HC Deb 18 January 1984 vol 52 cc309-11
8. Mr. Bruce

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he proposes to take to encourage the further development of oil-related industries in Scotland.

Mr. Younger

Our fiscal and licensing-policies are designed to maintain the momentum of exploration and development in the North sea. Their success is evident with four new oilfields and a 300 km pipeline from Fulmar to St. Fergus approved since the last Budget, and the prospect of a substantial number of further approvals this year. Scotland will continue to benefit from a full and fair opportunity to compete for this business, as it has done so successfully in recent years.

Mr. Bruce

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement. Will he acknowledge that the loss of major capacity in offshore technology, which will result from the closure of Scott Lithgow, will mean the removal of a vital component in our ability to compete in this area? Will he further acknowledge that his hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) has stated that the solution to the problem might be a private buyer? It is difficult to conceive of a private buyer taking over a yard which the Minister, the Prime Minister and the Government have spent many months running down, condemning and rubbishing. Will he acknowledge that that will not enable Scott Lithgow to maintain its proper place in oilfield technology?

Mr. Younger

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I agree with him that to lose entirely the capability for building all these forms of oil-related structure would be a retrograde step for this country.

As to the events that have led up the situation we are dealing with today, I repeat that throughout the past nine months it has been clear that this was in grave danger of happening. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can at least claim that they have taken some chance of leadership and have said something constructive to try to persuade people to be sensible, and I pay tribute to them for that. It is only a pity that the official Opposition did not join them.

Mrs. McCurley

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have done what they could in financial terms? Over £100 million has gone into Scott Lithgow to shore it up so far, and the only ultimate way of saving Scott Lithgow is to remove it from the present management and put it into private hands. In the past, before the nationalisation of Scott Lithgow, that yard was in profit. It did some of the best work in shipbuilding that was ever done on the Clyde. That yard was known as the jewel in the crown of shipbuilding in the Clyde. Will he comment on that?

Mr. Younger

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the intense interest that she has been taking in this important matter. On the question of finance, she is, of course, right. I should have mentioned earlier in these exchanges that the Government have not only been trying to persuade all concerned to do what they could to regain confidence between the supplier and the contractor in this matter, but have put in literally millions of pounds worth of money to help keep the contract going for as long as it has continued, amounting to approximately £13,000 per man employed. As to the future, what is necessary is to see whether there is a way of building up a management for this contract that will carry the conviction and the confidence of the person who is going to buy it, that is, Britoil. It is to that end that I and my colleagues will, of course, do everything we can to help.

Mr. Ron Brown

If the Secretary of State is really interested in oil-related industries, will he use his considerable influence to ensure that an order is placed with the Leith yard of Henry Robb Ltd, a yard which is so important to the economy in eastern Scotland?

Mr. Younger

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about that yard, but the decision about its future is very much one for British Shipbuilders.

Mr. Bill Walker

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measures the Government have introduced have been reflected in the high-tech-company which is going into the enterprise zone at Arbroath which is part of the Tayside enterprise zone? Is this not real evidence of Government policy working?

Mr. Younger

It is the case that, when these very large and extremely difficult industrial crises arise, there are two levels of activity which any responsible Government must take. The first is to do everything they can to try to build some new activity from the old one that has come to grief, and that is what we are trying to do in this case. Secondly, in the regrettable event of a new enterprise not being successful, the Government must do all they can to help the area concerned. There are numerous examples in Scotland of very successful activities funded by the Government and the SDA in recent years.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

Is the Secretary of State aware that I do not agree with routine party insults against him? [Interruption.] Having seen several Secretaries of State in operation against the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other people, and given the appalling economic policy within which he operates, I do not think he has done badly. [Interruption.] It is an appalling climate, created largely by his Government. Will he also bear in mind that, unless he will take a constructive initiative and bring Scott Lithgow and Britoil together at this stage, he will put a slur on what he has done, which is quite unnecessary, and miss the opportunity to save a vital Scottish industry?

Mr. Younger

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. [Interruption.] The House is always quick to protect a Member who has the integrity to tell the truth, even when it is not popular. On the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question I entirely appreciate that it is up to me and my colleagues to do all that we can to help in this extremely serious situation. I do not believe that there was any way in which the existing contract could have been rescued after the trouble into which it had got. I assure the right hon. Gentleman, however, that we shall do all that we can to see whether anything can be recreated in the area.

Mr. Dewar

If the Secretary of State is now so quick to recognise the integrity of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), why did he not do so at the time of the Hillhead by-election? Does he agree that the validity of the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks, and the judgments incorporated in them, was shown by the long faces on the Liberal and SDP Benches while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking?

Does the Secretary of State accept that Labour Members, too, are extremely worried about our future credibility in the oil-related industries? Is he aware that in our view it does not help to have a Secretary of State making comparisons between the Scottish work force and coolies recruited from the paddy fields of Korea and generally talking down the essential competence of working people in Scotland? Does he now regret those remarks and will he apologise to the people of Scotland for them?

Mr. Younger

Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not taken the trouble to read what I said. My point was that, as it is clearly possible for structures of this kind to be manufactured by people in places such as Korea, it is inconceivable that people with long experience on the lower Clyde cannot do the same job so well. I should be extremely surprised if the hon. Gentleman did not agree with that.