Govan Shipyard
The final item of business is a debate on motion S1M-750, in the name of Gordon Jackson, on Govan shipyard. The debate will be concluded after 30 minutes without any question being put. Members who would like to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that the BAe Systems Govan shipyard is in the running for a major order to build roll-on roll-off ferries for the Ministry of Defence; recognises that this order will guarantee work for up to five years and allow the yard to take on apprentices for the first time in three years; praises the yard's strong reputation for Clyde built quality as the major employer at the heart of Govan; acknowledges that this order is vital to secure the yard's future for its skilled and dedicated workforce; understands the equal importance of the order for the sister yard at Scotstoun as outfitter, and expresses total support for the Govan shipyard in bidding for this order and future work.
I am grateful for this debate. In such a situation, there are many things that we do not know. For my part, I do not know what is going on behind the scenes and what deals might be done. I have no idea what arrangements, in detail, might be worked out. I therefore have no intention of speculating on the detail of what might happen; my interest is in what I know to be true.
First, there is no doubt that Govan has the ability to build the ships. Any suggestion that might be made to the contrary—not by people here, but by anyone elsewhere—is absurd and untrue. Govan has both the capability and the quality; the work that has been produced there recently will bear that out. I invite members to consider the sophisticated vessels for a range of uses that have come from that yard in the past few years.
Secondly, the death of shipbuilding at Govan would be a disaster, not just for that area but for Glasgow and for Scotland as a whole. Govan is the largest builder of merchant ships in the United Kingdom. Scotstoun, across the water, is the largest shipbuilder in Scotland. At the moment, about 1,000 people work at Govan and about 2,000 at Scotstoun, while Govan supports nearly 5,000 other people through suppliers and subcontractors. I ask members to bear in mind that Govan cannot be considered in isolation. If it goes, inevitably Scotstoun will come under pressure and there will be serious consequences for the whole economy.
Thirdly, the financial cost of the closure of Govan would make no sense whatever. When one tries to calculate the cost of benefits and other support for those who would be put out of work, it becomes clear—even on simple arithmetic—that it would be a foolish option. Is the financial support given to that yard by successive Governments over the years simply to be wasted?
What we are talking about is not short-term support for a dying industry. We should never let anyone tell us that there is no point in keeping this industry alive. The truth is that Govan is a modern, sophisticated facility with a newly installed management, which—I believe—is prepared to invest and to improve.
We have ample reason to believe that within the next few years, substantial work will be available, which will allow shipbuilding to grow and to thrive on the Clyde for the foreseeable future. To miss out on that, with all the costs that I have tried to mention, because work is somehow unavailable to get us to that point, would be a colossal economic mistake.
Fourthly, what of the human costs? In Glasgow—I am sure that this is true elsewhere—there are more than enough men and women already who are unable to use their considerable skills; people who feel deeply that their talent is wasted. Surely what we want is to reverse that process and to go further. I am arguing not for short-term employment but for a thriving industry, with new apprenticeships and a skill base—not just for now, but for the future. Are we to lose that?
Who can calculate the human cost of the great sense of disappointment that would be felt by the population at large if one of the most famous and respected shipyards in the world were to close? If people did what we have been doing for the past few weekends—asking passers-by to sign a petition—they would realise the strength of feeling for the shipyard not to disappear.
Last, but not least, there is the work force. I am glad that its representatives are in the public gallery behind me. For far too long, they have endured a roller coaster of uncertainty. When others might have given in, the work force fought the campaign the length and breadth of the country, and sustained an optimism and a positive attitude that can be described only as remarkable.
I am glad that so many members have waited behind today. At the very least, the work force is entitled to our full support, and the assurance that we are doing everything possible to secure its future. My message to the Executive, and to Henry McLeish in particular, is simple: make it happen. I know that a great deal is being done. I know that the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive are working hard on this. I appreciate that the campaign is supported by members of all parties, who are here in large numbers, and by the members at Westminster. That support is welcome and valuable.
I know that there are problems. I know that there are rules, and I do not suggest that they can be ignored lightly. As I said, I do not pretend to know the details of what the people in positions of power are working out, but I will say one final thing: this is a time for a can-do mentality. A solution can, and must, be found. On behalf of the work force and the management of the shipyard at Govan, I ask that that be done.
Gordon Jackson has left as much time as possible for other members to contribute. I ask for speeches of about three minutes, please.
I thank Gordon Jackson for securing today's debate, and I am delighted to support the motion that is before us.
I welcome the representatives of the Govan work force who are in the public gallery, and pay tribute to that work force. As Gordon Jackson said, the workers in Govan have been through the mill over the past two years, but throughout they have behaved with dignity and with determination to save not only their jobs, but the industry that they work for in Scotland. It is their commitment to the future of shipbuilding that has ensured that this issue is at the top of the political agenda, and politicians will not be allowed to forget the importance to Scotland of the yard and the industry. It is important that we, in the Scottish Parliament, send a strong message to UK ministers that we expect them to deliver for Govan and Scotstoun.
Shipbuilding in Scotland is a high-tech industry, which employs highly skilled workers. By no stretch of the imagination can it be described as mere metal bashing. It is an industry that deserves support. It should have a future, and that future should not be in doubt. As Gordon Jackson said, there is no doubt in the minds of most people in Scotland—especially those who work in the industry—that Govan has the capability to build the ferries; any suggestion that it does not is an insult to the people who work in the shipbuilding industry in Scotland.
We have to be clear about the implications of the Sealion consortium not securing the contract. Gordon Jackson outlined the effect that that would have not only on Glasgow and Govan, but on the whole of Scotland. For Govan, it would mean almost certain closure, with the loss of 1,200 jobs; that figure does not include the jobs that depend on the shipyard in Govan. For Scotstoun, across the Clyde, it would mean massive redundancies, and for shipbuilding in Scotland it would be the beginning of the end. That is not a price that anybody in Scotland wants to pay for whatever it is alleged can be saved by sending the contract for the ferries elsewhere.
There has been much speculation in recent weeks that Govan may be awarded one or two ferries as a compromise to keep it open in the short term. Neither Gordon Jackson nor I are in any position to confirm whether that is true, but I do not think that that would be sufficient; the contract in its entirety must go to Govan.
I would like the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to confirm that he will press for the whole contract to go to the Sealion consortium. That would ensure that Govan could get through the period until it is supposed to begin work with Scotstoun on the type 45 frigates. I repeat what Gordon Jackson said: ministers must "make it happen". It is right that the campaign is being fought on a cross-party basis, but this is also a key test for the Government—a test of its commitment to the shipbuilding industry and to manufacturing in Scotland.
The Deputy Presiding Officer is indicating that I should wind up. The Government must make it happen; it must deliver for Govan and Scotstoun, to secure the future of shipbuilding on the Clyde.
I thank Gordon Jackson for giving us the opportunity to have this debate and I totally support the motion. I welcome to the Parliament the shop stewards who are continuing the battle to ensure that we have a shipbuilding industry in Scotland—and, indeed, in the UK.
I come from an era when not sticking in at school meant being threatened with a job in a shipyard. Scott Lithgow employed 200 new apprentices a year—that is almost inconceivable now. Throughout my working life, shipbuilding has been in decline. What is happening in Europe is rather different.
I wanted to speak in this debate because my constituency has a proud tradition of shipbuilding, although it no longer has a shipyard. In Greenock and Inverclyde, I represent highly skilled workers who do not enjoy the job security that other highly skilled workers have. Increasingly, their jobs depend on a small number of large contracts. They stumble from crisis to crisis, but when trouble hits Harland and Wolff in Belfast, Ferguson at Port Glasgow, Ailsa-Troon, Govan Shipbuilders, UiE Scotland in Clydebank and even BARMAC at Nigg and Ardersier, unemployment rises in Inverclyde. We need to recognise that there is an impact throughout the country.
Looking across at David Davidson, I am tempted to look back at his party's role in the decline of the industry. However, this is a member's debate and a time to look forward. We need to do all that we can in this Parliament to convince our colleagues in Westminster that the work must go to Govan. We need to ensure that we maintain the skills and manufacturing base that is vital for an island nation.
We can avoid a state of crisis after crisis. We need to ensure that the Ministry of Defence contracts are used to provide stability in the industry. The UK Government needs to work with and bring together the shipowners, the oil companies and the trade unions, so that we get to a stage where we can match the workers' commitment to the industry and its future. Together, with a strategic vision, we can save our shipbuilding industry for Scotland and for the UK.
I congratulate Gordon Jackson on securing this debate and I, too, welcome the union representatives. The debate is about the future of shipbuilding on the Clyde and the retention of an important skills resource for manufacturing in Scotland at a time when other areas of traditional manufacturing are declining. In response to my friend Mr McNeil's comments, let me say that we are not looking back, we recognise what is going on in Scotland and we are looking to support where possible any move to prevent more drainage in the quality manufacturing base on the Clyde.
When I visited the Govan yard recently as a guest of the unions and management, I was overwhelmed by the feeling of team playing—by how the two sides are fully integrated in what they are about. The union officials and men there have behaved with dignity and honour during a difficult 18 months or so. They have been extremely flexible and constructive. One could not ask for any more from the work force. The new management is investing in the skills, competence and enthusiasm of a work force that is unique in Scotland today.
I came away from that visit thinking about what could be done. I do not want to look back, but I wonder why the MOD contract was not a full ministry contract, as we know that it is likely that the vessels will be used for Government work for more than 50 per cent of the time—particularly given the Government's decision to become more heavily involved in peacekeeping and humanitarian work.
The new management has invested massive sums of money in new, more efficient plating systems, in higher lifts and in the capability to work indoors. That is investment for the future. The Cabinet must give a commitment to support the good things that are happening in Govan. I agree with other members that this matter is linked to what happens at Scotstoun. We must also recognise that the yard at Barrow-in-Furness is an integral part of the issue.
Gordon Jackson talked about a can-do society. I scribbled in my notes that I saw Govan as a can-do work force and management. We must call on the Government to give them every support for a sustainable future.
I, too, add my thanks to Gordon Jackson for securing this debate. I welcome the representatives of the workers at Govan who are here today. In particular, I welcome Jamie Webster, who, I am proud to say, is my constituent.
I will not echo the many important things that have been said, particularly by Gordon Jackson and Duncan McNeil, as many members wish to speak and it is important that they can do so. I remind David Davidson that it was the Conservative Government that decided that the contract should not be classified as an MOD one, even though it has become clear that about 71 per cent of the use of the vessels would be for military purposes. The classification that was made could be challenged, even at this late date.
The European rules on tendering do not stipulate that the cheapest price must be accepted. We are also obliged to consider value for money. I think that we can take lessons from no one around the world on value for money. I suspect that we certainly cannot take such lessons from the Koreans.
If we compare like with like, it is clear that a British yard employing British workers must represent the best value for money for a British Government—I make no apologies for using the word "British" in this context. I ask the minister to take up that point with his colleagues down south.
Does Patricia Ferguson agree that all that is being asked for to win the contract is fair play and a level playing field? I am sure that enough work has been done to guarantee that Govan should win the contract.
The workers and management in Govan have demonstrated the skills, technology, dedication and commitment to play on any playing field. However, the minimum that we should be offered is a level playing field.
Two weeks ago, when I was campaigning on the streets of Maryhill with Jamie Webster, I found that people were delighted to have the opportunity to express their feelings about what the order meant to them. I do no disservice to my constituents when I say that they did not always understand the technicalities of MOD orders or of European Commission tendering processes. However, as Glaswegians, they were instinctively sure that the order was necessary and important for workers at Govan and Scotstoun and that it was vital for the future of Glasgow and the Clyde.
Gordon Jackson is to be applauded for securing this debate, in which some good points have been made. Many members have visited the Govan yard—I went round it most recently with Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman. I was struck by the massive size of the yard. It requires a skilled, specialist work force, a design capacity, experience and capital equipment. The yard works as a team; once broken up and scattered to the four winds, it cannot readily be re-established.
The Clyde itself was once synonymous with the shipbuilding industry. The industry has changed, but the Clyde remains a byword for quality. It is economically imperative that the MOD award of the ferries goes to BAe Systems at Govan.
It is crucial to the maintenance of British shipbuilding capability and to shipbuilding on the Clyde that Govan wins the order. Winning the order would secure, in the long term, additional investment from BAe Systems in the yard, and would save the cost of community devastation in Govan and throughout Glasgow. It would bridge the gap until the warship order can be placed. It would also give Govan and the MOD the benefit of savings on the four successive ferries that are required, as any snags on the first order would be compensated by the easier run on the later ones, and effective specialisation between the Govan and Scotstoun yards would be allowed. Those are sustainable, solid, long-term issues for the shipbuilding industry.
The Government must honour its commitments. It must set a trend for private enterprise to invest and have faith in our heavy industries generally. Patricia Ferguson was right to talk about value for money against that background.
All members have been impressed with the shop stewards at Govan and with the dedication and realism of the work force. Those shop stewards and the work force now need our support. This motion is a small step in that direction, and I am glad to support it.
I thank Gordon Jackson for securing this debate and, in particular, for the positive tone and content of his speech. Gordon was talking about a make-it-happen, can-do mentality. This is not a funeral for the shipbuilding industry; this is a means for us to direct our collective efforts to help to ensure that the MOD order comes to Govan.
I lived in Govan for 23 years, from the age of one week. My grandfather worked at Fairfield Construction and I have a cousin who works in that yard to this day. Therefore, from a personal perspective, this matter is very important to me.
It is important to the history of the burgh, of Glasgow, of Scotland, and—yes—of the wider British shipbuilding industry that the ferries contract is secured. If the order can be secured, Govan has a secure future. We know that the type 45 destroyer orders are not too far off, and that Govan and Yarrow Shipbuilders will work together to ensure that that work is carried out to the excellent standard that the yard can achieve and has demonstrated in previous years.
In case some people think that the Govan yard is on its last legs, I should point out that, as has been said, it is a high-tech yard. In its short tenure, BAe Systems has injected £3 million into the yard. It believes, as does the work force, that the yard has a long-term future. BAe Systems is willing to inject up to £23 million more into the yard. The owners of the yard believe that it has a future; the work force, which has sacrificed a tremendous amount over the years to prove that the yard has a future, also believes in that future.
We cannot allow commercial shipbuilding to die in this country. I do not think that that will happen; I think that the Government will wake up and realise that the order must go to Scotland. The Prime Minister said that he would not sleep until the jobs at the Rover plant were saved; let us hope that his insomnia extends to Govan.
Gordon Jackson made a positive contribution and spoke of optimism. I agree that we have to be optimistic. However, I hope that Gordon does not mind if I say that we must not be blind in that optimism. I hope that, across all parties, as much pressure as possible is exerted on the Executive to exert as much pressure on the UK Government.
This is not just about the Govan or the Scotstoun yard, or just about the 3,000 jobs; it is about the terrain that we are leaving in Glasgow and Scotland for the manufacturing industry and manufacturing jobs. If this order goes the way of Volvo or of DAKS-Simpson, or the way of the wider UK problems that we have heard about with Rover, we will be leaving behind a manufacturing wasteland, not just in Scotland but across the UK.
I am heartened by the points that Patricia Ferguson made. Rules are generally there to be obeyed, but they should be examined exhaustively and bent as much as is necessary. If some of the stories about hidden subsidies and the use of cheap labour in other countries are true, I hope that the Government is prepared to recall the contract if it is not awarded to Govan. This is not just about jobs at the yard; it is about wasting Glasgow as a whole. Call centres alone cannot sustain Glasgow or Scotland. The message to the minister today has to be very clear: everything must be done. We are demanding that Govan gets this contract.
I was born in Govan and my grandfather worked in the yards, so I have more than a passing interest in the shipbuilding industry. It is, of course, a much smaller industry now, but its viability is vital to local communities. As elected representatives, we must ensure that our yards play a full part in the revitalisation of the shipbuilding industry. Our yards must prosper so that they can take advantage of the future opportunities of which I believe we now have the clearest of signals.
On 17 March, the Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, said:
"I have certainly made it clear that an extensive programme of shipbuilding is under way. It could amount to 30 large ships and, certainly, they will all be built in the United Kingdom . . . I look forward to that work providing for a revitalised British shipbuilding industry."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 17 April 2000; Vol 348, c 690.]
That is why I believe that it is entirely legitimate to argue that the Government should place the roll-on-roll-off vessel orders with Govan.
Much has to be done if our shipbuilding industry is to be helped to escape from gloomy short-term circumstances. The future could be good for the thousands of men and women who are employed in the industry, but it is essential that Govan is kept open. If it is not, the skills will be dispersed and lost for ever. That is why Govan needs the ro-ro order.
I see that the Deputy Presiding Officer wants me to cut my speech, so I will finish now. We need a healthy, toughly competitive and highly successful shipbuilding industry. The question is: do we have the political will to secure that objective?
I welcome the opportunity to reply in this debate. I congratulate Gordon Jackson on initiating the debate and I thank all members for their contributions.
We have representatives of the work force looking in on us. This is the voice of Scotland in action. All political parties, and those of no fixed party, support the case that the work force has made with such great dignity over such a long period. I, too, welcome Jamie Webster and his colleague on behalf of the Scottish people, the Executive and the whole Parliament.
Much has been said about this contract in recent weeks. Much has been, of necessity, speculation. That fuels uncertainty and concern, which is difficult for a work force that has already suffered a rollercoaster of emotions over the past year. Through today's debate, I hope that we can show—to the work force, to Glasgow and to the people of Scotland—a united front in our support for the Govan shipyard, and that we can pledge that all of us will do all that we can to support the work force in winning the order.
The subject is important—it is the first time that Parliament's voice has been heard on it. It is a reserved matter and one that influences Scotland's psyche. The point has also been raised by the nationalists that manufacturing matters; other points that they have made underline that.
This is about skills and expertise. It is about capacity and commitment and it is about building for the short term to secure the long term. No one in the chamber needs history lessons to tell them that in the early part of the century 50 per cent of the ships afloat on the planet were built on the Clyde.
Many members are rather tired of the expression "reserved issue". Does the minister agree that the agony of the workers is not a reserved issue? Does he also agree that this is the real test of Parliament? If we cannot protect the last major shipyard on the Clyde, we will be judged by the public to have failed and to be a powerless Parliament.
With the greatest respect, I have already said most of those things. This is a chance for the Parliament to be optimistic; it is not an inquiry before the event. I say to Dorothy-Grace Elder, as I would to anyone, that we should work hard together in the knowledge that there is an order waiting to be won. We should leave discussions about what might or might not have happened until later.
Will the minister make a broader comment on the worry about the impending situation? Does he accept that the situation at Govan gives rise to a message that we should listen to and put at the heart of much of the work that we do through the enterprise agencies? We must deliver the support that is required by many manufacturing companies so that they can have a long-term future. Can the enterprise agencies embrace that proactively, rather than as the result of a potential crisis situation such as we face at Govan?
John Swinney knows more than most people that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, the enterprise companies and the Executive are examining all the various industrial sectors. As Tommy Sheridan and others have mentioned, different sectors face different problems. Those problems' origins are often global, but they are, nevertheless, important to the work forces.
It is right that—as is happening throughout the UK—there is a debate. The Scottish Trades Union Congress highlighted that a week ago. Manufacturing matters, but we also want to move to a knowledge economy. However, that knowledge and that technology are alive and well in the shipyards of Scotland. It is crucial to make that link.
There is no doubt about the Executive's position—we want shipbuilding on the Clyde to have a future. It is vital to a strong Scottish economy and every possible support should be given to help it to succeed. That is why, when there was a campaign to save the Govan shipyard last year, we all participated. The Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive worked together to ensure an excellent victory. What is important is that nobody in the Executive will walk away from the issue or from the need to secure the work that will maintain the yard after last year's victory.
The ro-ro ferry order was never going to be easy to win. Competition under European procurement rules was bound to be fierce, but I say to all colleagues in Parliament that the Executive, in common cause with the Scotland Office, is supporting every effort to reinforce the arguments that the industry is putting forward. We all—the work force, parliamentarians, the community and the management of BAe—have a good case to put.
In addition to that—and I say this to Gordon Jackson in particular—everybody in government at Westminster knows about the importance and sensitivity of the issue. A great deal of work is being done and will continue to be done.
What stage are we at regarding the possibility of reclassification of the order? The stumbling block appears to be its military application. Is there any possibility that the order will be reclassified to a higher military level? It was suggested to me in the street today that to put the ships on the Royal Navy's active reserve list would mean that the criteria were being met.
These are all matters that have been in the public arena before and are being considered by all concerned. Let me answer the point that Trish Godman made by referring to what was said at Westminster on 17 April. What is encouraging is that it was Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, who stated:
"We hope to be in a position to announce a preferred bidder to meet our long-term strategic sealift requirement later this year."
For most of us, that is ro-ro ferries.
"We also expect to place contracts for Survey Vessels during the summer, for Demonstration and First of Class Manufacture of the new Type 45 Anti-Air Warfare Destroyer in the autumn, and for the Alternative Landing Ship Logistic (ALSL) in late 2000." [Official Report, House of Commons, 17 April 2000; Vol 348, c 56W.]
The decision on that was expected in April; it was expected after Easter. The Secretary of State for Defence is now saying that it will be made later this year. We have to use that time. This Parliament, the Scotland Office, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the First Minister, the work force, the management, the local community and the enterprise agencies must keep reinforcing the central message. There is no point in just saying that the yard deserves a future. We know that the yard has the skills and capacity to deal with the type 45 warships, which is the prize that we can win if we secure the orders that we seek.
In relation to Geoff Hoon's comment in another place, the Prime Minister has also said that no final decision has been taken. That is the honest assessment of where we are in an extraordinarily complex situation. I know that, for the work force, the delay is prolonging the uncertainty, which is incredibly unsettling. However, complex issues are involved and, if the delay leads to a successful conclusion for Govan, I am sure that we will all agree that the extra time has been worth while.
Can the minister assure us that the decision will be made by the Cabinet, which will pull in all the departments on which any loss would impinge, and not just by the Ministry of Defence?
The representations that we are making are going to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Ultimately, this is a matter for Westminster. However, the Prime Minister has shown an extraordinary interest in the issue. I am not sure how the issue will finally be agreed on; I am not privy to that, although I can say that the matter is of sufficient import for the Prime Minister to be taking a big interest at this stage.
In the light of what the minister said a moment ago, is it conceivable that the rules would allow all or part of the order to be awarded to the Govan yard to preserve for the short term the capacity of the skills base and the work force? That would allow Govan to take on the orders that can clearly be allocated under the existing defence regulations to a British yard.
Westminster appreciates the time scale that is involved. There is a natural synergy in all this, because the Westminster Government, through the MOD, needs capacity that is skilled, committed and will put in competitive bids for the type 45 frigates. In the short term, we need the order for Govan to secure its future. That is a natural synergy, which has not been fully appreciated. In a curious way, the long-term interests of the UK are dependent on the short-term interests of Govan and the case that we are making for it.
Shipyard workers have proven time and again that they have the strength of will and the skills to endure a process such as this and to win through. I am sure that their expertise will help them to earn the right to build future naval vessels for the MOD, such as the type 45. The Executive, wholly supported by every section of this Parliament, will give them the broadest support to continue that campaign.
We have a Parliament that speaks for Scotland. Regardless of our political differences, this issue unites the nation. The strongest message that this Parliament can send is that we are united. We are at different levels of emotion and we are at different levels of wondering who is doing what, why this is not being done and who is speaking to whom.
Every possible effort is being made to ensure the short term, so that we can win the long term. Govan's long-term future is bright. It is about technology, skill and—more important—people whose jobs are under threat. Those people are represented here by the convener of the shop stewards and one of his colleagues. Let us fight together and unite, and let us be optimistic until we get the result that we want.
Meeting closed at 17:45.