Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I said in answer to an earlier question, as I am sure the noble Baroness heard, that the specific release granted temporarily for the cashmere industry was based on the fact that it is a seasonal trade. It is surprising that the Opposition find it necessary to laugh at or be confused by a successful operation by a British Minister to alleviate damage to any sector of industry in Great Britain, or that they feel it is something to be wondered at.

Baroness Ludford: My Lords, is the Minister finding any understanding in the United States that while many of us want the European Union to be committed to free trade, there is some unease that there is too much domination of corporate power in some of these interests, whether it is bananas, GM food or hormone-treated beef? Is there any understanding in the United States that this is not just a free trade issue? There are also environmental concerns and concerns about corporate power.

Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I agree that these are complex issues and do not just reside on the relationships in trade, which in general terms are very good between the USA and Europe. To ensure that I do not stray too far into a long answer on environmental issues of sustainable development, perhaps the noble Baroness will read the excellent Hansard report of the debate last night which went into these issues for at least four hours.

Govan Shipyard

3.32 p.m.

Lord Rowallan asked Her Majesty's Government:

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, since its formation, the task force has had a round of exploratory meetings with a range of interested parties, including the management and workforces of the Govan shipyard and Clydebank engineering works, the local enterprise companies, local authorities and other organisations with an interest in the future of the companies. These meetings will, I trust, be the start of a process which will allow Kvaerner to dispose of its operations on Clydeside through arrangements that ensure continuing employment on the present scale in shipbuilding and engineering.

Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and wish the task force well. Will the Minister

22 Apr 1999 : Column 1233

comment on Swan Hunter's interest in the yard, and in particular press speculation that it is only interested in the yard for small ship manufacture? As this is the last major large shipbuilding non-military yard left on the Clyde, and we already have two small yards further down the river in the form of Ferguson's of Port Glasgow and Ailsa at Troon, does not the Minister feel that we have an over-capacity of small shipbuilding and that we should be concentrating on getting a large builder to take over the Govan yard to ensure the long-term future for the workforce of that yard?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, there have been a number of expressions of interest in the Govan shipyard since the task force was formed, and no doubt other expressions of interest have gone to the Kvaerner company as the owner of the assets. We were pleased, as was everyone on Clydeside, that Swan Hunter came forward with a proposition. At the moment that is in rudimentary form. It does not contain a business plan. It has gone away to think about aspects of operations on Clydeside in more detail, having met the task force; and no doubt that will be subject to commercial negotiations with Kvaerner at the appropriate time.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, are not the Government concerned about their economic policies in Scotland, in that under their policies we have lost 14,000 jobs in two years? Also, can the Minister tell me whether there is a possibility of advancing orders by the Ministry of Defence for roll-on roll-off ferries, which I understand are not subject to European Union competitive policy? That might be an important way of enhancing the bids for the new yard.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the figure quoted is not one that is familiar to me. From the statistics produced yesterday, the civilian workforce job series suggested that 25,000 extra jobs were created in 1998 in Scotland. Total employment has fallen over the year by 16,000. Noble Lords will be interested to hear that, based on ILO unemployment statistics, there was a decline of 5,000 in the unemployment figures in Scotland over the year, down to a figure of 7.2 per cent.--less than that of the North-East, Merseyside, Wales or indeed London.

On the second point, my understanding is that we have in prospect the possibility of building six ferries. These are commercial vessels. They need not be built; they could be supplied as part of a PFI order, and therefore the noble Lord is incorrect in asserting that they could be directed and would not be subject to European restrictions. I shall investigate that and if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I, at least, sympathise with the position in which he finds himself of possibly being the Labour Government Minister who presides over the demise of the last major shipyard in Scotland, especially

22 Apr 1999 : Column 1234

as I know he started work in that very yard many years ago? However, I hope he will be able to tell the House that the Government's objective is to save a shipyard that builds major ships, as my noble friend Lord Rowallan asked. That is vitally important. Is the Minister aware that any diminution of that role for Govan would mean a huge reduction in jobs? Is he further aware that that would add to the 16,000 fewer jobs we have in Scotland since this time last year? Lastly, does he appreciate the positive and sympathetic attitude of the Opposition in this case in contrast to the attitude taken by the then Opposition when Conservative governments had to face dramatic closures in Scotland.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, as a point of correction, I started my working life in a small shipyard with only 5,000 men next door to the shipyard in question. But we take seriously the threat to the building of large vessels in the Clyde. That is not in any way to diminish the achievements of Ferguson's shipyard further down the river which has been extremely successful in winning new work. But it would be the ambition of the task force--ably led by Sir Gavin Laird who has a great deal of engineering and shipbuilding experience on the task force--to try to ensure that we find employment through arrangements that maintain work at its present level. But I wish to stress that, although 800 jobs are threatened in Govan, almost 800 further jobs are threatened in Clydebank, not in shipbuilding but in engineering. We will therefore make every effort to try to get a positive outcome for both sides of the Clyde.

European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]

3.38 p.m.

The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 so as to disqualify staff and employees of European Community institutions from standing in United Kingdom elections to the European Parliament. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.--(The Earl of Dartmouth.)

On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

University College London Bill

Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Liaison: Select Committee Report

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

22 Apr 1999 : Column 1235

Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 49).--(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:


1. The Committee has given further consideration to the future committee work of the House. Our Second Report, Session 1997-98, noted proposals including:

(1) a new committee on Overseas Trade to review developments since the last committee on that subject reported in 1985;

(2) the retention of a sixth sub-committee of the European Communities Committee, added experimentally in 1996;

(3) a committee with functions relating to human rights;

(4) the introduction of pre-legislative scrutiny.

2. In addition, the following further proposals have now been put to us:

(5) a joint committee on House of Lords Reform, after the Royal Commission has reported;

(6) a committee to scrutinise treaties;

(7) a select committee on the Obscenity Bill [HL] introduced by the Earl of Halsbury.

3. We understand that the Clerk of the Parliaments plans to strengthen the staff resources available to serve committees, but that recruitment of additional clerks will not be possible before the autumn. Moreover, the availability of Lords to serve on committees and of accommodation to house additional staff are factors which limit the possible expansion of committee activity.

4. We propose to meet again before the summer recess to consider further what new committee activity to recommend.


5. At this stage we recommend that the Obscenity Bill [HL] should not be referred to a select committee. In view of the competing pressures we consider it inappropriate that resources should be devoted to a committee on a bill with no realistic chance of becoming law.


6. A strong case was put to us for the appointment of a committee to scrutinise treaties. But we have noted that the Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords has, in its consultation paper issued earlier this month, explicitly posed the question whether the second chamber should play a greater role in the scrutiny of draft treaties. We have therefore concluded that it would not be timely to appoint such a committee in advance of the recommendations of the Royal Commission.


7. A joint committee on the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill was appointed at the beginning of March, with terms of reference requiring it to report by the end of April. We understand that the Government is likely to propose further pre-legislative scrutiny of this kind, for example in relation to the draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill published with the White Paper Local Leadership, Local Choice (Cm 4298).

8. In principle we welcome the involvement of this House in pre-legislative scrutiny. But in view of the pressure for other committee activity we hope that it will be possible to co-ordinate the appointment of similar committees in future and to give reasonable notice in each case. Because of the variety of subject matter of draft bills, we endorse the appointment of an ad hoc committee for each draft bill.

9. We were informed by the Chairman of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee that that committee had accepted an invitation from the joint committee on the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill to submit a memorandum on the delegated powers in the bill. We welcome this development, and we hope that the example may be followed in future. When a draft bill is made available for pre-legislative scrutiny, it can only be beneficial for the delegated powers to be subject to scrutiny at an early stage.

22 Apr 1999 : Column 1236


10. We have considered the recommendation made in paragraph 50 of the Special Report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, Session 1997-98. That recommendation related to the examination of bills by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. After welcoming the practice of some Government Departments of responding in writing to the Committee's recommendations, the Committee went on: "We invite the Liaison Committee to consider whether all Departments should, in future, respond succinctly in writing to those recommendations from this Committee for which they are responsible. We consider that it could assist the House's deliberations if such letters were routinely made available to front-bench spokesmen on the Bill in question, and placed in the Library of the House".

11. We endorse this recommendation, including the proposal that copies of responses should be provided to front-bench spokesmen and placed in the Library of the House. Whereas responses to reports from other committees are expected to be produced within two months (or six months in the case of the Science and Technology Committee), it would not be appropriate to lay down a time limit for such responses. They need to be made in good time for amendments to be tabled to the bill in question. In some cases that will require Departments to act within a few days, and we recognise that occasionally the timetable for the passage of a bill may make the provision of a written response impracticable.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page