Hinkley Point C Reactor

Debate between George Kerevan and David Mowat

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Kerevan]

I am aware of that—that is the problem. Why is there a revolt on the board? It is not just the trade union members. It is true that a third of the EDF board is allocated to union members, union representatives and staff representatives. They are in favour of nuclear power, but they are worried about the impact on the company’s future. Why is there a vote? Why was the chief financial officer against this? EDF has a negative cash flow. Its debts are twice its company valuation. Its share price has halved in the past 12 months. How is it paying its dividend? It is doing so by issuing more shares and giving them to the shareholders. Imagine how insane that is.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Every point the hon. Gentleman has made is right, but insofar as the company is underwritten by its main shareholder, the French Government, the issues he raises are peripheral.

[George Kerevan]

I think the hon. Gentleman has summed up the incredible state we have got ourselves into. Somehow, it will be all right on the night. Somehow, the French Government are going to bail out the United Kingdom’s energy policy. I can assure Conservative Members that that is not going to happen. What is going to happen is the following: at some point, I suspect with pressure from the British Government, what is left of EDF’s board and senior management will override the resistance of the minority on the board and green light construction. They will green light construction at a point where EDF cannot guarantee it has the funds to complete building the reactor. At some point, there will be a crisis and who is going to pick up the pieces? I can assure the House that it will be the United Kingdom taxpayer, not the French taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan]

Of course, the strike price is subject to certain qualifications. Were EDF to build the reactors and make a vast profit—the strike price is more than twice the current cost of electricity and there is an increment for inflation—there would be a clawback. If it makes a profit beyond what was originally envisaged, some of the money would come back to the British taxpayer. The clawback was insisted upon and enlarged by the European Commission, so it was interesting listening to the Minister this morning on the radio, given her position on the UK leaving the EU. It was in fact the Commission that tried to stand up for the British consumer. That is one reason I will be voting to stay in the EU.

I have made the basic point, so I shall draw to a close.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Gentleman is making the case that the EDF board, which, with others, produces 70% of France’s electricity from nuclear power, is incompetent. Is it his position that the board of Hitachi is equally incompetent, given that it is also planning to build nuclear power stations in Britain, or has it not got as far as the SNP in its analysis of the practicality of the whole thing?

[George Kerevan]

I cavil at the word “incompetent”. The board’s decision has become politically charged. That is the point. The UK Government are desperate to continue with the project because everything is hitched to it and because it keeps the cost of building Hinkley C theoretically off the books—although it cannot remain so in the long run—and the French Government are committed to it because EDF is in a major financial crisis and they want to protect its reputation and give it a chance to grow out of its problems. If we make such decisions political, however, we make bad decisions—that is my point. It is strange that I have to lecture the Conservative Government on that.

Some of the senior management of EDF, knowing the difficulties, want to delay and want to get the funding in place. It was because the chief officer wanted the funding in place that they got rid of him. How can that be so? Aside from politics and differences on nuclear power, cannot the Government and the Department of Energy and Climate Change see the problems that they are getting themselves into? All they come back with is “It will be all right on the night”.

Public Finances: Scotland

Debate between George Kerevan and David Mowat

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

My remarks will be very brief. I take note of the comment just made on independence and the concern about the Labour income tax. My understanding in terms of what has happened to North sea oil is that independence would require income tax to go up by approximately 20p in the pound. The point I want to make, however, is that we are talking about two terms: “fairness”, which has been mentioned a lot, and “no detriment”, which has also been mentioned a lot. I am not at all sure, having heard the dialogue, that those two things are reconcilable.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said that we accept that the Barnett formula has been conceded and that it means that per capita expenditure in Scotland is 115% of that in England. That was what was agreed and it will presumably be the cornerstone of the agreement. However, it would not be right if, as a result of the agreement currently being negotiated, “no detriment” means that, whatever happens in Scotland and whatever decisions are made by the Scottish Government, the 115% ratio will stay the same indefinitely. I shall have a great deal of difficulty with that, as will my constituents. I should add that my constituents entirely agree with the concept of a Scottish Parliament. They agree that it is right for the people of Scotland to be able to choose their priorities, whether it is a question of prescriptions or tuition fees.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

In all his years of learning, has the hon. Gentleman not grasped the fact that the Barnett formula is specifically designed to bring per capita levels of spending in every region and nation of the United Kingdom to the same level?

[David Mowat]

In all those years, I stayed away from the Barnett formula, but since the hon. Gentleman has raised the point, I will respond to it. No one who has seriously considered the Barnett formula thinks that it is an attempt to be a proxy for relative need; nor is it true that the Barnett squeeze to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred really happens. I note that no Welsh Members are present, but the Barnett formula has caused a massive problem in Wales.

It strikes me that the formula presented an opportunity to the Scottish national party to show how progressive and internationalist it was. It seems to me that a progressive party of the left, an internationalist party, would not say, “We in Scotland want every single penny that we can get.” The approach of such a party would take account of need in Wales, in England, in my constituency, and elsewhere.

I ask the Chief Secretary, in the negotiations that he is currently leading, to bear it in mind that, however we interpret the phrase “no detriment”, the ratio of increased expenditure in Scotland—the figure should be higher than it is in England on the basis of need, but not as much higher as it is now—should not be allowed to continue and be built on, no matter what decisions are made in respect of the relative economies over the next few years.

Green Investment Bank

Debate between George Kerevan and David Mowat

Thursday 29th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Crausby, for giving me the novel opportunity of winding up from the Front Bench. I will try to add a little to the debate briefly.

The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) is to be thanked for securing this debate and for providing such a rounded and nuanced case—one that all of us here can agree with—that we might as well have stopped there and asked him to go and talk to the Cabinet. The substance of the debate, both today and in the Environmental Audit Committee the other day, is that everyone is convinced that the Green Investment Bank works. No one has come up with even a modest complaint about what it has done. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that it works and it has been there for only three years, so, in the standard form, if it ain’t broke, why try to fix it? If we move to a quick privatisation, I worry that we will in fact destabilise the existing operation, which is in its infancy. It will divert management time—time that is scarce—and expertise to selling the company, reorganising its culture and dealing with new owners, who are likely to be institutions rather than a widespread number of investors, at precisely the wrong moment.

The hon. Gentleman put well the point that the chances of the bank’s being able to borrow substantial amounts of money—possibly in the billions—to provide for further investment are very limited at this stage. I agree. It will be some years before the bank will be in the position to lever in the kind of money that the Treasury and the Government have been talking about. Selling it now is therefore premature even on the basis of what the Government think the bank will be able to achieve once privatised. The privatisation makes no sense unless the Government have an alternative agenda. I think they do. It is clear that the Government are trying to sell off as much of what remains of the household silver as possible to find capital to pay down the overall level of debt.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Gentleman makes two very good points: that if it ain’t broke, we should not fix it, and that the privatisation could cost management time. However, the bank’s management requires and has asked for more capital; that is presumably why both the chief executive and the chairman, who I guess must be part of the success of the past three years, seem quite keen to bring more capital in through this route.

[George Kerevan]

Having spoken to the chief executive I totally concur. The bank wants the facility to borrow more money. After all, for it to be a bank rather than a fund it will need to be able to think strategically and have funds in place; as we all know, it takes a long while to broker and deliver infrastructure projects. The projects delivered to date have been small scale, so if it wants to step up a quantum it will need large amounts of money in the pipeline. But that is covered in the existing legislation, under which it is allowed to borrow.

The worry on the Treasury’s part, one that I am happy to accommodate, is that if the bank borrows more money, that money will be counted by the various statistical agencies as part of overall debt. But that possibility is absolutely notional. The City is not worried—it supported the creation of the Green Investment Bank and has been backing it; indeed, it would not lend money in the medium term unless it was convinced that the GIB was a sound proposition as a bank. The impact of any loan on public debt will therefore be notional.

The Government—in particular the Treasury, which is driving this agenda—are trying to sell off available assets. Others, such as Channel 4, are in the pipeline. They are doing so to find capital to prove that they can begin to reduce the overall level of debt, which they have not managed to do so far. One accepts that that is the Government’s agenda, but in this case it would mean sacrificing something that the Government themselves have worked to bring about and that is successful. It would be a cheap sacrifice for a minimal impact on the overall debt.