HL Deb 02 March 1977 vol 380 cc641-4

3.32 p.m.

Lord PEART

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt an extremely interesting debate, but we shall return to it later. With the leave of the House, I will now make a Statement on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. The Statement is as follows:

"In the light of the findings of the Examiners that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill is hybrid, the Government have considered what action should be taken.

"The Government have decided that, in view of the grave industrial consequences of further delay to the Bill, they intend to deal with the situation created by the Examiners' findings on hybridity by proposing Amendments for the deletion of the 12 ship repairing companies listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill.

"Consultations have taken place with the Opposition Parties through the usual channels and the Opposition have agreed that the Bill should now proceed to Royal Assent as a Public Bill in its present form, apart from the deletion of the 12 listed ship repairing companies. It has been agreed that the Bill will receive its Second Reading in this House on Tuesday 8th March, with Committee and remaining stages on 10th March; the Bill will then return to another place for agreement to the necessary Amendments. It has been further agreed that the Bill should proceed to Royal Assent forthwith. I hope that the House will be content to proceed on this basis.

"Ship repairing will remain one of the duties of British shipbuilders. Several of the listed shipbuilding companies have ship repairing operations, and three of the 12 ship repairing companies now listed in Schedule 2 are already publicly owned and will be transferred to the Corporation. The Government understand that other privately owned ship repairing companies would wish to be acquired by the Corporation, which will be free and willing to negotiate their acquisition.

"The Government intend that vesting of the aircraft companies will be next month, if this can be achieved, and of shipbuilding companies in the late spring. A Statement on this will be made as soon as possible."

My Lords, that ends the Statement.

3.35 p.m.

Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome this Statement. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House on finding a way out of an impasse—which I have to say was of the Government's own making—and on ending the uncertainty which has existed for so many months in the industries concerned. This is not the outcome that we would have wished for; we still think that the whole Bill is misconceived. But this course at least represents a belated triumph for what has been called the art of the possible.

The question of hybridity in Schedule 2 was first raised in this House on 28th September, over five months ago. We should not forget that hybridity is not a mere procedural device, but a constitutional means by which Parliament is able, as the Examiners have put it in their report, to protect the individual from the majority, from the power of the State or, if you prefer it, from the power of the Government. So I feel that this decision is something of a triumph for those ship repairers who have taken on the might of the State and won. But they have won through the process of Parliament.

For the future this should be a salutary reminder that Parliament's job is to protect the citizen from his rulers and to safeguard his rights, liberties and livelihood. This should also be a reminder to our critics that this House does have a function. We need a Second Chamber and we have exercised our function well. If there had been no House of Lords it is frightening to think that the hybridity in this Bill could never have been examined, let alone proved. Let us remember that.

3.37 p.m.

Lord BYERS

My Lords, although we on these Benches are vigorously opposed to the nationalisation of these two industries, we recognise that in everybody's interest the present uncertainty must be terminated. The course now proposed by the Government is one—and I cannot help saying it—which we have been advocating from these Benches since towards the end of the last Session. We have made this point on numerous occasions; I am only sorry that the Government did not take our advice when we first gave it. As I have already written to the noble Lord the Leader of the House indicating that we would certainly favour this course, we shall of course facilitate the stages of the Bill as proposed by the Government.

Lord PEART

My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for their remarks. We shall have the Second Reading debate of course, and no doubt some of the matters which have been raised now will be discussed then. I am grateful for the approach that both noble Lords have taken.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to recognise that those of us who have taken part in this controversy do not regard this as a triumph for anybody; it is a victory for common sense. We have to accept some reorganisation of the shipbuilding industry. If it is to be nationalised, we offer our good will. It is going to be highly speculative. We know that there are a great variety of problems. Let us face them and get on with the matter for the sake of British shipbuilding. If we revive the controversy, it will do nobody any good. As a matter of common sense, let us get on with it.

Lord PEART

I am grateful for the remarks of my noble friend. I agree with him that we must now think of the future of our industries.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is rather pleasant to find this meeting of minds in trying to deal with what is a Parliamentary problem? Am I to understand that the arrangements that have been made by the three Front Benches mean that at this minute the Bill is a hybrid Bill, and that under the Bill the aircraft industry and shipbuilding industry may have rights if the hybridity was carried through its proper channels? Am I to understand that any rights of the shipbuilding and aircraft industries will be taken away from them by this arrangement? Have we been assured that they have no questions they would want to raise under the procedures of the hybrid Bill, if the arrangement now agreed was not being entered into?

Lord PEART

My Lords, a Motion will be moved tomorrow and there will be Amendments to the Bill; but we shall discuss that later.

Lord HANKEY

My Lords, in view of the devastating report of the National Economic Development organisation on the tremendous delays, administrative interference and political interventions which have made the development of our present nationalised industries so very difficult, will the Government take this opportunity to see whether they can arrange a better form of control of the industries now being nationalised so that they may develop in a more rational way?

Lord PEART

My Lords, the noble Lord has raised an interesting question, which has been raised on many other occasions. I shall take note, and discuss it with him.