THE PROPOSED NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
AS we said in the preceding article, the chief subject of dispute between the Advisory Committee on Mercantile Shipbuilding and the Admiralty Department, known as the Department for Auxiliary Shipbuilding, was the proposed creation of national shipyards. The proposal which was adopted some mouths ago was that the three national yards
should be built at Chepstow, Beachley, and Portbury. The Daily Telegraph, whose great services in keeping the nation's attention fixed on the momentous subject of shipbuilding deserve to be acknowledged, says that it is doubtful whether these three places are well suited for their purpose. The Wye, as we all know, is remote not only from labour but from iron and coal, and the tremendous tide of the Wye would probably make dredging necessary before large ships could be safely launched. The new yards would call into existence a large working-class population, and this popu- lation would have to be housed. At present we imagine that the housing accommodation on anything like the necessary scale does not exist. The scheme was regarded as urgent, and it has been stated in the newspapers that work has already been begun. Another sign of the degree to which the scheme was regarded as urgent was the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty announced last week in the House of Commons that no estimate of the cost had been prepared. We are committed, in fact, to an industrial operation of indefinite cost. We would not say a word against this— though financial laxity is always deplorable and there is already far too much of it—if we could be sure that the national yards are likely to accomplish the ends for which they are designed. But here is the crux of the matter. We fear that there are very grave reasons for doubting whether, in spite of the great expense of the yards, they will do what is expected of them.
On the contrary, there seems to be reason to believe that, instead of accelerating the construction of merchant shipping, they mayactually delay it. If, as we shall try to show, there are just grounds for this fear, it will be the duty of the Government to refrain from the argument that they are irrevocably com- mitted. They must not make adherence to a doubtful or bad scheme a point of pride. There is no room for pride in the matter. In time of war we are necessarily all learners, and no man, even though he be an important Minister of the Crown, should be ashamed to confess this simple truth. If the abandonment of the national shipyard policy would increase the rate of construction, then the wisest and moat courageous course would be to cut the loss already incurred, and turn to plans which might be less showy but would be more practical.
The Admiralty, it is true, have not only acquired the land for the three yards, but have already taken over the plant of the Standard Shipbuilding Company, which began work last year at Chepstow. This does not mean, however, that they are committed so deeply as to make withdrawal impossible. The Times has stated that the Advisory Committee before their resignation had expressed the opinion that until the private shipyards throughout the country had been supplied with all the labour and material they could use it was unwise to divert either labour or material to the construction of new yards. They pointed out that the first need was to supply the existing yards. The second need was to extend the existing yards, for extension is generally an easier matter than to make an entirely fresh yard. Thirdly, they agreed that when all the existing yards and their possible extensions were fully employed, it would be desirable to build new national yards. The question turns, therefore, on whether the existing yards are now fully employed. If the yare not, the time has not come to build national yards. It seems that what has happened is this. The order of the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee has been inverted, and the creation of national yards, instead of being kept in the third place, has been promoted to the first place.
The Times says that the Government had, and still have, strong reasons in support of their policy of State yards. It is pointed out, for instance, that the Government have to look to the future as well as the present, and it is added that the private shipbuilders have always been assured that in the matter of orders, labour, and material they shall be considered first. The Government yards (so runs the argument mentioned in the Times) would be entirely subsidiary, would fill in the gape, and would in no way compete with the private yards. In theory all this sounds well enough, and we have no doubt whatever that the intentions of the Government were sound, and are probably described justly in the brief summary of arguments we have given above. But, after all, the governing fact of the situation must be the answer to the very simple Ituestion'whether or not the private yards are actually suffering from' the policy of building State yards. If it can be shown that the private yards could turn out more ships than arc now being built, then it is clearly a waste of energy to use up labour and create new yards instead of applying -the labour to the sonstruction of ships where the slips already exist and are at
present empty. We have heard it said, and have seen it written, that many private yards could do very much more than they are doing. It is said that the companies which own them are crying out for men and materials, and that neither are being fully supplied. We should like to know whether these statements are true or not. The answer can be a simple " Yes " or " No," and in accordance with the answer the creation of the State yards must be condemned or approved. It also ought to be possible to give a simple answer of "Yes " or " No " to the question whether the work which is now being done in the State yards is absorbing labour and raw material which could be instantly transferred to private yards.
It has been said that in the matter of shipping the nation ought to remember the great act of creation performed by the Ministry of Munitions, and it is suggested that no better example could be followed. But the analogy is surely quite false. When it was necessary to manufacture millions of guns and rifles and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammuni- tion, the plant simply did not exist for the production of these things. At the beginning of the war we had not the means to produce more than a very few hundred rifles a week. Clearly if we were to arm a mighty host, the plant had to be brought into being before the arms themselves could be manufactured. But in the shipping industry there is notoriously no such want of plant. Shipbuilders, if we are to believe them, are willing and anxious to construct more ships at once. They say that if they were allowed the men they ask for, they could work double and treble shifts, as is being done in the United States. They say that though the promises of the Government were clear and their intentions no doubt correct, in practice raw material is being used on the Wye to create plant instead of being applied to the present production of ships. We have no idea how far work upon the national yards has been carried, but every one knows that a modern and well-equipped ship- building yard is a place that teems with machinery. All this machinery will have to be built to order, and it seems to us almost a policy of madness if it is really true that this is being done or about to be done while existing machinery elsewhere in the country is either idle or not being fully used. The result would be certain—a retardation not an acceleration of construction.
We sincerely hope that it may be possible for this subject to be discussed in Parliament. It should be possible for Members of Parliament to find out whether and to what extent ship- builders have failed to receive the labour which they have demanded, and also the steel and other materials of ship- building. It would further be desirable to discuss whether there is anything in the argument that national yards are necessary in the interests of reconstruction after the war. We speak without information, but we imagine that nearly every private shipbuilder would answer that the private yards will be capable of building all the ships required after the war. If this be so, the Government policy of State yards is reduced, though we are sure this was not the original intention, to something like an amiable experiment in State Socialism. Parliament was never consulted, and we feel strongly that if the criticisms of the policy are justified, it is not too late to reconsider the whole scheme. Conceivably a partial withdrawal might be practicable. If the Government are too far committed to abandon one of the yards, this may not be true of the other two. If the Government should have some good reason for not with- drawing, it would at all events be possible for them to announce what it is. It is difficult to see how or why this subject involves any considerations of secrecy. We have not forgotten that Sir Eric Geddes did say something about these State yards on November 1st. " In some quarters," he said, " the national shipyards have been adversely criticized, and it is only natural and to be expected. One is asked the question, ' Why build new yards when existing yards are not working to their full capacity ? ' The answer to this is very simple and very straight. We will not use the national yards until the existing yards are working to their full economic capacity." That, of course, is a pertinent reply, though it does not dispose of the objection that while State yards are in building, labour is being diverted, and that just at a time when it is essential to make good our losses in the Mercantile Marine. Let us therefore ask our question in another way : How soon is it likely that the existing yards can be worked to their full economic capacity ? If it can be shown, as we fear it may be, that there is no near prospect of the existing yards being provided with all the men and material they require, Sir Eric Geddes's answer must fad to satisfy the criticism. It has been admitted that the State yards cannot produce a ship till the end of 1918, and of course. the date might be later. But it will be in the coming year that
the pressure exerted on us by our losses from submarine warfare will be felt most keenly. The whole problem is an immediate one, and advantages which have to be calculated at a distance of a year, or eighteen months, or two years are of no avail.
In conclusion, we cannot help drawing attention to a very curious statement made by Dr. Macnamara early in November. " There is at present," he said, " no intention of establishing national shipyards in Ireland, as it is considered that in that country the object can be beat obtained by improving existing yards and. encouraging private enterprise." He then went on to say that there would probably be not merely three State yards in Great Britain but four, which could be worked as a whole. We wish to draw attention, however, not to this proposed increase in the British State yards, but to the curiously special treatment of Ireland. At least it would be curious if it were not only too familiar. Arguments which apply in logic and good sense to every other part of the world do not apply to Ireland ! Here we have an argument which is rejected by the Government for British purposes being accepted as naturally having full force in Ireland. In Ireland existing shipyards are to be extended and private enterprise is to be encouraged. But in Great Britain it is not so. Yet it must be admitted that the resources of private shipbuilders in England, Scotland, and Wales are far greater than in Ireland. We earnestly hope that the whole subject will receive very close attention as early as possible. We may be quite wrong in the grave fears we have expressed, but we think that what we have said will at leant make it clear to every one that there is a case for further investigation and an. authoritative statement from the Government. It is essential to accelerate shipbuilding. Will the State yards really do this.?
Previous page
