§ 3.42 p.m.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry in reply to a Private Notice Question. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Day has told me that following the failure of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill to achieve Royal Assent in the last Session he intends to return to Canada next year. I have learned of Mr. Day's intentions with regret and in doing so I expressed my warm appreciation for his services."
§ Lord CARR of HADLEYMy Lords, of course we share the regret at Mr. Day's resignation and we believe that the shipbuilding industry has lost a valuable chief executive for the future. But is it not a fact that had the Government so desired, the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry could have received the Royal Assent 17 days ago? Therefore, is it not a fact that this regrettable resignation is the direct consequence of their own actions?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, there have been many causes of delay, not only the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. Things are as they are, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for expressing, or confirming, the regrets expressed by my right honourable friend.
§ Lord WIGODERMy Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the fact that this Bill has now been referred to the Examiners is due to a decision by officers of the two Houses of Parliament and not due to any decision of your Lordships' House? Therefore, does the noble Lord not agree that any further delay that might now follow is due entirely to the failure of the Government during the last Session to admit that there was a 692 possibility that in this Bill there were contained invidious and unjustifiable distinctions between the companies involved?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, I should like to put a question to the Leader of the House. Would it not be wrong for us to anticipate in any way the judgment of the Examiners who have just been appointed by your Lordships' House?
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart)My Lords, I should like to say to my noble friend that he is absolutely right, and I hope that noble Lords will realise this.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, is it the Government's intention to appoint somebody to succeed Mr. Day? Also, are they now in possession of the necessary powers, pending the passage of the Bill, to pay for a successor?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, the point made by the noble Lord is important. The Government will continue to need the organising committees for both industries. There is a gap at the moment due to the failure of the Bill in the last Session, but it was made clear in the closing days of the last Session that the Government would immediately reintroduce the Bill if it was not enacted. The Speaker yesterday rejected arguments that the present Bill is not the same Bill under the provisions of the Parliament Acts. We see no impropriety and much sense in continuing with the organising committees already appointed.
Earl FERRERSBut, my Lords, with respect, the noble Lord has not answered the question which my noble friend asked, which is: Is Mr. Day going to be replaced by somebody, and if so, who is that to be, and when will he be replaced? Will he be replaced before the Bill receives the Royal Assent?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I have made a Statement at a very early point after Mr. Day's resignation. I should be grateful not to be pressed on this, because the future is not absolutely clear as to what steps will be taken. But as I have said, the organising committees are continuing and therefore they will have to be properly manned.
§ Lord CARR of HADLEYMy Lords, while I appreciate that the noble Lord and his right honourable and honourable friends cannot be specific about who should replace Mr. Day, it surprises me that they cannot be specific as to whether he is to be replaced. Surely these delays and uncertainties are immensely damaging. Is the noble Lord not aware of the fact that it is now two years since the Government introduced this Bill, and since some blame seems to be occasionally thrown at your Lordships' House, should we not all remember that of those two years only two months has been spent on the Bill in this House?
§ Lord BROWNMy Lords, is it not a fact that within a day or two of the resignation of the chief executive of any company, to demand the name of his successor is pretty fatuous?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, one simple question: Is Mr. Day to be replaced? That is all.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, it is quite clear that the organising committee must have a chief executive, so presumably he will be replaced.