§ Question again proposed.
§ Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)We have listened to an accurate and excellent contribution by my colleague the Member for Kingston-uponHull, Central (Mr. McNamara). Speaking as a Hull Member and Chairman of the Yorkshire Group of Labour MPs, I can endorse the facts of economic life as he has stated them. During Committee six months ago this firm was literally in a shambles and it was in the hands of Mr. Smith, an excellent receiver.
In this context I should also like to confirm the state of our economy. We in Hull and North Humberside have a continuing malaise and there is a curious dichotomy in our day-to-day life in that, on the one hand, we can boast of being the gateway to Europe with enormous prospects and benefits from the Common Market, with our motorways opening up—the M62 and the M18 to the West—and, on the other hand, when I talk to full-time union officials of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, the General and Municipal Workers, the Transport and General Workers, and the Boilermakers Society, men who are in the docks or employed in this industry, I find gloom and despondency about the future. All of them condemn the Government for what, for want of a better term, I can only call their nonchalance towards us on the Humber.
From time to time deputations descend on the Government in Whitehall to see Ministers on Bills such as this and the Fisheries Bill. We go back with no joy and no booty whatever. We are getting body blows like these and the Icelandic Agreement constantly, so our male unemployment is at least 10 per cent. and may be as high as 10.6 per cent. Candidly, my concern as a constituency Member is about jobs for my own people. To be quite blunt, I want jobs in whatever shape or form I can get them, whether in the public sector or in a mixed economy.
Five or six months ago shipbuilding affairs were catastrophic. I wish to quote and endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon 898 Hull, Central in Standing Committee six months ago:
But there is evidence that if something positive is not done, if we do not nationalise the yards, the important ship repairing and shipbuilding industries on Humberside are to be lost—for ever."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 24th February 1976; c. 1158.]That was six months ago and time has marched on. As my hon. Friend said initially, Selby and Beverley are now back in business.I understand from our city development committee, though here I may be corrected, that our yard in Hull may also have been the subject of discussion, certain people wishing to take it over. That is the current position, but that is not what the amendment is saying. As my hon. Friend was careful to point out, it talks of the present situation when there should be an agreement between the corporation and the receiver as on the date of coming into operation of the Bill. I shall listen with extreme care to what the Minister says in reply to this debate about the terms on which he views a possible transaction along the lines envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central. How much compensation does he envisage? Does this make sense to my hon. Friends, to those in Hull, to the Minister and other hon. Members?
We have talked of bankruptcy and have used such terms as "hybridity" and "hybridisation", though I wonder whether there is such a word. I want a clear definition of what is meant by all this. I want the Minister to state the implications to the work force and to the Government.
In addition to feeling it my duty as a constituency Member to find out what the Minister intends to do, I also made an effort to find out the views of the unions in Hull on this subject. I have discussed it locally and I find intense scepticism about Government action. One union official, for example, felt that if the Government are to place orders, it would be better for this firm to be nationalised, since the Government could then be expected to place orders within its own public sector.
Offsetting this I found another view, which I emphasised earlier, the feeling that Humberside, is the last place to get 899 orders. We are last in the queue, unfortunately, unlike Scotland and Wales, about which we get argument and discussion about devolution, nationalism, chauvinism, and similar movements. In short, on Humberside, there is deep resentment by the unions, the work force, the businessmen and councillors about the way in which we tend to be placed not only down the queue, but even behind the corner. It is the view of the chairman of my city development committee that if we had been in Scotland six months ago, we should not have been put down as many people feel we were.
The message I wish to give to the Minister is that I shall listen carefully and weigh his words to me. At this moment I have no intention of voting against the Government. I shall wait to hear what the Minister has to say. I have never yet voted against the Government. It is not usually my intention to do so and I was not sent here to do so, but I shall listen carefully and weigh up all that he has to say.
§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)I am not one to prolong discussion on a matter that is clearly very much the concern of the Hull area, but the important principles involved affect other areas, and matters brought up on this issue will be of some consequence to a number of constituencies when the reorganisation and rationalisation of the ship repairing industry takes place. One is not unsympathetic to the problems that will face ship building and ship repairing but perhaps this aspect has been overestimated in considering the problems of a shipbuilding area with some ship repair and not taking into account the contribution that can come from small ship development taking place in the area.
It is clear that the Labour Government attempted to include the Drypool group in the First nationalisation Bill that it introduced after the first election in 1974. We believe that the group should have been included in this new Bill, even though some parts of it have been sold off to the private sector.
I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the arguments that we have deployed to justify the cause of nationalisation in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry. We use those same arguments now—inadequate investment, 900 employment productivity, bad management. All these things contributed to the collapse of the Drypool group. The events were somewhat precipitated. If the liquidity problem with which this company is faced had occurred 12 months later, it would have been included in the Bill. This is no reason to leave it out. The fundamental arguments for naionalisation are still sound, apply in this case, and have directly contributed to the collapse of Drypool.
I have looked at the arguments put forward by the Government to justify excluding the Drypool group, but I find them very difficult to explain to my constituents. The Government have argued different points on different occasions. First, they have claimed that the company is now bankrupt and lacks liquidity to finance ships which it had on order, and this kind of money—between £1,500,000 and £2 million—is not made available under the Industry Act. Therefore, the company was allowed to go to the wall. I know that is rather simplifying the argument, but basically it is one of bankruptcy. This is not an argument against taking over the industry; the bankruptcy has been precipitated by the financial events of the time.
Secondly, the Government have given the reason why the group has had no new orders for two years. Very few shipyards in Britain or round the world are in the fortunate position of receiving orders in the last few years because there have been considerable difficulties in this field. But there is evidence that business is picking up. Our problem is no different from that of other yards.
What sticks in the workers' throats in my area when they are told that they are not being profitable or making enough money with new orders is the fact that our orders have been going to places like Aberdeen, which are being subsidised. It comes a bit thick from the Government responsible for the regional employment premium to give it to our major competitors and to say that our yards are not profitable. They are playing off other yards in other parts of the country against Humberside. When jobs are denied to us, they go instead to other yards, which are being given subsidies and which are our major competitors. This is not an argument that I accept with a great deal of conviction.
901 Thirdly, the Government claim that our yards are making a loss on each order. That also sticks in the throat. Very few yards anywhere in the world are making money on any orders. That is why Governments are falling over themselves to give money to shipowners to order ships in their own yards. Maritime Fruit Carriers is a classic example of that.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when speaking on 27th July in the debate on the Belfast yards, referred to losses on orders. He said:
The £60 million that we then provided to the end of 1978 was to cover prospective losses. Every ship being made is made at a loss. The £60 million is to cover losses in Harland and Wolff."—[Official Report, 27th July 1976; Vol. 916, c. 393.]Every ship being built is built at a loss, yet this is one of the points being made against our yards being nationalised.4.45 p.m.
The point that is painfully clear to me is that the political consequences of allowing Harland and Wolff and Clydebank to go to the wall are far greater than those of allowing Humberside to go. In Humberside there is not enough political pull to make the Government realise the facts about unemployment in our area.
These arguments are hardly ones that a constituency Member can take back to his constituents. The Government have not given proper consideration to the contribution that Humberside can make to small ship development. At the moment Humberside takes 11 per cent. of small ship traffic into its ports. One of the reasons why we have the Dock Work Regulation Bill is the technical developments in recent years.
The Government's basic argument in letters and correspondence from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Industry is that the best formula is to allow these yards to go to the wall. They claim that the yards should be sold off separately to the private yards, as this is the best way of providing jobs. Against that background, the analysis is that somehow private capital will go in, buy the yards, and provide jobs, thus solving our problems. These firms have been given Government money to help them buy the 902 yards, and the money given has been greater in total than the amount asked for by the company to sustain it as a group.
We are left with unemployment in Hull, and jobs have been found in the Conservative areas, which is hardly likely to be attractive from our political point of view. We Labour Members in Hull are not convinced by the arguments put forward and we do not think that those arguments are borne out by the facts. It is necessary and urgent that the Government should carry out their election commitment—the one on which we fought the election—and include Dry-pool yards in the Bill. The Government should bear in mind the ever-increasing rate of unemployment in our areas. At the moment it is 15,000 in Hull alone, or 10 per cent. of the working population.
The Department of Industry has been very much involved in decisions in Hull in the last few years. We had the situation last year in which Imperial Typewriters collapsed. This company could have been saved by the Department, had it been prepared to take on the multinational and bring in import controls on typewriters. We have also faced the rapid decline of the fishing industry and the consequences of that decline. In addition, the effect of VAT on caravans has hit Humberside more than most areas. The Government should recognise that we have a special unemployment problem, which is not as massive as that of Belfast or the Clyde, but is exactly the same in terms of percentages.
On Humberside, we are also faced with 13 per cent. of youths being unemployed in a largely unskilled area—more so than the national average. Opportunities for apprenticeships and training have declined in recent years. Four years ago 120 apprenticeships a year were provided in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries. In 1974 there were 84 provided. In 1975 this number was reduced to 75, of which 30 were Government-sponsored. This year, there are less than 50 apprenticeships, of which 30 are Government-sponsored. It seems that the whole of the Humberside shipbuilding and ship repairing industries have opted out of this responsibility. Only the Goole shipyard, which is part of the Swan Hunter 903 group, has held its own and is taking apprentices and training youngsters. The State should make a larger contribution to that end, and I hope that the Government will look at this problem.
The Department have a report, which has not yet been made public, which shows that small ships have a future in terms of growth and development, and that Humberside is the best site for that. It is a pity that a nationalised industry has not chosen to build at Brigham & Cowan, which was one of the yards taken over from Court Line, for which the Government must take the credit. They should now build on that sector and include the Drypool group, taking in Brigham & Cowan to further the development of the building and repair of small ships.
If I am told that there are no orders I must tell my hon. Friend that the evidence of the last few months from the companies which are considering taking over the yards is that there are plenty of orders and that work is available. That is why these companies are in the market for some of the yards. If they can work under private ownership, why can they not work under nationalisation?
We politicians know that at times we fight elections and make promises which we are not able to carry out. We confess to the electorate and take the consequences. But there are promises about which we feel keenly, and the promise to nationalise Drypool comes into that category. We fought an election on nationalisation. I believe that it provides the answer to this industry's problems. We put the proposal in our manifestos and in our Bills. To withdraw now, on grounds that do not stand up to examination, is totally unacceptable.
I and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) have two of the yards in our constituencies, and we appreciate what will be the consequences of unemployment there. Those consequences are unacceptable to us. If the Government cannot implement the policy on which we fought an election, it is up to the individual Member to attempt to get that policy through. The Government, we believe, must accept our amendment, or something like it. In Hull the Depart- 904 ment of Industry has a bad name. It has almost become the Department of Unemployment, and the electorate there talk about having to become Yorkshire nationalists before they get anything done. I reject this view but demand that the amendment be accepted by the Government.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman)If anyone is a Yorkshire nationalist it is I, since I was born in Yorkshire and educated there. My family still lives there. I shall be going back there in a few days.
§ Mr. Tom KingLucky old Yorkshire.
§ Mr. KaufmanYes, it is lucky. It has my hon. Friends who represent Hull, and it has me, but it does not have the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
I appreciate the case that my hon. Friends have been advancing for a considerable time. If it were possible consistently and sensibly to accept their amendments I should be glad to do so. However, accepting them would not only do my hon. Friends and their constituents no good; it would do their constituents and the Labour Government positive harm. My hon. Friends are not happy about what has developed, but I hope that they will understand that the situation that has developed cannot be reversed, because time has gone by and changes have taken place.
Since my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) raised the matter in Committee the amendments have been overtaken by events. The receiver has sold the Selby yard to United Towing Limited, the Hull-based tug owning company. As well as building vessels for other owners, the Selby yard will be able to fulfil orders for its new owners' fleet. Whitby Shipyard Ltd. has entered into a contract with the receiver for the purchase of the Beverley yard. Until he has completed the remaining vessel at Beverley, which he contracted to complete, Whitby Shipyard and the receiver will occupy the establishment side by side. The receiver has also sold Nos. 1 and 2 dry docks in Hull to the Yorkshire Dry Dock Company, while he is continuing to seek purchasers for other facilities.
§ Mr. PrescottThis is an important point, on which the Minister has his facts wrong. The purchase of the Yorkshire Dry Dock Company has not reached the stage of an exchange of contracts. For a number of reasons the company has withheld, and at this stage the sale is not completed.
§ Mr. KaufmanMy information is as I have put it. If my hon. Friend's information turns out to be right I shall seek a method of correcting what I have said. In the meantime, I must stand on the information that I am supplied with.
§ Mr. McNamaraSince my hon. Friend will be speaking for several minutes, will he arrange for a telephone call to be made so that the question can be clarified before the debate concludes?
§ Mr. KaufmanWe are seeking to do that, and I shall acknowledge the fact if I am wrong.
The receiver is continuing to seek purchasers for the other facilities. In the Government's view the group was not viable as a whole and we believe that employment could best be preserved by allowing the receiver to find purchasers for the various facilities. His success so far bears out this decision.
That is the position about the disposal of the yards, but the amendments that my hon. Friends have proposed are not only unacceptable but positively damaging, because of the compensation arrangements. If the amendments were carried the shareholders of the Drypool Group Ltd would have to be compensated fully on the basis set out in the Bill. The shareholders would receive compensation equal to the estimated value of their shares in the reference period September 1973 to February 1974. At that time there seemed no reason to doubt the viability of the group. The managing director of the company wrote to my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Industry on 19th August 1974 asking to be excused nationalisation on the grounds of the efficiency of the company. If the managing director's letter had turned out to be an accurate reflection of the prospects of the company during the reference period—it is not possible to say whether that is so or not—the share- 906 holders would do very well indeed out of my hon. Friends' amendments. The amendments would not do much good to the workers in Hull, however.
The investigations that took place following the appointment of a reciever last year have demonstrated to the Government's satisfaction that the yards in the group stand by far the best chance of survival as viable concerns if they are run as separate units rather than remaining under the umbrella of a single company.
§ Mr. McNamaraI cannot see how the compensation clauses bear upon this issue, in view of the drafting of the amendment. My hon. Friend is putting forward the argument that we heard in Committee. I have taken advice on how to meet the problem he mentions—a problem that has arisen since the Selby yard was sold. I cannot understand why, if we buy assets from the receiver at existing value under an agreement between the receiver and British Shipbuilders, we should have to pay the shareholders. The amendment provides that we should buy assets, not pay compensation.
§ Mr. KaufmanI am sorry, but the situation is as I have described it. My hon. Friend may well have received advice, but it does not bear upon the problem that I have described.
5.0 p.m.
Many of the assets of the Drypool Group Ltd. have been sold to buyers or are under negotiation. Nevertheless, that is irrelevant to the payment of compensation. We have to pay compensation on the basis of the value of the group during the reference period, regardless of the amendment. My hon. Friend knows that, because of the assets that have been sold off, if we vest the Dry-pool Group Ltd. in the corporation the underlying assets will be very few. We shall be paying the full compensation value for the shares in the company because, if a company is named in a schedule—that is what my hon. Friend seeks to do—it follows that the shareholders of the company must receive compensation. That is how the Bill stands. Therefore, the device which my hon. Friend is seeking to adopt to circumvent the situation which I describe would not be successful.
907 The financial affect of Amendment No. 220 would be disastrous. I must make clear that there is nothing whatever in the amendment which in any way removes the need to pay full compensation under the existing provisions of the Bill to the shareholders of the Drypool Group Ltd. The amendment will impose an additional cost to the corporation because it requires it to purchase from the receiver the assets of the group at a value to be determined by agreement between the corporation and the receiver as on the date of the coming into operation of the Bill. That would not be a substitute liability; it would be an additional financial liability on the corporation. It would be paying a great deal for hardly any assets.
The practical effect for the group, if it were inserted in the Bill, would be on vesting date to repay all the creditors of the group their outstanding debts. This would be an additional expense to the corporation. My hon. Friend would be vesting hardly anything but paying out three times over to the shareholders and creditors of a bankrupt company to whom the Government are not liable under the Bill. My hon. Friend would not be doing anything for his constituents but would be doing a great deal for the shareholders and creditors.
The overall effect of my hon. Friend's amendment would be to increase the commencing capital debt of the British Shipbuilders Corporation by the amount of the compensation that would have to be paid to the shareholders of a company that is now quite worthless. It would also saddle the corporation with the cost of buying back the assets from the receiver and, in addition, paying off the creditors. It would be very good indeed for them, very bad for the finances of the corporation and not do an atom of good for the constituents of my hon. Friend who is speaking in favour of the amendment.
§ Mr. Ian Lloyd (Havant and Waterloo)I hesitate to intervene in a private argument between the Minister of State and his hon. Friend, but he keeps on implying that none of his hon. Friend's constituents could possibly benefit if compensation were paid to the shareholders. How can he assume that none of the hon. Member's constituents is a shareholder of the group?
§ Mr. KaufmanI accept that the speculative population of Kingston upon Hull is not so numerous as that of Havant and Waterloo. I accept also that it is conceivable that the odd person in Hull might be a shareholder in Drypool, but my hon. Friends are not here speaking for the shareholders. That is not the purpose of their amendment. Its purpose is to try to do something for the shipyard workers in their constituencies. My hon Friends will not achieve anything in that direction by the amendment, but they will benefit other people whom they are in no way seeking to help who would be directly helped by the amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) spoke about the problem of unemployment in Humberside. That is a different problem, and a serious one. I am sorry that my hon. Friend was so negative about the work of the Department of Industry there. As he will know from close acquaintance with the situation, although it is distressing in many ways, a number of initiatives have been taken that are achieving certain results. My hon. Friend was fair in saying that Hull is not a development area. On the other hand, it is an intermediate area and thereby receives many benefits. Regional development grants at 20 per cent. are available. Selective financial assistance is available for new investment projects. The area has benefited a great deal in recent years from advance factory building and it has a reasonably well-diversified industrial base. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) pointed out that communications had been improved following the opening of the M62.
§ Mr. Michael Heseltine (Henley)May I ask for clarification to assist the Minisster's hon. Friend? Does the hon. Gentleman reckon that unemployment at the end of the year will be lower or higher than it is now?
§ Mr. KaufmanIt is impossible for me to make that forecast. The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) is sitting where his right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) usually sits, and the right hon. Member for Sidcup when he sat on the Front Bench always refused to make forecasts of that kind. Once again, the right hon. Member for Worcester, is repudiating his right hon. Friend and his attitudes.
§ Mr. Peter Walker (Worcester)May I ask the Minister a question of fact? Is unemployment in the area higher or lower now than it was when he took office?
§ Mr. KaufmanOf course it is higher. It is higher because of the policies of his then right hon. Friend Lord Barber, which he so happily espouses and of which he is now probably one of the few exponents in the House.
Hull has an important rôle to play in the offshore oil market. Several firms are already working on offshore-related contracts. The area is benefiting from three important projects under the Accelerated Projects Scheme introduced by the Government. They are a major new pharmaceutical factory by Reckitt and Coleman, the Lindsey oil refinery, and BP Chemicals' new acetic acid plant. These projects will consolidate Humberside's already strong position in the chemical and petrochemical industries.
§ Mr. Peter WalkerThe hon. Gentleman is being complacent.
§ Mr. KaufmanI am not being as complacent as the right hon. Gentleman was when he told us that his plan to run down the British Steel Corporation would create hundreds of thousands of extra jobs, and when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State humiliated him. That was one of the greatest humiliations that even the right hon. Gentleman suffered in the House.
§ Mr. Peter WalkerDoes the Minister consider that the Government's failure to do anything about steel modernisation, so that Port Talbot and Redcar will not be producing steel next year at cheaper prices for export, is to the advantage or disadvantage of the British economy?
§ Mr. KaufmanI hope that you will allow me to answer that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the right hon. Gentleman's question is in order.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)Yes, the Chair will allow it. After that, perhaps we may get back to the question under discussion.
§ Mr. KaufmanThe right hon. Gentleman is out of touch now, otherwise he would know that in the three years since the Government came to office the investment programme under the modernisa- 910 tion scheme has reached £1,400 million—£300 million in the first year, £500 million in the second year and £600 million in the third year. That is a great deal better than the disgraceful interference with the activities of the British Steel Corporation and the Joint Steering Group by the right hon. Gentleman, his right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) and all the rest of their fatuous incompetence.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I think that honour on both sides is now satisfied. May we return to the amendment?
§ Mr. KaufmanThe right hon. Member for Worcester should not have drifted in at this point.
§ Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham and Heston)Have mercy on him.
§ Mr. KaufmanI now have the information that has been requested. Perhaps I should be grateful to the right hon. Member for Worcester for intervening and allowing time for it to be obtained. Negotiations with the Yorkshire Dry Dock Company Limited for Nos. 1 and 2 dry docks in Hull are proceeding. The company is already using facilities for repair work and will continue to do so.
§ Mr. KaufmanI said that if I were wrong I should admit it. I am not like the hon. Gentleman, who never admits anything.
As for the need to provide jobs, offers of selective financial assistance of about £3.2 million had been made up to 31st March of this year for 35 projects in the Hull area, involving capital expenditure of £20 million and the creation of over 2,000 new jobs, with a further 1,000 safeguarded. That is what we are doing to help employment in Hull. I do not say that it is everything that needs to be done, but it is a considerable achievement. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that.
Although the amendment is well intentioned, it would not do what my hon. Friends want. It would not achieve the various things that they wish to bring about.
§ Mr. Tom KingI intervene only briefly. The Minister of State has explained to those representing Hull constituencies that there are appalling difficulties involved in offering compensation and that it would be impossible to prevent the creditors or shareholders of the previous group from receiving additional payments.
The Hull Members will now realise why we consider the present payment terms to be so ludicrous and the whole system totally inadequate. They have found the other side of the problem—namely, that payments for compensation are unlinked with reality. The Minister of State has explained to them that the Government cannot pay compensation for what is now as they will have to pay for what was in terms of share prices in 1973–74. Situations have changed and not only in respect of Drypool Group Ltd. A quite different situation now exists, but the Minister of State has said that he cannot do anything about it and that it would be necessary to pay on the basis of a previous situation. This is a problem that will have to be faced when dealing with other companies.
A Press report was issued on Government assistance and the funds that they are giving to help the companies they are taking over. It said that assurances were given that the Selby yard would remain outside the nationalised shipbuilding industry, and that the company had received from the Government an undertaking that there would be adequate protection for it against unfair competition and any disadvantage caused by operating outside the public sector. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister of State what form those undertakings took and whether they are available generally to the British shipbuilding industry.
§ Mr. KaufmanA Press statement was issued, which I shall make available to the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to paraphrase it as it was a carefully phrased statement. I believe that he has not reflected it accurately. Therefore, it would be as well if I procure a copy for him.
Yesterday Opposition Members were critical of the practice of reading extracts from newspapers, but I now have the report of the tribunal, which is even more devastating than the Press report that I read to the House. However, I shall 912 make the Press statement available to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). As for assurances about fair trading, they are contained in the new clause which the House agreed. There is no special assurance apart from the assurance of fair trading that we inserted into the Bill, stemming from the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).
§ Mr. James JohnsonMy hon. Friend is understandably concerned about the amount of compensation to be paid in the event of the amendment being passed. Has he made any estimate of the compensation that would be involved? Is it possible to make an estimate?
§ Mr. KaufmanIt would have to be negotiated. That is one of the problems.
§ Mr. PrescottIt would not be any more than if we had nationalised them in the past.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ Mr. McNamaraWith the leave of the House, I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who confirmed the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I made, namely, that although negotiations are going on for Yorkshire No. 1 and No. 2, the dry docks, which do not involve either of the refit docks, we understand that contracts have not yet been exchanged and that the matter is still subject to considerable discussion. Perhaps the most important discussions are taking place tomorrow. There is doubt about the whole situation.
Even if my hon. Friend the Minister of State deals with Yorkshire No. 1 and No. 2 in my constituency, he will not have dealt with the situation in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. The dry fitting dock is not included. That will mean the loss of a couple of hundred jobs come October. My hon. Friend has not really met the point. Nor has he mentioned the various points that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull. East made about training, apprenticeships and the supply of skilled work. He has also failed to meet the amendment. He has spoken long and eloquently about compensation without mentioning any figures.
913 We took careful advice upstairs about the amendment. If the worst happened from my hon. Friend's point of view and the best from mine and the amendment were to be accepted, the situation would be no worse than when the White Paper and the first Bill were published. Money would still have to be paid. We would still have to pay the money that we would have been prepared to pay had the companies been strong at that time and come within the ambit of the second Bill.
In the face of this sudden favour that private industry has with my right hon. Friends, especially small shipyards, if the amendment goes through, the negotiations take place and we get rid of Yorkshire No. 1 and No. 2 and solve the problem of the refit docks, the clause will become another small part of shipbuilding history—namely, a preparation by constituency members for a contingency that never arose. If we are to have the confidence that my hon. Friend has that the receiver will be able to sell off the yards, this little matter could well pass into oblivion as an attempt made by Members to protect the interests of their constituents, but big brother Government saying that they knew better. If it should not happen like that, at least we shall have tried to do our best for our constituents and met the contingency, should it arise, of the Government's hopes not being met.
I do not want to dwell too long on the points made by my hon. Friend about the help that the Government have given to Humberside. Who are we to complain about the assistance that has come in our direction and maintained a few jobs? However, it did not maintain the jobs at Thorn or at Humber St. Andrews, or Imperial Typewriters or the fishing industry.
In defence of the Government and of my hon. Friends, I say that the biggest run-down in employment will be in the fishing industry and in private employment. The Conservative Government negotiated our present weakness regarding fishing by giving Common Market countries the right to take fish right up to our beaches up to 1981. Any gains that later Labour Governments may obtain will result from their strength in negotiations, not from any position of strength that we have been left by the 914 Conservative Government. That is an aside.
§ Mr. Tom KingI understand and appreciate the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but we are working under a guillotine. The hon. Gentleman asked for the leave of the House, to which we did not object. One Opposition Member objecting would have debarred the hon. Gentleman from speaking again. We are to have the closure on an important debate at 6 o'clock. I understand and appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sincerity and concern for his constituents, but I ask him to bear that matter in mind.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I do not wish to delay the proceedings, but the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has the right of reply, because he moved the amendment.
§ Mr. McNamaraThank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to be courteous to the House when I adopted the usual Committee procedure of asking for leave to speak again.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) will recall that I sat through the Committee stage and spoke on only three occasions, which took considerably less time than he had for the dribble that he has spoken on this Bill. I shall defend my constituents, my interests and my philosophy under the rules of the House as long as I like. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to tell me to curtail my speeches when I have sat through the dribble that he has spoken time and again, wasting the time of the House and forcing the guillotine upon us, because of his attitude and that of his stupid supporters. So just you belt up. I do not mean you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The Chair does not wish to become involved in this discussion.
§ Mr. McNamaraI come to my final point. Having vented my spleen upon the Opposition, it is with regret that I tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State that I shall have to divide the House on this amendment. I do so with regret, because I always feel sorry when a Labour Government let down my constituents. This is contrary to what we promised them at the hustings, in our 915 manifesto and in personal undertakings. Having made a promise at the hustings and since, my hon. Friend and I feel bound by personal commitment to divide the House on this amendment.
| Division No. 297.] | AYES | [5.22 p.m. |
| Ashton, Joe | Kinnock, Neil | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Lambie, David | Roderick, Caerwyn |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Latham, Arthur (Paddington) | Rodgers, George (Chorley) |
| Canavan, Dennis | Lee John | Rooker, J. W. |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N) | Sillars, James |
| Colquhoun, Ms Maureen | Litterick, Tom | Skinner, Dennis |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Loyden, Eddie | Swain, Thomas |
| Edge, Geoff | McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Evans, John (Newton) | McNamara, Kevin | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Flannery, Martin | Madden, Max | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
| Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) | Mikardo, Ian | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Grocott, Bruce | Noble, Mike | |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Ovenden, John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) | Parry, Robert | Mr. James Johnson and |
| Kerr, Russell | Richardson, Miss Jo | Mr. John Prescott. |
| Kilroy-Silk, Robert |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Deakins, Eric | Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) |
| Allaun, Frank | de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) |
| Archer, Peter | Dell, Rt Hon Edmund | Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Doig, Peter | Janner, Greville |
| Ashley, Jack | Dormand, J. D. | Jay, Rt Hon Douglas |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) |
| Atkinson, Norman | Duffy, A. E. P. | Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford) |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Dunn, James A. | John, Brynmor |
| Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) | Dunnett, Jack | Johnson, Walter (Derby S) |
| Bates, Alf | Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) |
| Bean, R. E. | Eadie, Alex | Jones, Alec (Rhondda) |
| Beith, A. J. | Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) | Jones, Barry (East Flint) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood | Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Jones, Dan (Burnley) |
| Bishop, E. S. | English, Michael | Judd, Frank |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Ennals, David | Kaufman, Gerald |
| Boardman, H. | Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Kelley, Richard |
| Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Evans,loan (Aberdare) | Kerr, Russell |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | Lamborn, Harry |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur | Faulds, Andrew | Lamond, James |
| Boyden, James (Bish Auck) | Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. | Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) |
| Bradley, Tom | Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) | Lever, Rt Hon Harold |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston) | Lipton, Marcus |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Luard, Evan |
| Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) | Ford, Ben | Lyon, Alexander (York) |
| Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) | Forrester, John | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) |
| Buchan, Norman | Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) | Mabon, Dr J. Dickson |
| Buchanan, Richard | Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) | McCartney, Hugh |
| Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) | Freeson, Reginald | McGuire, Michael (Ince) |
| Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) | Freud, Clement | MacKenzie, Gregor |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Mackintosh, John P. |
| Cant, R. B. | George, Bruce | Maclennan, Robert |
| Carmichael, Neil | Gilbert, Dr John | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) |
| Carter, Ray | Golding, John | Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh) |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Gould, Bryan | Mallalleu, J. p. w. |
| Cartwright, John | Gourlay, Harry | Marks, Kenneth |
| Castle, Rt Hon Barbara | Grant, George (Morpeth) | Marquand, David |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Grant, John (Islington C) | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) | Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Cohen, Stanley | Grocott, Bruce | Mason, Rt Hon Roy |
| Colquhoun, Ms Maureen | Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) | Maynard, Miss Joan |
| Concannon, J. D. | Hardy, Peter | Meacher, Michael |
| Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) | Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Mellish, Rt Hon Robert |
| Corbett, Robin | Hatton, Frank | Mendelson, John |
| Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Hayman, Mrs Helene | Millan, Bruce |
| Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) | Healey, Rt Hon Denis | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Heffer, Eric S. | Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) |
| Cronin, John | Hooley, Frank | Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen) |
| Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony | Hooson, Emlyn | Moonman, Eric |
| Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) | Horam, John | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) |
| Cryer, Bob | Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H) | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) |
| Cunningham, G. (Islington S) | Huckfield, Les | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) | Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) | Moyle, Roland |
| Dalyell, Tam | Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King |
| Davidson, Arthur | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Newens, Stanley |
| Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Oakes, Gordon |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Hunter, Adam | Ogden, Eric |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) | O'Halloran, Michael |
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 248.
| Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Sedgemore, Brian | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| Owen, Dr David | Selby, Harry | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
| Padley, Walter | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) | Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) |
| Palmer, Arthur | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Pardoe, John | Shore, Rt Hon Peter | Waker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Park, George | Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C) | Watkins, David |
| Parker, John | Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) | Watkinson, John |
| Pavitt, Laurie | Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) | Weetch, Ken |
| Peart, Rt Hon Fred | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) | Weitzman, David |
| Pendry, Tom | Small, William | Wellbeloved, James |
| Penhaligon, David | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Perry, Ernest | Snape, Peter | White, James (Pollok) |
| Phipps, Dr Colin | Spearing, Nigel | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | Spriggs, Leslie | Whitlock, William |
| Price, C (Lewisham W) | Stallard, A. W. | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Price, William (Rugby) | Steel, David (Roxburgh) | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch) |
| Radice, Giles | Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) | Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford) |
| Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) | Stoddart, David | Williams, Sir Thomas |
| Robertson, John (Paisley) | Stott, Roger | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Rodgers, George (Chorley) | Strang, Gavin | Wilson, William (Coventry SE) |
| Rodgers, William (Stockton) | Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. | Woodall, Alec |
| Roper, John | Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon) | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Rose, Paul B. | Tierney, Sydney | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Ross, Stephen (Isle ot Wight) | Tomlinson, John | |
| Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) | Torney, Tom | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Rowlands, Ted | Tuck, Raphael | Mr. James Tinn and |
| Sandelson, Neville | Urwin, T. W. | Mr. Ted Graham. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.