here - United Kingdom Parliament
here - United Kingdom Parliament
here - United Kingdom Parliament
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
895 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 896<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman would not<br />
expect me to agree that our position is in tatters. As I<br />
made clear to him in the debate on the justification<br />
orders in Committee, when they went through with our<br />
support, we would very much welcome an opportunity<br />
for the Minister, alongside his colleagues, to go back to<br />
Sheffield Forgemasters and argue the case for making<br />
sure that it can be part of the supply chain. He is<br />
continually reluctant to do so. I suspect that that is not<br />
necessarily because of his reluctance, but because his<br />
colleagues are reluctant to argue the case.<br />
Charles Hendry: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman,<br />
for whom I have the highest regard, was going to<br />
explain what his shadow Cabinet colleagues had done<br />
in that vote. During that debate two weeks ago, we had<br />
agreed fundamentally on the need for regulatory justification<br />
and he was speaking officially on behalf of the Opposition,<br />
yet when it came to the deferred Division in this House<br />
a week ago today three of the most senior members of<br />
the shadow Cabinet voted against those reactor designs<br />
being approved. If they had won that debate, the whole<br />
nuclear programme in this country would have been<br />
brought to a standstill. If the Opposition are to have<br />
credibility in this area, we need to understand why the<br />
shadow Chancellor, the shadow Business Secretary, who<br />
is the one who will lead on issues relating to Sheffield<br />
Forgemasters, and the shadow Education Secretary,<br />
who is one of the most senior members of the Labour<br />
party, chose to try to stop nuclear power in its tracks.<br />
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): Is the<br />
stark contrast between those on the two sides of the<br />
House not shown in the fact that the financing arrangements<br />
for Sheffield Forgemasters were cobbled together in the<br />
dying weeks of the Labour Government w<strong>here</strong>as just<br />
five months into a Conservative-led coalition Government<br />
we have a comprehensive, co<strong>here</strong>nt national infrastructure<br />
plan for the next five to 10 years? That is the difference<br />
between government and opportunism.<br />
Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend makes a very important<br />
point. In the months just before the election an enormous<br />
number of commitments were made, and one of the<br />
first things that we had to do as an incoming Government<br />
was to identify which of them were affordable. We went<br />
through that process extremely thoroughly—I think we<br />
have been robust about it—and Sheffield Forgemasters<br />
entirely understands the decisions that we have made.<br />
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills<br />
leads on supporting businesses in these areas and my<br />
Department feeds closely into that process. We want<br />
Sheffield Forgemasters, which is an outstanding example<br />
of a British manufacturing company, to have a key role<br />
to play in the future. However, on the basis that I have<br />
outlined, we did not believe it was appropriate for the<br />
loan to go ahead.<br />
John Woodcock: I hope the Minister will accept that<br />
it is important to correct what the hon. Member for<br />
Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said if the Government<br />
are to retain credibility on this issue. Does the<br />
Minister accept that the issue of this loan was being<br />
negotiated for more than a year, including the time<br />
when Lord Hutton was Business Secretary, and that it<br />
was very carefully considered by that Department over<br />
that period?<br />
Charles Hendry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman<br />
for that intervention. As a new Government coming in,<br />
we had to look at the financial commitments that we<br />
were inheriting. We had to decide which were bad<br />
decisions—the Sheffield Forgemasters loan absolutely<br />
did not come into that category—and which were the<br />
decisions we viewed as simply not affordable. Of course<br />
we would love to be able to shower money on a range of<br />
good projects around the country, but t<strong>here</strong> is no scope<br />
for doing so. As we know from the former Chief Secretary<br />
to the Treasury, t<strong>here</strong> was no money left. That was what<br />
the outgoing Government told us.<br />
Several hon. Members rose—<br />
Charles Hendry: I am keen to get back to some of the<br />
areas w<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> is consent and general agreement, but<br />
I will of course give way to the Opposition spokesman.<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for<br />
giving way. Will he acknowledge that this issue is pertinent<br />
to our debate on our national infrastructure and the<br />
supply chain? It is my clear understanding, unless the<br />
Minister can disabuse me of this, that only one other<br />
global supplier makes the piece that Sheffield Forgemasters<br />
was going to make. If the company had been given that<br />
repayable loan, which would have been repaid to the<br />
Government in short order, it would have led the global<br />
supply chain—not just for the UK but for export—in<br />
the reactors that we passed the justification orders for<br />
last week. It is a clear own goal. I ask the Minister to go<br />
back to his BIS and Treasury colleagues to see whether<br />
t<strong>here</strong> is still an opportunity to bring the measure forward.<br />
It is not too late.<br />
Charles Hendry: The hole in the argument is that the<br />
hon. Gentleman makes that case on behalf of the<br />
Opposition when the shadow Business Secretary, shadow<br />
Chancellor and shadow Education Secretary voted against<br />
the nuclear programme. As long as the shadow Cabinet<br />
has anti-nuclear sentiments at its highest level, any<br />
suggestion that the Opposition want a nuclear renaissance<br />
is fundamentally questionable.<br />
Albert Owen rose—<br />
Charles Hendry: I am keen to move on to other<br />
issues, but as the hon. Gentleman has such a strong<br />
constituency interest in new nuclear I shall give way.<br />
Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman and I were both<br />
very solid on nuclear power in the last <strong>Parliament</strong> when<br />
the then Leader of the Opposition thought that it<br />
should be a last resort. I am pleased that the new<br />
Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have made<br />
their journey and are in the same position as the Minister<br />
and I. The point about the supply chain is important. I<br />
know—the shadow spokesman is right—that if this<br />
work does not go ahead in Sheffield, Korea is the next<br />
port of call. That is not in the British interest. Will the<br />
Minister consider that as we go through these new<br />
policies and talk about infrastructure, so that we can<br />
keep British jobs and British business in the supply<br />
chain to help the nuclear industry?<br />
Charles Hendry: I have said several times that our<br />
decision is no reflection on the quality of the workmanship<br />
at Sheffield Forgemasters. The Government came in,