here - United Kingdom Parliament

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