§ LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government how much money is now invested by the Government in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, Ltd.—
- (1) as share capital
- (2) as loans; and
- (3) as grants;
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET)My Lords, the Government own 875,000 £1 shares in the company, as well as £940,000 of 7 per cent. loan stock in its Fairfield subsidiary. In addition, the Shipbuilding Industry Board has made grants of £3 million to the company and has promised to lend up to £5½ million and to provide relief of any interest due on such loans up to the end of 1970. The loan stock is redeemable in 1975. The interest on the Board's loans varies according to the Government lending rate at the time each advance is made and all are to be repaid in 16 half-yearly instalments beginning on December 31, 1975. One director of the company is nominated by the Shipbuilding Industry Board and this is considered adequate representation.
§ LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFEMy Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his very full Answer to my Question. Since putting the Question on the Order Paper, I gather that negotiations are proceeding for further financial assistance. Would my noble friend accept that it is extremely difficult to run an industry of this kind unless there is some long-term assurance of financial support? May I ask when may we expect a statement in that regard? In view of the fact that Government involvement in this company is much in excess of the equity of the company, would my noble friend accept that to have one nominated representative on the Board is hardly adequate?
§ LORD KENNETNo, my Lords. It is the opinion of my right honourable friend that one nominated representative—Mr. Mackenzie, a leading Scottish chartered accountant—is a sufficient balance at the moment. It is true that the Shipbuilding Industry Board is considering requests for further assistance to the company. My right honourable friend the Minister of Technology is keeping in touch with the situation, but it would not be appropriate to discuss these commercial matters at this juncture.
§ LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFEMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for his answer. Perhaps I should explain—may I ask him to accept that my supplementary question was no reflection upon the adequacy of the distinguished chartered accountant who represents the Government?
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON)My Lords, asking a Minister to accept something is not a question in the sense in which it is interpreted in this House. If my noble friend could reframe his question a third time, I think he might be successful.
§ LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFEMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that I regard the representative of the Government, Mr. Mackenzie, as perfectly adequate?
§ Loma KENNETYes, my Lords.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, arising out of the Minister's first reply, may I ask whether he can give any definition of 843 why this industry in particular has received such massive subvention from the Government, as against what might be the case with other industries credited with substantial export performance, who are well known to operate in such a way that the return on invested capital is lower than the average?
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, it is a question of the grouping of units on the Clyde which were too small. This has been done. The matter was fully discussed in the recent debate in your Lordships' House on the Shipbuilding Industry Bill.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, does that answer foreshadow the expectation that assistance may be accorded also to other industries?