§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)The shipbuilding and marine engineering industry is of considerable importance to the economy of the lower Clyde. The industry once dominated the local economy, but in recent years it has suffered what appears to be a remorseless decline. That fall from economic grace, coupled with losses suffered by other local traditional industries, is reflected in the unemployment statistics for my constituency.
Male unemployment is about 25.5 per cent. The overall rate—in both cases I use Department of Employment figures—is about 19.9 per cent. In the most dismal of all league tables—unemployment in parliamentary constituencies—my constituency is 15th from the top. I want my constituency to tumble down that league table. I want it to be at the bottom of the unemployment league.
It is my firm belief that if the Government take the decisions that I advocate upwards of 1,000 highly skilled jobs for adult males could be created within the next 15 months in the shipbuilding and marine engineering industry on the lower Clyde.
During the Prime Minister's visit to Greenock seven weeks ago she claimed that the newly announced enterprise zone on the lower Clyde would lead to the creation of about 3,000 jobs over the next 10 years. Naturally I welcomed that announcement. However, the enterprise zone will create entirely different jobs from those that I want to discuss. To be more specific, I am referring to job opportunities that could be realised within the near future at Clark Kincaid at Greenock, Appledore Ferguson at Port Glasgow and Scott Lithgow at Port Glasgow.
I readily accept that the market plays a critical role in the scheme of things. I agreed with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he said last week:
The prospects of having a viable shipbuilding industry, which we would all like to see, remain extremely uncertain because of the conditions of world markets.—[Official Report, 19 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 1114.]No one with any kind of knowledge of shipping and shipbuilding could dispute that observation. I believe that the British shipbuilding industry will for ever remain a shadow of its former self. The epicentre of shipbuilding is to be found firmly in the south-east of Asia.British ship owners have a major role to play in the market. They should order their vessels from British yards. Given the continuing decline of shipbuilding in Great Britain, some British ship owners will soon be able to say, to their secret relief, that no British shipyard has the capability to build the specialist ships that they require.
It will be interesting to see where BP, which has flagged out its tanker fleet, will place its orders for new vessels. Recently, Sir Peter Walters, chairman of BP, was whingeing about the possibility of a Kuwaiti national being appointed to the BP board. He might elicit more sympathy from the maritime communities of Britain if he were to re-register his fleet under the British flag and order his replacement vessels from British yards.
I return to the subject of Greenock and Clark Kincaid. A marine engineering capability should be an important element in a domestic shipbuilding industry. In that context, it is worth noting that Harland and Wolff has mothballed its marine engineering facility—I refer to the 632 British shipbuilding industry and not to that of the United Kingdom. British-built vessels, that require slow-speed engines or large medium-speed diesels should be fitted with engines built in Great Britain. Clark Kincaid is an outstanding builder of marine engines, and it is important to remember that it does not receive shipbuilding intervention fund support. It has completed all its engine contracts on time, within cost budgets, and to a very high standard of quality control. At present, it is building the engines for the two container ships being constructed at Govan for the Chinese Government. I am able to inform the Minister, with justifiable pride, that the Chinese superintendent engineers billeted in Greenock are delighted with the test bed performance of the first of those two engines—and I mean delighted, for I am not indulging in hyperbole. That first engine will be delivered to Govan in August, when the ship will be ready for its installation.
The quality of Clark Kincaid's engines is matched by that of its industrial relations. In my view—and I have some experience of these matters—the yard has a first-class shop stewards' committee, ably led by my old and trusted friend councillor Robert Jackson. However, the firm is handicapped by the growing tendency within the EC to order marine engines outwith the Community. The Minister knows that 94 slow-speed engines were imported into the EC in the period 1981–86. From 1981 until the present, Clark Kincaid has manufactured only 23 engines. Over that same period the company has suffered a 62 per cent. reduction in its labour force. In addition, there have been long periods of short-time working.
It appears that some EC shipyards, and particularly those in West Germany and Denmark—and I am trying not to be a little Scotlander—have received state subsidies to close the cost gap with the far east. The supply of engines to the EC at uneconomic prices from the far east and from Poland should be investigated by the European Commission. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that matter.
There is a fine relationship between Kincaid's and Govan. I was particularly interested to hear what the Chancellor of the Duchy said in last week's debate about the negotiations between Govan. British Shipbuilders, and the Norwegian firm of Kvaerner Industries. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
I can point out to the House that not only has Kvaerner made it clear that it would contemplate two orders for gas-carrying ships in the yard—and there must be hopes of more orders—but it wants to make west Scotland the centre of its gas technology business. If that were to happen, there would be prospects for many more jobs on the Clyde."—[Official Report, 19 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 1115.]I seek today a ministerial assurance that Kvaerner will be persuaded by the Government to buy the liquid petroleum gas vessel engines from Clark Kincaid, which is just down the Clyde from Govan. Will the Government impress upon the Norwegians the need to order those engines from Greenock if they are successful in their bid for Govan? If that were part of the deal struck between British Shipbuilders and Kvaerner, Kincaid's job prospects would be enhanced, and such an agreement would ripen Kincaid's chances of being purchased in turn. If Kincaid, like Govan, is to be sold off, naturally I want the best possible deal for my constituents who work there.Another deal in the offing would be of much greater importance to Clark Kincaid than the Kvaerner deal and it would involve the company recruiting 200 to 300 more workers. I refer to negotiations between North East 633 Shipbuilders Ltd. and a Cuban shipping company for an order for 10 vessels worth more than £100 million. Derek Harris, the industrial editor of The Times, wrote on Monday:
Negotiations on the Cuban order are expected to reach a crucial stage early next month,"—I believe he has the timing wrong, but that is what he wrote—but what is likely to prove the biggest hurdle is whether BS can persuade the Government to put in cash under the European Economic Community's intervention route.On Tuesday, the industrial correspondent of Lloyd's List emphasised the importance to Clark Kincaid of that order when he wrote:The Cuban order would not only be a boost to NESL but it would also mean the possibility of a 10 Sulzer 5RTA 48 engine order for the BS engine building subsidiary, Clark Kincaid, which is also up for sale.If Kincaid were to receive the Kvaerner and Cuban orders for 12 or 13 engines, not only would the company be able to retain jobs but it would need to recruit more than 200 highly skilled men. Incidentally, the Minister well knows that a large number of companies scattered throughout Great Britain would benefit enormously from those two deals.
United Kingdom suppliers of marine equipment likely to benefit would include Peter Brotherhood of Peterborough, which manufactures turbo alternators, NEI Clarke Chapman at Gateshead, producing cranes; Green's of Wakefield, which produces boilers; Stone Manganese of Birkenhead, which manufactures propellers; British Steel, for the plate and the bar needed; and Marconi of Chelmsford, which produces navigational gear.
What is the Government's attitude towards the negotiations between British Shipbuilders and the Cubans? Is it, as some of my hon. Friends fear, that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Duchy are reluctant to give their support to British Shipbuilders? One of my hon. Friends has been informed by a number of journalists that clear signals are being given by the Department of Trade and Industry that the Government may refuse even a 28 per cent. contract subsidy under the EEC sixth directive.
Is there any truth in that speculation, and is the Department reluctant financially to support that deal, if it is struck? What is the Government's position? Will the Minister give me plain answers to those worrying questions and concerns? I offer no apology for voicing those anxieties, because they are felt by many, not only in the north-east but on the lower Clyde. It is plain that the Cuban deal could have an enormously beneficial effect for many hundreds of my constituents, let alone the people of Sunderland.
Appledore Ferguson of Port Glasgow is another yard, mentioned by the Chancellor the other day, which may be sold in the near future. If that happens, I want the best possible deal for its 315 employees, for they, too, would be purchased, and it is right and proper that I should defend their interests. Can the Minister tell me anything about the approaches by potential purchasers? As with Clark Kincaid, I do not want any encouragement to be given to asset strippers, who are about as welcome as loan sharks in my community.
This is a specialist yard, or rather one of two such yards called Appledore Ferguson. The other is in Devon. The two yards specialise in ferries and aggregate dredgers, and there is an important niche in the market for both yards. 634 For example, the Devon yard has received two orders for aggregate dredgers, and the company is also negotiating an order for a ferry for Mauritius. Ferguson is the only British yard on a short list of three. I believe that the Government have promised ATP financial assistance, but can the Minister quicken the signing of the deal? If it is successful, the vessel will be built in the Newark yard in Port Glasgow. Can the Minister say anything about the negotiations? Will he also say what information he has about the decision of the Orkney Islands council to place orders for two or more ferries in the near future?
Given that Scottish Office money is involved, I suppose that that question ought to be directed to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Ferguson, however, is keenly interested in the orders. I have been told that the islands council is seeking tenders from foreign shipyards, which is an extraordinary state of affairs. Has the Minister any information on that? Can he also give any information about the contract for a new British Antarctic research survey vessel? That order will also be keenly chased by a number of British yards. Naturally, I hope that Ferguson, with its research ship construction experience, will secure the order, but I should like to hear something about the Department's involvement in the tendering. Other ship owners are showing an interest in the possibility of vessels being built by Appledore Ferguson, and I remain confident that the yard will survive—and, I hope, prosper.
Scott Lithgow, unfortunately, has had a chequered history. As the Minister well knows, it is now on a care-and-maintenance basis; in other words, it is close to being mothballed. Between March 1984 and today, employment at the yard has dropped from about 5,000 to just 100, with the loss of only two days' work owing to industrial disputes. That is a remarkable record, given the dreadful changes in the yard's fortunes. Scott Lithgow has the best shipbuilding union agreement in Great Britain, with complete flexibility and interchangeability of trade within the men's individual skills. The yard was treated very shabbily by the Ministry of Defence recently. As a result of that squalid treatment it lost its naval design and building capability, and can no longer tender for such orders.
I have to say, with considerable regret, that there is no prospect of offshore work for the yard. The only recent merchant work contract was the conversion of the Cunard container ship Atlantic Conveyor. That was an astonishing success story, which showed clearly what the yard can now do when given the chance. The contract was completed on time and to budget, 65 days elapsing between the arrival of the vessel and its departure. The steel work productivity achieved was better than that of any other British yard, and as good as the best in Europe. Incidentally, Scott Lithgow beat one of the conversions undertaken by a yard in South Korea, although in fairness I should point out that the South Koreans were hampered by a strike for better terms and conditions. What used to be known as the British malaise is now becoming the Asian malaise.
As a result of being denied access to intervention fund support, Scott Lithgow has had to pursue other types of contract. At present it is pursuing two orders, one for a floating jetty to be built for the Royal Naval armaments depot at Coulport, across the Clyde from me, and the other for a floating hotel for Antigua. On the floating jetty contract, it must be said that the consultants to the Property Services Agency, Rendell, Palmer and Tritton, 635 are civil engineers and unashamedly biased in favour of concrete. Scott Lithgow, along with Harland and Wolff, bid for a jetty to be built of steel. In my view, there are major problems associated with the use of concrete in that kind of environment. For example, alterations either during building or later will be very difficult. It is possible to drill or burn a hole through steel, but what is to be done with concrete? There could be a corrosion of steel reinforcing rods in later life, a problem encountered recently in the construction of the Tay bridge. Nevertheless, I think that the PSA will plump for a concrete structure, which, I regret to say, is bad news for Scott Lithgow and Harland and Wolff.
Scott Lithgow's submission on the floating hotel project must be close to arriving on the Minister's desk, and I am confident that his platoon in the Box will be able to help him. I almost called it a battalion, but "platoon" is more appropriate. There is an opportunity for Scott Lithgow to become a leader in this new form of maritime construction. The only other floating hotel in service is moored above the Great Barrier Reef, and is much smaller and much less luxurious than the one sought by Scott Lithgow's American buyers. A number of international hoteliers are planning to order similar hotels.
Scott Lithgow, if given the opportunity, would build the first of the luxury suite accommodation type of floating hotel. The competition from Europe, I need hardly say, is fierce and heavily subsidised. Can the Minister tell me what is to happen to the Scott Lithgow submission? Does it meet with ministerial favour and approval? The people of Inverclyde are anxious to hear the answers to those questions.
I estimate that if the project goes ahead, Scott Lithgow will need to recruit upwards of 800 people. With my estimate of Clark Kincaid's labour requirement, that gives a figure of 1,000 new jobs for the lower Clyde. Here is a superb opportunity for the Government to grasp. I know that it is the easiest thing in the world for a Back Bencher to offer solutions to problems which seem to bedevil Ministers—the Scottish Nationalists indulge in such behaviour all the time—but I assure the Minister that I am not engaging in that stupid game. On the contrary, as an honest and open critic. of the Government, I genuinely believe that the case that I have presented today is a good one. The Government have little support in Scotland. An increasing number of Scots believe that the Prime Minister and her Ministers secretly despise us for our electoral rebelliousness.
Even at this late stage, the Government could display the magnanimity that was extolled by the Prime Minister earlier this week when she addressed the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
In her Greenock speech, the Prime Minister referred to 3,000 jobs being created on the lower Clyde. I welcome that announcement. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred to jobs being created on the Clyde by the Kvaerner takeover. I am delighted to hear that if the takeover goes ahead, jobs will be created. I offer the Government the prospect of 1,000 highly skilled jobs for workers to be recruited within the next 12 months. How will they react?
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher)I thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for taking the opportunity to raise a matter which is important not just to him and to his constituents but to many people on the Clyde.
It is best to begin with something on which we can agree. The hon. Gentleman and I share a commitment to the creation and multiplication of highly skilled jobs in his part of the country. Engineering skills are embedded in the very chromosomes of the people of that region. The skills that he commended at such places as Clark Kincaid are well appreciated all over the world.
The question is how to produce a framework within which jobs can be maximised and which can give to the various yards and sites along the Clyde the chance to succeed in what we all agree is a very tough market which has been vigorously attacked, particularly by Pacific basin countries. We both agree that the creation of highly skilled jobs and the retention of those jobs is important for the region and that policies introduced either on a pan-European basis or on a United Kingdom basis should be directed towards providing help, bearing in mind that we have to live in the real world, the competitive world.
The hon. Gentleman voiced his concern about the future of two British Shipbuilders' sites—the Ferguson yard and the Clark Kincaid engine building facility. Between them, those sites support over 800 jobs and are therefore significant in the economic life of the lower Clyde. Ferguson retains a strong local identity, despite its merger with Appledore, British Shipbuilders' Devon yard, in 1986. Both yards have substantial work in progress. Ferguson is building a second Caledonian MacBrayne ferry which will be delivered in mid-1989. That vessel follows the first Cal Mac ferry which will be in service this summer. Ferguson does not build only ferries. It has a wide product range, including small product tankers, cargo vessels, tugs and offshore supply vessels.
The Clark Kincaid site at Greenock is the sole survivor of British Shipbuilders' engine building companies. Its sister yard at Wallsend on Tyneside was closed in 1986 as part of British Shipbuilders' restructuring programme. Employment at Clark Kincaid is currently 546, with an increase of about 50 people over the past 12 months. Clark Kincaid can build up to five engines at a time and is building two engines for the Chinese container ships that are under construction at British Shipbuilders' Govan yard. It has also recently won a £1.3 million order for part of a slow-speed diesel engine, together with components, to be delivered to the Belgian shipbuilder, Cockerill. That order will provide work until the end of the year.
Engines for use in land-based power generation schemes are another string to Clark Kincaid's bow. It has recently completed such an engine for use in the Cayman Islands and is looking at other opportunities around the world, but with its diesel engines it is not resting on its laurels. It is winning contracts for general engineering work, including work in the nuclear industry, as part of a diversification strategy. Recent examples include twelve 400-tonne winches for the offshore industry and blast-proof doors for power stations in the United Kingdom.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said during the shipbuilding debate on 637 19 May that British Shipbuilders had received a number of inquiries about the purchase of the Ferguson yard. Some of those inquiries have been from potential bidders who are interested in the whole Appledore Ferguson company. Some approaches have been for Ferguson only. Discussions are at an early stage, but my right hon. and learned Friend said that he was optimistic about a successful conclusion, a view with which I concur.
There have been four expressions of interest in Clark Kincaid, including an approach from the management who wish to buy out the facility. Negotiations began just over a week ago. All the approaches were entirely unsolicited, as was the approach by Kvaerner Industries to buy Govan, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced to the House on 18 April. All this is very encouraging. It shows that the yards have the real prospect of a future in the private sector. We welcome that, but the way ahead will present some challenges.
I should like to refer to the background to the industry before dealing with the hon. Gentleman's points. The United Kingdom has not been a major player in the world market for merchant shipbuilding for some years. Like most others, we have been swamped by the far east yards. The Japanese have succeeded because of their much greater productivity and efficiency. The South Koreans succeeded initially because they offered simple ships at very low prices, but they are now establishing themselves as builders of more complex ships, too. The Japanese are beginning to get out of shipbuilding, but they still retain a formidable presence in the market and will do so for many years to come. The Koreans are moving up market, and coming in behind are the Chinese, the Brazilians and some Soviet bloc countries.
The major Japanese yards have just completed a centrally agreed capacity-cutting programme, which has taken Japanese capacity in the major yards from 6 million compensated gross tonnage to 4.8 million CGT. South Korea has less capacity—around 3.5 million CGT. The South Korean response to the crisis has not been to consider any cut. It was recently announced that the large Hyundai yard, previously devoted to ship repair work, is to be used in future for new building. The South Korean yards have been cutting their work forces recently. They have scope for significant increases in throughput as they develop their efficiency and productivity. Moves on mainland China suggest that China, too, will be looking at its capacity and will probably make vigorous attacks on international markets.
Against that background—I make no apology for referring to it again—the new owners of yards on the Clyde will have to be mindful of efficiency. Their costs will have to be pared rigorously. I am not, however, trying to paint a bleak picture. These people know their business. Their judgment is that they can make a go of the yards. The Kvaerner interest in Govan is a case in point.
Kvaerner first approached British Shipbuilders a couple of months ago. It was looking for a new site on which to construct additions to its fleet of gas-carrying ships. Kvaerner Industries has long been a well-established and respected Norwegian company in the oil and gas-related sectors. It now wishes to move offshore because building costs have become too high in Norway. It has a high regard for engineering and shipbuilding on the Clyde. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a connection, going back a long time, is that senior shipbuilding experts 638 in Kvaerner Industries trained at Scottish universities, so they know the area and its culture. That is why the company has chosen Govan as its preferred new shipyard.
I cannot say how the negotiations will end because the discussions are still in progress, but progress is being made and a valuable first meeting with the work force has taken place. If the negotiations are successful, Kvaerner will bring a number of new orders to Govan that should provide work well into the future.
I have dwelt at some length on the prospects for Govan because I know that the yard's future is of keen interest to people along the Clyde. What is more, there is a strong chance that Kvaerner will make the area a centre for its gas-carrying technology. I am sure that that would be very good news for the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Kvaerner's potential purchase of engines from Clark Kincaid. That will depend on Clark Kincaid putting in a competitive hid for work immediately in prospect and for the medium term. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want the Government to issue some kind of edict saying that the company must order engines only from Clark Kincaid. Kvaerner believes that Clark Kincaid's engineering is first class. It is a magnificent engineer and just along the river. We hope that it will build strong relationships with Govan in the new dimension to business on the river, should the negotiations with Kvaerner lie successful.
It has always been the Government's policy to return British Shipbuilders' yards to the private sector as circumstances permit. In the meantime, we have been fully committed to the support of the yards. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy reminded the House of the extent of that support during the debate on 19 May. This is not the occasion—the hon. Gentleman did not make it the occasion—to bandy figures about levels of support provided by different Governments, but it is worth reminding the House that, since 1979, we have spent well over £1,850 million in contract subsidy and other forms of support for the corporation. Last year alone, £20,000 was spent for every job in British Shipbuilders. That is a great deal of support.
The Ferguson and Clark Kincaid yards in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have had their commensurate share of funding. The Scott Lithgow tale is well known. I shall take the case of the Ferguson yard in its various company forms over the years. As Ferguson-Ailsa and now as Ferguson Appledore, its accumulated trading losses until 1986–87 amounted to more than £33 million. That loss had to be met by the taxpayer. The figure does not include the intervention fund grants that were provided in support of individual contracts. During the same period, such grants were worth another £12 million for the Ferguson companies. Total support has therefore been about £45 million. That is a lot of money.
Clark Kincaid has also made substantial losses—£42 million to 1986–87—although I appreciate that not all of the loss is attributable to the Clark Kincaid Greenock works as it now exists. While part of British Shipbuilders, Scott Lithgow also needed massive support. Up to the point of sale, losses in that one company totalled a colossal £234 million.
The Scott Lithgow yard has suffered from a lack of new oil-related work recently and, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, employment is therefore down to only 100 jobs. New work outside the oil sector is being sought, including a rig conversion to a floating hotel for use in 639 Antigua. That may be a budding new industry. I note that one such vessel, if I may use that word, has gone into service on the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia.
Scott Lithgow was privatised specifically as an oil rig builder, not as a merchant shipyard. I say that because it is germane to the point about the intervention fund, which the hon. Gentleman has pursued vigorously. It would make no sense to support merchant shipbuilding at Scott Lithgow by offering subsidies when there is already massive overcapacity in the world. The floating hotel for Antigua will probably require aid and trade provision support. The case for such support is being considered carefully, but I cannot give a commitment today that support will be offered. The hon. Gentleman will know that, when considering development aid, we consider the industrial case, the commercial case and the development case. All those issues will be brought to bear.
Ferguson is on the short list for the order for the Mauritius ferry. That is encouraging, but there is stiff competition from West Germany, South Korea and China. We hoped that the order would have been placed by March this year, but the Mauritians changed the specification and the order is now not likely to be placed much before mid-August.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy said on 19 May that we are prepared to discuss support for new orders with potential private sector purchasers of British Shipbuilders' yards. We should have to exercise considerable caution over requests for support from British Shipbuilders, which has made very heavy losses on contracts in the past, over and above intervention fund support.
There is much talk in the press of the order for a series of standard cargo ships, and I know that British Shipbuilders has had discussions with the Cubans, but no proposals have yet come in and ECGD has not been asked to cover the business. The customer has needed substantial price support in the past, so we should have to examine any follow-on project carefully. I cannot say who would get the engines or, indeed, any other sub-contracted items, but I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the implications for other potential suppliers. Clark Kincaid supplied the engines for the previous Cuban order, so it is understandable that it should entertain hopes of further such business. I have to say, however, that that is a commercial matter.
640 As for dumping marine engines into the European Community from non-EC countries, it is up to the companies involved to mount an anti-dumping case if they consider their own business to have been adversely affected by unfairly priced imports. I stress that the price of the imports must be lower than is normally charged by the companies that produce the goods concerned. Low prices are perfectly above board if they represent normal commercial practice. The hon. Gentleman has asserted, however, that that is not the case.
There is no reason why the European industry should not make an approach to the Commission. The procedure is well established, but it is up to the industry to make its case. Nevertheless, my officials are available for guidance and advice.
Licensing restrictions are relevant to Clark Kincaid. It is discussing matters with Sulzer and Man-B and W, who are its licensers. I understand that the talks are proving successful. I hope that there will be a satisfactory outcome.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Scott Lithgow yard has suffered from the lack of new oil-related work recently and that, in consequence, employment is down to only 100. I went around the yard some three years ago. I suspect that it is now a much quieter place. That is sad. New work outside the oil sector is being sought, as I have already said. Scott Lithgow was privatised as an oil rig builder, not as a merchant shipyard, which is why it has no access to the intervention fund.
The Orkney Islands council orders will go out to competitive tender. We are not aware of any bids from overseas being invited. As for the British Antartic survey ship, interested yards are being invited to bid. Ferguson should register its interest with the consultants. I assume that that is in hand. The case for aid and trade provision support for the Antigua floating hotel is being considered carefully. I have mentioned the criteria involved and I am afraid that I cannot give a commitment today that support will be offered. The Property Services Agency has received a number of bids for the Coulport jetty, including one from Scott Lithgow and Cementation. The Property Services Agency did not consider the bid competitive and the companies have been told.
The House has appreciated the way in which the hon. Gentleman has presented his case on behalf of his constituents. I hope that I have answered most of his questions, but I shall examine the record of our exchange and, if there are any lacunae, I shall of course write to him with appropriate further details.