APPENDIX 4
Letter from John Battle MP, Minister for
Science, Energy and Industry, Department of Trade and Industry
to Lord Tordoff
Thank you for your letter of 27 March, concerning
Sub-Committee B's enquiry into the Commission's proposal for a
new EU shipbuilding regime.
I am sorry about the misunderstanding that arose
over the Government's timetable for reaching a Common Position
on the proposal. However, as you will know, the pace of any EU
negotiation is not in the gift of any single member state, even
when that country holds the Presidency and the negotiations on
the new EU shipbuilding aid regime are no exception. It emerged
last December that a majority of member states wanted to reach
a political agreement on the Commission proposals at the Industry
Council in May. My Department fully supported this approach, as
the House of Common's Select Committee on European Legislation
made clear in their Ninth Report (paragraph 2.12) of 3 December
1997. I appreciate it would have been more helpful if we notified
you direct of our revised timetable. I am sorry we did not do
this.
The Government believes that, in the absence
of the OECD Agreement, the Commission's contingency proposals
will provide a good basis for developing a more viable UK shipbuilding
industry as they will eliminate contract aid, a major source of
market distortion and provide support measures for improving competitiveness
similar to those enjoyed by other sectors of EU industry. We consider
that there is a real prospect of success at the May Industry Council,
but we assess the chances of success as much lower if the proposal
were to be deferred to the November Council as the momentum of
support for the Commission's proposals could easily have dissipated
by then. It would, therefore, greatly help the UK Presidency's
negotiating stance of your Committee could lift its scrutiny reserve
before 7 May.
2 April 1998
|
