HC Deb 03 November 1980 vol 991 cc961-5
Mr. John Smith

(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the 24-hour strike at British ports currently taking place which has been called by the National Union of Seamen.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit)

This industrial action was taken by the National Union of Seamen in response to Cunard's wish to operate two passenger ships under the Bahamas flag although crewed by British officers. This decision is a matter for Cunard, but I understand that it is the company's view that it is not possible to operate these ships profitably under the British flag and that the alternative to operating under the Bahamas flag would be to sell the ships. That, according to Cunard, would threaten to make the future operations of the QE2 uneconomic, too.

I regret the reasons which have led to Cunard's decision. They underline the need for all our industries to have internationally competitive labour costs.

I also regret that the National Union of Seamen's action has involved companies with which they are not in dispute and which have no influence in its solution. This has caused considerable inconvenience to the travelling public and has done little to help those companies to remain competitive and to continue to employ British seafarers.

Mr. Smith

As the Minister responsible for British shipping, does the Under-Secretary of State—or the Secretary of State—intend to intervene at any stage in the dispute? Is he not aware that fundamental issues of crucial importance to the British seafaring community are at stake, namely, that if Cunard is permitted to switch ships to flags of convenience many others may follow and countless numbers of jobs may be lost to the British seafaring community? Should not the British Government support the moves at UNCTAD to curtail the growth of flags of convenience, which are, in essence, devices to avoid tax and to lower standards of safety? Should not the Government indicate their deep dislike of British shipowners, such as Cunard, resorting to this disreputable tactic by indicating their view and dissuading shipowners from a course that may lead to continuing trouble in the British shipping industry?

Mr. Tebbit

I have indicated that my right hon. Friend and I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about these matters. It is not possible to require British shipowners to run ships at a loss. When the right hon. Gentleman parrots the UNCTAD criticisms of flags of convenience, he should remember that many people in the UNCTAD countries regard the British flag as a flag of convenience. There are many foreign-owned ships sailing under the British flag. The right hon. Gentleman should be more careful in what he says

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is a private notice question. I shall call two hon. Members from either side of the House.

Mr. Hill

Is my hon. Friend aware that the QE2 operating out of Southampton is the only remaining large passenger ship under the British flag? Is he aware that the Southampton-based crew have already said that they would prefer a private ballot on whether they should lose their jobs for ever to taking part in a temporary strike?

Mr. Tebbit

My hon. Friend repeats some of that which has been published in the newspapers about the views of the seamen on board the Queen Elizabeth 2. It is not for me to speak for those seamen one way or the other. However, I emphasise again that the jobs of all the seamen in Cunard, and any other British line, depend crucially on maintaining our competitiveness with our commercial rivals. A pay rise last year of well over 24 per cent. did little to help maintain that competitiveness.

Mr. Heffer

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that British seamen in the past received poor wages and worked under poor conditions and that only in the last few years have they begun to receive decent wages and work under decent conditions? Is it not clear that the action taken by Cunard, if followed by other British shipowners, could destroy the advances made by the National Union of Seamen? Is he further aware that many of my hon. Friends who know about seamen and shipping and come from large port areas are fully behind the National Union of Seamen in the steps that it is taking? Is he aware that it is fighting, not only in the interests of the seamen but in the interests of the shipping industry and the future of our seafaring nation?

Mr. Tebbit

I fully expect the hon. Gentleman to be behind the efforts of anybody to pull the plug out of British shipping by making it uncompetitive with its rivals.

Mr. Marlow

As my hon. Friend said, many companies that are not party to the dispute and that cannot affect the outcome of the dispute are suffering financial loss. What part of the Employment Act which the House passed recently will enable such companies to recover compensation from the National Union of Seamen? If they are not able to recover compensation, will the Government bring forward legislation in future, and if not why not?

Mr. Tebbit

My hon. Friend will recollect from his part in the debates on the Employment Act that section 17 refers to the action which may be taken by companies whose businesses are damaged by unlawful secondary action. It is not for me to decide whether that action should be taken; it is for those who believe themselves to be damaged.

Mr. Clinton Davis

Why does not the Minister pay a tribute to British seafarers, who all too often are taken for granted? Why does he fail to take this opportunity to proclaim the benefits that British seafarers have brought to Britain? Why does he not take this opportunity to condemn a move, which might be mirrored by other shipowners, to take advantage of and exploit seafarers in other countries and at the same time deny British seafarers jobs? Is not the Minister aware that flags of convenience are a shabby device which this and any other Government should expose?

Mr. Tebbit

If flags of convenience are a shabby device today, so they were when the hon. Gentleman was Minister for four years, during which time he did singularly little to change the world's reactions to flags of convenience. Of course I am aware of the contribution which has been and continues to be made by British seamen to the British economy and, indeed, to our life as a whole. I repeat that there is no prospect of requiring British shipowners to operate ships at a loss. The question in this case, according to Cunard, is whether the ships are owned in Britain and whether they have British officers on board and those jobs are saved, or whether all the jobs are lost.

Mr. English

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you ask the appropriate authorities in the House to consider the questions and answers to the last private notice question? Surely it is common knowledge that our exchange rate is 30 per cent. above what it would be in terms of trade balance or trade competitiveness—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is an expert on our procedure. I fear that he is trying to ask the question that he would have asked had he been called. The value of the pound cannot possibly give rise to a point of order, although it is of interest.

Mr. English

I have a much more serious point to make, Mr. Speaker. To people outside, we seem to be discussing a superficiality. In the context of an enhanced exchange rate, the receipts of Cunard, which are determined by the value that they receive in dollars—

Mr. Speaker

Order. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have passed that subject. Unless he has a point of order about procedure in the House. we must move on.

Mr. English

I have a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

I shall be very surprised if that introduction leads to a point of order, but I am willing to listen.

Mr. English

I am sure that it will lead you, Mr. Speaker, to understand that the reputation of the House is at stake. If questions are asked, answers should be given in full. I do not mind Ministers referring to some matters, but they should not omit others, particularly if they might be the responsibility of successive Governments.

Mr. Speaker

I am of the same opinion as I was earlier.