If he looks at Clause 10(12) of the Bill he will see set out there the way in which the value of work completed at any time will be assessed. The broad intention and effect of the Clause is to ensure that the shipbuilder will be eligible for grant on that proportion of the work which has been completed by the end of the year in question. I hope that those replies will be of assistance.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn (Bristol, South-East)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous when I say that a few answers at a quarter to Eleven at night given to these highly complicated questions put by my hon. and right hon. Friends, dealing with a Bill which may be committing thousands of millions of pounds of public money is not the right way to handle this

Question According agreed to

matter. I say this without any attempt to filibuster or to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman. He has been wholly helpful. He has done what many Ministers find hard to do; he has produced answers to questions about a Money Resolution.

May I put a point of greater substance? This Bill, it could be argued, has the main, if not sole, object of getting public investment from the Treasury into industry in the regions and elsewhere. Therefore, the Financial Resolution is more than just an accompaniment to the Bill. This Bill must stand or fall on its Financial Resolution. We look to that with great care to see to what extent, by passing it, we limit our capacity in Committee to set down the ground rules under which the Government can spend money. One of the great attractions of the Bill—I fully understand it——

It being a quarter to Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 73, Noes 17.

Division No. 189.]	AYES	[10.45 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Gummer, J. Selwyn	Normanton, Tom
Atkins, Humphrey	Gurden, Harold	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Havers, Michael	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Biffen, John	Hawkins, Paul	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Blaker, Peter	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.DamePatricia	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	James, David	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Kershaw, Anthony	Scott, Nicholas
Cary, Sir Robert	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Kinsey, J. R.	Skeet, T. H. H.
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Speed, Keith
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Knox, David	Stainton, Keith
Cooper, A. E.	Lamont, Norman	Stanbrook, Ivor
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Sutcliffe, John
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	Le Merchant, Spencer	Tebbit, Norman
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	McCrindle, R. A.	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Drayson, G. B.	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Waddington, David
Emery, Peter	Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W.)	Wall, Patrick
Eyre, Reginald	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	White, Roger (Gravesend)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Moate, Roger	Winterton, Nicholas
Fidler, Michael	Money, Ernle	Woodnutt, Mark
Fortescue, Tim	Monro, Hector
Gray, Hamish	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Green, Alan	Murton, Oscar	Mr. Walter Clegg and
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Neave, Airey	Mr. Victor Goodhew.
Gryils, Michael	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

NOES
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Skinner, Dennis
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Kinnock, Neil	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Buchan, Norman	Lambie, David	Spriggs, Leslie
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Evans, Fred	Millan, Bruce	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Mr. Frank McElhone and
Hattersley, Roy	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)	Dr. J. Dickson Mabon.

Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise grants towards expenditure on the provision of assets for industry in certain regions in Great Britain, to authorise the provision of financial assistance for industry in those regions or elsewhere, and provisions about credits and grants for the building of ships and of offshore installations, it is expedient to authorise payments out of money provided by Parliament of the sums specified below. 1. Grants to meet the prescribed percentage of expenditure incurred, before the passing of the said Act of the present Session or later, in—

1. (a) providing buildings or works in the assisted areas, and
2. (b) providing new machinery or plant, or mining works, in a development area,

and, subject to any order made by the Secretary of State, the prescribed percentage shall be 22 per cent. if the assets are provided in a special development area as defined by the said Act, and 20 per cent. otherwise. 2. Payments by the Secretary of State by way of financial assistance to industry, but, except where the financial assistance is to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in the assisted areas—

1. (a) no payment shall be made after 31st December 1977 except in pursuance of an undertaking given on or before that date, and
2. (b) the aggregate of the sums paid by way of financial assistance, plus the liabilities under guarantees given by way of financial assistance, shall not exceed £550 million.

3. Where arrangements are made to finance the construction in the United Kingdom of a ship or mobile offshore installation and its equipment

1. (a) payments to fulfil guarantees of sums payable under the arrangements, and
2. (b) loans to creditors to whom such guarantees have been given, so long as—
1. (i) the aggregate of the liability under the guarantees, plus the liability under 1152 guarantees given under section 7 of the Shipbuilding Industry Act 1967, plus sums paid to meet such guarantees, does not exceed £1,400 million, and
2. (ii) the loans do not exceed the aggregate in paragraph (i) above.

4. Grants for the construction in the United Kingdom of ships or mobile offshore installations begun before 1st January 1975 as follows:—

• 10 per cent. of any part of the contract price attributed to the year 1972;
• 4 per cent. of any part of the contract price attributed to the year 1973;
• 3 per cent. of any part of the contract price attributed to the year 1974,

but subject to any special provisions for calculating the amount of grant for a partially constructed ship or installation. 5. Any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister under any provision of the said Act of the present Session. 6. Any increase in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament attributable to the amendment by the said Act of the present Session of any other Act. That for the purposes of this resolution 'the assisted areas' means the development areas, intermediate areas and derelict land clearance areas for the time being specified by orders under the Local Employment Act 1972 and also, for the purposes of paragraph 2 of this resolution, Northern Ireland: and the amounts subject to the limits in paragraphs 2(b) and 3 of this resolution shall not include sums repaid to, or recovered by, the Secretary of State, or liabilities in respect of interest. And that it is expedient to authorise any payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.