HEADQUARTERS OF BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS (Hansard, 27 July 1976)

§ Mr. Trotter
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is quite extraordinary that after all this time we have had no Government indication about the location of the headquarters of British Shipbuilders. I hope that it will be located in Tyne and Wear because this is the heart of the shipbuilding and repairing industry. It is the logical place for the headquarters. It employs three times as many people in the shipbuilding and repairing industry as Merseyside, and 50 per cent. more than Clydeside. It is the home of the British Ship Research Association, and the university there has the largest and finest naval architecture department, and the only marine engineering department. Tyne and Wear is also the headquarters of the Boilermakers' Union.

§ Mr. Willey
I congratulate the hon. Member on taking this opportunity to raise the issue of the headquarters, which is crucial to the North-East. I had intended to do so by way of an amendment later, and I am delighter that he has aired this matter in the House.
There is not the slightest doubt that on merit the headquarters should go to the North-East, either Newcastle or Sunderland. The area has five times as many shipyard workers as Merseyside. The area has far more unemployment and far less office employment than Merseyside. It is time therefore that we had fair shares.
The Merseysiders have been very slick in their representations on this matter, but shipbuilding has been concentrated on the North-East coast. We have the university with its naval architecture faculty. Research is concentrated in the North-East. On the Wear there are undoubtedly the best yards in Britain, owned by Austin Pickersgill and Sunderland Shipbuilders.
388 I am told that this will be a political decision and that it will not depend upon the personal convenience of the members of the organising committee. If it is to be a political decision, let it be recognised once and for all that the North-East coast is sick and tired of being pushed around. We have the strongest Labour area in Britain and that should be recognised. Let us have a political decision for a change. The North-East coast can offer all the facilities. Government money has been put in to improve the roads. We have the accessibility and, more important than anything else, we have the shipyards.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell
Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Willey
No, and I can tell my hon. Friend that the headquarters will go to an assisted area. That is one of our main concerns. The claim of the North-East coast is predominant, and we expect that to be recognised very shortly.

§ Mr. Gordon Wilson
With such scenes of disunity and civil war raging in England it would be dangerous for the Government to establish the headquarters in any part of it. If the headquarters were to go to Merseyside, the North-East would be justifiably annoyed. If it went to the North-East, Merseyside would feel equally aggrieved. In those circumstances neutral territory such as Scotland would be a far better choice. Representations have been made by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) and the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that it should go to the North-East. Most of the shipbuilding areas could establish a claim for the headquarters.
If what the Government have said is true, the headquarters will be a small body of about 100 people. Such bodies tend to grow, however, so that although we are talking now of a tiny bone, in the course of time there may be a lot more meat, and especially fat, than now seems likely. There are good reasons why Scotland should be chosen for the headquarters. The first is that Scotland contains a substantial proportion of the shipbuilding industry. It is an area which has been prominent in shipbuilding for many years.
389 The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North claimed that his area was a Labour stronghold. But if the Government discriminate against Scotland another of their major strongholds will be lost. They would do well, therefore, to try to protect what they have there at present.
There are two other reasons. Promises were made about the steel corporation headquarters that were not fulfilled. We were given brass-plaque type headquarters with no authority. The Government should make up for the failure of the past. Secondly—the Secretary of State will understand this—certain promises were made about the job establishment of the British National Oil Corporation in Glasgow. It was promised that there would he 800 jobs established at the headquarters, but at present there are few people if any at Glasgow and about 53 established in London. The postal address—it is no more than that—of the BNOC is in Glasgow. The only thing that is Scottish about the London headquarters is the name, which is Stornoway House. Even if the Government go ahead and establish the headquarters of the BNOC in Glasgow, there will not be 800 jobs but 200.
The Government will have to make up for the promises they made in the past that they have failed to fulfil. There is a jobs crisis in Scotland and I suggest to the Government that if they do not place the headquarters in Scotland it will be held against them by many of their supporters.

§ Mr. Kaufman
I think it will assist the House if I make the position clear. The Government have repeatedly said that the headquarters of British shipbuilders will be located in an assisted area with a tradition of shipbuilding. No decision has yet been taken. The views of the organising committees have been sought. The case for the main shipbuilding regions is being examined carefully before a decision is reached. Representatives from all the areas have been seen. I have seen them myself. There have been strong representations in favour of a location in Scotland, in the North-East and in the North-West. My right hon. Friend will announce a decision as soon as it is reached, but I hope that the House will not decide to pre-empt it in the Bill.
390 It would not be of any assistance to prolong the debate further as other hon. Members wish to discuss other subjects. The cases for all the areas are being carefully considered by the Government.

§ Mr. Loyden
I do not want to enter into the parochial arguments that have been presented as I know that the Government will take fully into account all the arguments that have been presented. It is only fair to say that many of the representations from the Opposition Benches have been made by those who have viciously opposed the establishment of nationalised shipbuilding and ship repairing industries. The claims that they have made to establish the headquarters in their constituencies smack of humbug.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) approached the Department about the siting of the headquarters on Merseyside. When advised by the Secretary of State that that would depend upon the Bill being enacted, he wanted to know what the location of the headquarters had to do with the Bill. It is evident that the case made by the Opposition must be examined in that light.

§ Mr. Trotter
In view of the urgency of the other business, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.