Vauxhall/Opel: Proposed Takeover

Debate between Greg Clark and John Redwood

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I thought it was important to have discussions immediately with both parties to the negotiations. It is fair to say that, as a deal has not been concluded and discussions are continuing, the prospective purchaser is clearly not in a position to give contractual guarantees. One of the important reasons for meeting was to have a clear understanding of the prospective purchaser’s purpose and to commit to having further meetings as the discussions continue—I will be having a further meeting later in the week. Of course, the conditions for workers and pensioners are uppermost in the discussions.

In the context of Brexit, I made it clear, as the Prime Minister did in her speech at Lancaster House, that we want to negotiate the best possible access to the single market, free of tariffs and bureaucratic impediments. It is also important to reflect on the fact that we have a very strong and successful domestic market, with Vauxhall having a particularly strong share of it. That was mentioned to me by both parties, GM and PSA; they are very aware of that, and we will emphasise it in the days and weeks ahead.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Are the Government considering their policy on when, why and how to intervene in mergers that could be damaging to British jobs and the public interest?

[Greg Clark]

In the context of the Hinkley Point C decision, we said that we would come forward with measures to govern the critical national infrastructure regime. In addition, we have proposed some changes to our corporate governance regime, and we will be making suggestions as to how we can keep our merger regime up to date.

Industrial Strategy Consultation

Debate between Greg Clark and John Redwood

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Yes, I do. I said at the beginning of my statement that, as a Government and, hopefully, a country that believe in free trade, we want to have the best possible access to the single market. We continue to be a very attractive destination, but we want to be even more attractive, which is why we have set out our commitment to upgrading science and research, building better technical skills, and improving our infrastructure. Those are investments and policies that will enhance the reputation and attractiveness of the British economy.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

When reviewing procurement, will the Government ensure that, under this new strategy, we will find all those areas where British companies can supply goods better and cheaper and give them the contracts? At the moment, we are importing large quantities of military vehicles, building materials, steel for submarines and medical equipment, all of which we could make competitively here if we had an intelligent Government customer.

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend is right. He will see that there are various proposals on procurement that I hope will have his support. One in particular opens up Government procurement to smaller and medium-sized enterprises, which, too often, have found that the bureaucracy associated with procurement regimes has kept them off the list. That is something that we can reform.

Hinkley Point C

Debate between Greg Clark and John Redwood

Thursday 15th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman raised a large number of points, and I will address them. I hope that we share the view that a confident, long-term energy policy is vital to ensuring that people have access to secure energy that is affordable and clean, and that we should be a world leader in these important energy industries. I hope that he will not think it churlish of me to point out the complete absence of a long-term energy policy during Labour’s 13 years in government, when our nuclear fleet was known to be coming to the end of its life, yet no decision was taken to replace it. It has fallen to this Government to make the long-term decisions for the security of this country. Instead of making like the ostrich and hoping that the problem would go away, this Government are looking to the future, providing the upgrade to our long-term energy security that we need.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s position today, I am afraid that I am as confused as ever. His position is no more credible. He seems to be criticising the Prime Minister and the Government for taking the serious decision to review the components of a very important deal—that seems to be the import of his remarks. He said that this had damaged confidence, but when the announcement was made on 29 July, he told the BBC:

“I’m hoping what they will do is take two to three months to seriously review it”.

So much for the suggestion that we should not have had the review in the first place—although I am not sure what the purpose of that two or three months would be, because the very same day he said that he had already made his mind up. He said that he would not scrap the proposal

“because I welcome the jobs and I welcome the 7% of electricity that this will produce for the nation.”

That is from the hon. Gentleman who was urging the Government to take longer to review something, the conclusions of which he had already agreed in the first place. The contrast between that and the seriousness and forensic approach of the Government is marked.

I will address the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The powers under the Enterprise Act are subject to takeover thresholds. We are ensuring that any change in ownership or control, of whatever size, will be covered by a national security test. That seems to be sensible.

On Hinkley, until we proposed these changes to the contract, EDF was at liberty to sell its majority stake in that important investment without even needing the permission of the UK Government. Therefore, it seems sensible and prudent to have agreed straightforwardly with EDF that the UK Government’s consent should be required.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who I would have thought would take a prudent view of matters of national security, should suggest—again, it is not clear—that we should not make these changes. When we debate these matters, he will be able to set out whether he opposes the measures we are taking to safeguard and entrench the same regime for national security in this country that other advanced economies enjoy.

I was clear in my statement that this is the first of what we hope will be a series of new nuclear investments. Just about 20% of power is generated by nuclear. It is important that there is another contribution to a diverse energy mix from nuclear. In so doing, we create new jobs, new opportunities and major advances for the UK economy.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I welcome proposals to make it more difficult for foreign interests, especially nationalised industries and Governments, to buy our crucial infrastructure. Does the Secretary of State agree that future power stations would be much better financed by private sector British investors or even on occasion by Treasury investment, rather than foreign investors, who will be able to take enormous sums of money out of our country for 25 years or more while the project is up and running, which is a cost on the balance of payments that we do not want?

[Greg Clark]

I welcome overseas investment of £18 billion in the UK economy. I hope that, as we develop our nuclear programme and skills and as the supply chain prospers, British companies will invest in the various parts of the new nuclear supply chain. In fact, we expect that to happen, with 64% of the value going to UK companies. However, it is an important part of the deal that the consumer and taxpayer will not pay a penny for construction costs unless and until the plant generates electricity. Knowing the record of cost overruns and delays to new nuclear power stations, I think it is prudent that that risk be held by the investors, rather than the taxpayer.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Greg Clark and John Redwood

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution. She will know from her colleagues in Scotland that setting the local government financial framework is a delicate matter. It involves a lot of decisions that affect people in different ways, and I hope she will acknowledge that I have done this in a fair way. She talks about the transitional relief lasting for two years. This will happen because the shape of the settlement will see resources increasing towards the end of the period, as the social care precept and the Better Care Fund take effect. However, colleagues across the House felt that the first two years would be the most severe time, and I therefore felt it right to focus the transitional relief on that period. The hon. Lady mentioned an assessment of needs, and I completely agree with her. The review to which I have committed will look at all the needs, and it will consider not only the demographic pressures but the cost of delivering services, because that is a fair way to proceed.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give me any more detail on how the welcome transitional relief will abate the severe cuts in his original plans for both Wokingham and West Berkshire?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. I was grateful to my right hon. Friend for his meeting with me and the representations he made. Again, both of his local authorities felt that the early years were the most pressing, so I can confirm that there will be transitional funding for West Berkshire of £1.4 million and for Wokingham of £2.1 million in the year ahead. I think that will be welcomed by his authority, following my having carefully studied its representations to me.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Greg Clark and John Redwood

Monday 2nd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I will come on to address those points, but I say now that the reason it helps is that we are requiring a new home to be built for every home that is sold to council tenants, and that will improve the housing stock in London.

We had a decade when the housing market almost ground to a complete halt and home ownership fell for the first time since the 1960s. It was a period in which the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who is in his place, said, reflecting the shared view, that the Government whom he had supported for 13 years did not build enough homes. Other Labour Members, including Front Benchers such as the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), agreed, concluding that Labour did not do enough when in government. We agree. As is obvious from what I have said, Governments of different parties did not do enough over the years.

During the previous Parliament, home building revived and we got Britain building again. We scrapped the regional spatial strategies and we reformed planning policy. That was fiercely resisted at the time. Some of us, including the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), who I believe is to wind up for the Opposition, will remember those debates, in which Members were very critical of our proposals. Now, three years on, nearly 250,000 homes a year are receiving planning permission—up by nearly 60% since 2010.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State send a very clear message to councils that there is a huge demand from people who want to be homeowners for affordable homes that they can purchase, and that councils can hit their affordable home targets by bringing those forward?

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we reflect on years past, we see that when 86% of people aspire to become homeowners it is not just homes for rent that are needed, but affordable homes for purchase. We are correcting what has been a historical anomaly.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Debate between Greg Clark and John Redwood

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I guess we have to get used to rival Opposition amendments these days, but I look forward to hearing the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen).

The Conservative party promised that if elected it would begin a bold new era of devolution. We made that promise because, as hon. Members on both sides of the House would recognise, over the course of the best part of a century, this country became one of the most centralised in the free world. Our cities, towns and counties became progressively more dominated by Westminster; local leaders had their undoubted dynamism and energy curbed and were made to conform to what Whitehall required; and our economy became unbalanced, its local strengths undermined by over a century of central direction from London.

People who know and love their communities have seen their good ideas frustrated, and the public’s enthusiasm for local democracy has unsurprisingly withered. The damage caused by over-centralisation is not only political; as Members know, seven of the eight largest cities outside London have for some time had a GDP per head below the national average. That stands in contrast to the experience of other European countries, where the major regional centres of their economies power the national economy ahead. If they can do it, we can do it, and we are determined so to do.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Crucial to devolution is who controls the money. We are currently negotiating the new Scottish settlement, which must mean a new settlement for England, and I hope that England will have a strong and sensible voice in that. We will now have a new determination on business rates and councils, so will the Secretary of State explain how the money might work under the new regime?

[Greg Clark]

I will. The idea that business rates raised locally can be retained by local government, rather than being sent to the Treasury, is a major step forward that colleagues in local government agreed and for which many have campaigned over many years. Having made that commitment, it was right to announce it so that our colleagues in local government could help us with the important work of putting in place arrangements to protect authorities that do not collect enough in business rates at the moment to pay for their services. It is right that that be done collaboratively, and the Chancellor announced the arrangements in order to initiate that conversation.