Shipyards: Economic Growth

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I look forward to serving under your leadership this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for securing this debate and for an interesting, passionate opening speech. I also congratulate him and everyone involved in securing the Methil yard to make sure that there are jobs, opportunities and of course ships in future.

It is often said the Clyde built Glasgow and Glasgow built the Clyde. To anyone familiar with our city, that is more than just an expression: it is a way of describing the relationship that Glaswegians have with the Clyde. For centuries, it was a major shipbuilding river with some 30,000 ships built in yards in Glasgow and along the 116 miles of the Clyde. The expression “Clyde built” was synonymous with quality and was one that Glaswegians were particularly proud of. With the decline in shipbuilding, a major source of work, industry and pride was taken from the city.

As we have heard, the latest blow was delivered just this week when Ferguson Marine, established in 1903 and the last yard on the lower Clyde, lost out to a Polish company on a contract to build seven electric ferries for CalMac. Ferguson is a Scottish Government-owned company. It has been at the centre of controversy following delays and overruns in the construction of two new, much larger, ferries for CalMac. The contract for the Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa was originally awarded in 2015. It was not until January 2025 that the Glen Sannox was put into service.

I will skip the bit about a First Minister of Scotland launching a ferry in 2017, when it was incomplete and had portholes painted on.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Tell us more!

[Patricia Ferguson]

I was going to skip it because I thought I would save the blushes of the SNP Members present but, as none is present, I will carry on. It was the indignity of indignities perhaps to see a First Minister of Scotland launching a ferry with portholes painted on—something that was drawn attention to at the time, but did not seem to faze her. Perhaps we should have learned that the person in question was unembarrassable.

However, just last week, the ferry in question, brought into service in January 2025, was found to have a crack in the hull. Fortunately, that seems to have been overcome and the ferry is back in service. However, the award of the contract to a Polish company is very disappointing, as the contract for the seven new, smaller ferries was seen as a way of allowing Ferguson Marine to move forward, to put its troubles behind it and to build the kind of ships that it has expertise in doing. It was also a way to ensure the continuation of shipbuilding on the Clyde and the preservation of the jobs of the workers there.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) said yesterday, CalMac’s decision is incredibly disappointing and is a result of the Scottish Government failing to provide a direct award to the yard. That should never have been allowed to happen. Now no workers in Scotland, let alone Inverclyde, will benefit from those contracts. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that. By way of contrast, I will just mention that, in Stavanger last week, on a visit with the Scottish Affairs Committee, I saw a new electric ferry built in Norway, for Norway.

We have heard about the difficulties that many of our island communities have in reaching the mainland. We have heard about the issues that islanders have in accessing appointments and going about their business in the way most of the rest of us who do not live in island communities expect to, but an additional problem is caused by the age of our ferry fleet. People on the islands find it very difficult to go about their business island to island. The interconnectedness of our islands is suffering, too.

In my constituency of Glasgow West and stretching across the Clyde into Glasgow South West, we have BAE Systems, which makes the Type 26 frigate, which is highly rated around the world and highly adaptable, too. As well as contracts with the Ministry of Defence for eight frigates, Australia and Canada have chosen that particular frigate for their fleets and work is ongoing to try to secure a major contract with Norway, which would be hugely significant for both countries in terms of not just the export of the frigate itself, but what it would mean to our relationship and the defence of the two nations.

Last year, I visited BAE Systems’ new training academy, built at a cost of some £15 million. BAE recognised that skills in areas such as welding were in short supply in the UK and has set about training the workers of the future, as well as upskilling existing workers, and training the leaders of the future. The state of the art academy is teaching 200 young people every year about project management, the management of cranes and welding, to name but a few of the jobs that people are being prepared for. The way in which innovative technology is used in the academy is remarkable. The young people I met that day are clearly relishing the opportunities they have.

Obviously, BAE Systems is training the workers it needs for the future—men and women, to take the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello)—but I would be surprised if some of the skills acquired in the academy were not also utilised in our green energy transition, and in the transition towards low-emission ships and sustainable and environmentally friendly maritime technology. It is clear to me that those young people will ensure that the term “Clyde-built” will continue to be a designation denoting high quality for decades to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

That is indeed good news. The Conservative party, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, has supported the Government’s increases in defence spending. We moderately disagree on the pace of that increase, because we want to go considerably faster, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about the good news for that particular shipyard.

I ask the Minister whether, following the defence uplift, the Government will commit to construct all our military vessels in the United Kingdom. The link between economic security and national security cannot be overstated. A strong shipbuilding industry means a strong Royal Navy, ensuring that the UK remains a global maritime power. It also means domestic manufacturing capabilities, reducing reliance on foreign suppliers and keeping critical national infrastructure under British control.

The Conservatives understand that reality. When we were in government, our national shipbuilding strategy was designed to create a steady pipeline of work to provide stability for our shipyards and to ensure that Britain could defend herself in an increasingly unpredictable world. That approach guaranteed not just warships but support vessels, reinforcing our ability to project power on the world stage.

However, the Government’s delay in awarding many new contracts and the absence of a clear vision for the future of UK shipbuilding weakens our defences and threatens those skilled jobs. That threat extends to virgin steel production—a critical component in the shipbuilding supply chain. The Government have failed to negotiate a deal with the United States, whereas we secured the 500,000-tonne tariff-free agreement when in government. The lack of a deal is a real threat to the industry.

Shipbuilding depends on steel production, which is already suffering from Labour’s failure to negotiate. Will the Minister provide the crucial update on talks with the United States that people whose jobs are on the line are desperate to hear? We need urgent action to safeguard our economic and national security interests. Does the Minister have any ongoing concerns, or is she confident in the future of those sites? The Government’s handling of Harland and Wolff when the company needed financial support—it was threatened with administration, and the Government did little or nothing to stop that—was hardly a boost of confidence for the thousands of jobs that depend on the supply chain.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I thank the hon. Member for taking an intervention. I am not sure whether he misheard or did not hear the earlier part of the discussions in Westminster Hall this afternoon when Members on this side of the House and Liberal Democrat Members talked about the fact that Harland and Wolff was saved in both Methil and Northern Ireland. That is surely something to be celebrated across the Chamber.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, and it is absolutely good news that Harland and Wolff has survived, but throughout the entire summer, not long after the new Government were elected to office, there were constant asks for financial support that were not forthcoming. It took a very long time. This is fundamentally a debate, but I would gently suggest that the saving of Harland and Wolff—which I reiterate is good news—happened in many respects despite the early actions of the new Government and not because of them.

[Patricia Ferguson]

Would the hon. Member take another intervention on that point?

[Greg Smith]

It is a debate, so by all means.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I am grateful for that good-humoured response. Does he accept that the problems with Harland and Wolff did not just arise after a Labour Government were elected? Given that the Labour Government were able to announce that Harland and Wolff would continue and survive in December—fewer than six months after they came into office—it seems to me that the Government really care about the industry and worked really hard to make that happen.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful for the points that the hon. Lady makes. The point from my earlier comment still stands—I was the shadow Minister over the summer; I survived my party’s reshuffle—that many asks were being made by Harland and Wolff much earlier, and that was something that was not initially forthcoming. I fully accept the timeline that the hon. Lady sets out. This was not something that suddenly happened on 4 July, but when a new Government come in they should be judged on the speed of their response and exactly what is done to save that sector. We must continue to back our shipyards, provide long-term certainty for workers and reinforce Britain’s position as a global leader in shipbuilding. By doing so, we will not only create a prosperous economy, but ensure that our nation remains safe and secure for generations to come.