All 2 Debates between Angela Eagle and Lord Harrington of Watford

Vauxhall Factory, Ellesmere Port

Debate between Angela Eagle and Lord Harrington of Watford
Tuesday 20th March 2018

(6 years, 7 months ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Angela Eagle Portrait Ms Angela Eagle
- Hansard - -

I thank the Minister for giving way. All of us who have an interest in this issue welcome his interest in the automotive plant, but we want a little more from him than that, since he is the Minister. Can he give us an answer on the issue of rate relief? Will the entire area be given the special status that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) asked for?

Lord Harrington of Watford Portrait Richard Harrington
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Well, I have seven minutes and I will do my best to satisfy hon. Members, but as I say my door is open to anybody—

Angela Eagle Portrait Ms Angela Eagle
- Hansard - -

Just say yes now; it does not take seven minutes to say yes.

Lord Harrington of Watford Portrait Richard Harrington
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Lady has been in government herself, so she knows that sometimes seven minutes is not enough to deal with these matters.

The automotive industry is very important for the industrial strategy, which is our cornerstone policy. We have announced quite significant sums of money— £80 million—for battery scale-up facilities in the west midlands, and I believe that the automotive industry, with the advanced propulsion centre and everything else, is absolutely critical to us. I hope that can help the situation at Ellesmere Port, because it will provide a framework for a modern industry of the future.

As far as Brexit is concerned, I recognise exactly the uncertainty that has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and others. It is very important; we are not in “denial” about it. However, what I would say is that the automotive industry has been used as a model by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. For example, it was well publicised that at Chequers the automotive industry and its interlink with all of the companies in the supply chain, and everything in Europe, was used as an example; what my right hon. Friend would call, quite rightly, an “exemplar”.

Yesterday’s conclusion of the negotiations between the Brexit Secretary and Michel Barnier, with the transition period, showed that exactly the sort of thinking that we need for the automotive industry is recognised by our own Government and by the European Union. I am confident that that is largely the result of successful Government lobbying by the automotive industry—in which, of course, Vauxhall has taken part.

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Harrington of Watford Portrait Richard Harrington
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Yes. Thank you, Mr Rosindell.

Angela Eagle Portrait Ms Angela Eagle
- Hansard - -

Mr Rosindell—

Comprehensive Spending Review

Debate between Angela Eagle and Lord Harrington of Watford
Thursday 28th October 2010

(14 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrington of Watford Portrait Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a basic principle that spending money we do not have does not create long-term jobs? It creates nothing but debt, which has to be paid back. That is what the Government are doing now. That is what we need to do.

Angela Eagle Portrait Ms Eagle
- Hansard - -

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree that in an advanced economy with a social security system, if there is a recession, deficits will rise. That is why the deficit rose. What he suggests, if taken to its logical extreme, means that he would not be in favour of paying unemployment benefit to those made unemployed. They tried that in the 1930s and it did not work.