HC Deb 19 May 1936 vol 312 cc1025-8W
Sir R. ASKE

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the value of naval shipbuilding allocated to the Clyde,

the amendment of 1931 for the same period; the extent to which each stock exchange has taken advantage of that privilege; the aggregate totals since that section operated; and whether he will consider reviewing the concession with a view to ultimate withdrawal?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The cost of the transfer forms issued free to the public in the period from 1st April, 1935, to 31st March, 1936, was approximately £975. The following table shows (a) the effect over the same period of the operation of Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by the Finance Act, 1931, and (b) the aggregate total from 1st September, 1920, when that Section came into operation, to 31st March, 1936. The question appears to be founded on some misapprehension—Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1920, does not stand alone and to speak of its "cost" is misleading. It is associated with the increased Stamp Duties imposed in that year on Stock Exchange transactions and the relief it confers is incidental to obtaining the additional revenues.

Tyne and Barrow, respectively, in the programmes for the period 1909–10 to 1913–14, and the yearly average of each for such period; and also the value of the tonnage now under construction on the Clyde, Tyne and Barrow, respectively?

Lord STANLEY

The following statement gives the particulars:

Year. Approximate value of Admiralty orders for Hulls and Machinery.
Clyde. Tyne. Barrow.
£ £ £
(millions). (millions). (millions).
1909–10 3½ 2½ 1¾
1910–11 3½ 2¼ ¾
1911–12 3 1¼ 1¼
1912–13 4½ 2½ 1
1913–14 2¼ 3½ 1¼
Yearly average. 3¼ 2½ 1¾
At present in hand. 8½ 5 1¾

These figures, which are necessarily only approximate, cover the value of both hulls and machinery but do not, of course, show the same proportion between the Tyne and Clyde as do the figures for tonnage given in the First Lord's letter of 9th April last to the Commissioner for Special Areas.

The difference is largely due to the fact that the Tyne received a somewhat larger proportion of machinery orders for dockyard-build hulls (which do not appear in the tonnage figures, but do in the values) in pre-war than in post-war years.