(Sefton Central) (Lab):...The
steel industry outlined how the industry was then lurching from
crisis to crisis, and to a degree it still is. Over a number of
years, the laissez-faire approach to the production of steel has
been at the heart of that. Steel is a crucial national industry:
it is critical to our national security and it is critical, or it
should be, to our infrastructure production. We should be
supporting that industry. That is what our amendments are about,
and steel is a very important example. There are other examples
of the Conservatives’ reluctance to show an interest in
nationally significant businesses, such as the takeover
of Morrisons by
Clayton, Dubilier & Rice just recently—another business of
great importance to national infrastructure.
Amendments 14 and 15 would ensure that rescuing and restructuring
subsidies can be given to ailing or insolvent enterprises if they
are of vital strategic importance.
(West Aberdeenshire and
Kincardine) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman expand on
how Morrisons would
fit into the definition of “national critical infrastructure”, as
set out in amendment 14?
: Morrisons, as one of the big
four supermarkets, is crucial to our national economy. The
problem is that the Government do not show enough interest in
businesses of such strategic importance.
: Will the hon. Gentleman
give way on that point?
: As the hon. Gentleman
has been wearing a mask today, I will.
: I thank the hon.
Member; he is too kind. The decision to allow Morrisons to
be taken over, in the way that it was, was made because it was
deemed that that would be good value for shareholders, but also
good for the company in general—it would be able to reinvest in
its infrastructure here, in the United Kingdom. The decision was
actually supporting one of the big four supermarkets to provide
jobs and employment for this country. To try to define it in this
way and say that the Government should step in when businesses
like that are under threat of takeover—even when those takeovers
could be to the advantage of that company and to the British
people—would be, I think, a retrograde step.
: I am grateful to the
hon. Gentleman for intervening. I think he is rather missing the
point, which I tried to explain the first time around. I am
making the point that the Government showed no interest in what
was going on with Morrisons
nor the merits of what was happening....
(Thirsk and Malton)
(Con):...I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about national
infrastructure and inward investment, but would he and the hon.
Member for Aberavon not concede that Tata’s investment in the UK
steel industry is important? Investments in Jaguar Land Rover,
which was a failing business before it was taken over, were
important for the UK and they protected and effectively created
lots of jobs. If the hon. Member for Sefton Central thinks that
foreign direct investment in the UK is bad—I know Morrisons is
an important company in Yorkshire—is it also bad that our
UK-based private equity businesses invest in other countries?
To read the complete debate, CLICK HERE
