Proceeding contribution from Lynne Jones (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 26 January 2010. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Cadbury.
Cadbury
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is quite clear from the number of Members attending this debate that there is considerable interest in it. In December, a delegation of Birmingham MPs, including my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe), and representatives of Unite, who were fighting on behalf of the company, met Lord Mandelson to urge the Government to support the campaign to keep Cadbury a British company. We were grateful to him for using the power of words, but nothing concrete came out of the meeting except a surprising admission from the Secretary of State that new laws might be needed to ensure good stewardship of companies. The latest twist in the Cadbury affair demonstrates that this is indeed the case, and the Government must now urgently examine what regulations could be introduced to ensure that the interests of all stakeholders are considered. I am not an expert in this area, but I expect the Government to look to those with such expertise to put on their thinking caps. I understand that there are proposals coming from the EU for the stronger regulation of hedge funds. Other measures that have been suggested include the barring of short-term shareholders from voting in takeover battles, and capping the amount of debt that can be taken on. In an interview with the Financial Times last November, Lord Mandelson said that if he could turn the clock back, he would like to see more large UK-owned manufacturers because of their role in creating wealth. Looking forward, what action are the Government prepared to take to ensure that we do not have even fewer UK-owned companies? Before I move on to the future for Cadbury if the Kraft takeover goes ahead, I must mention the role of majority-state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland in helping to finance the Kraft bid. That is a cause of great consternation among taxpayers, who see the bank as using their money to put British workers on the dole, as well as stabbing Cadbury, one of their corporate customers, in the back. The argument that if it withdrew another institution would step up in its place does not wash with my constituents. It is the argument used to justify other dubious activities, such as selling arms or trading with repressive regimes. Surely such investment would be better going into good British businesses. Whatever the outcome, as the Member of Parliament representing Bournville my focus must now be on securing the future of the operation there, and joining other colleagues to protect jobs in other plants.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 504 c784-5
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Companies Employment Takeovers Economic recession Cadbury Kraft Foods
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-08 16:39:52 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614659
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614659
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614659