| Home Page |
Column 777
Oral Answers to Questions
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Newspaper Carriage Charges
1. Mr. Spellar: To ask the President of the Boardof Trade what discussions he has had with representatives of newsagents regarding carriage charges bywholesalers. [26803]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): My officials met representatives of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents on 8 June regarding recent increases in wholesalers' carriage charges.
Mr. Spellar: I am sorry that the Minister is not able to be more forthcoming about the welcome meeting that he held with newsagents. Does he accept their enormous importance to the thousands of shopping parades across the country? Does he also accept that the recent dramatic increase in carriage charges is crippling many newsagents? Are not the magazine and newspaper publishers trying to recoup the cost of the price war by trying to extract more profit from newsagents? What exactly does the Minister intend to do about that?
Mr. Evans: There is not a Member of the House who does not recognise the important role played by small newsagents in every constituency. I have spoken to representatives of the profession in my constituency about the current difficulties caused by carriage charges. However, the hon. Gentleman ought to know that the Director General of Fair Trading has a responsibility placed on him by the Fair Trading Act 1973 to keep these matters under constant review. I have ensured that the director general is fully apprised of all the concerns outlined by representatives of the industry and by Members of Parliament.
Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Minister has just said. Will he confirm that the Office of Fair Trading should monitor the charges? Does he accept that, since the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1993 and the changes in distribution arrangements mentioned by the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), there has been not just a considerable increase but in some cases charges have doubled or even quadrupled, putting the survival of many newsagents on the line?
Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is widespread concern about carriage charges. I am bound to say that it is not in the interests of the publishers to see small newsagents in such difficulties because it is retail newsagents who are responsible for fixed deliveries and it is fixed deliveries which set the advertising rates that publishers are able to charge. In those circumstances, the entire industry has a responsibility to ensure that the problem is dealt with. I am aware that discussions are taking place between the National Federation of Retail Newsagents and publishers with a view to resolving the problem.
Mr. Bell: It took a question from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) to puncture the Minister's complacency. The Minister should be aware
Column 778
that small newsagents are going to the wall. Many are going bankrupt because of the changes to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is not good enough for the Minister merely to say that he has met newsagents or to refer to the Office of Fair Trading. If there has been one report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, should there not be another?Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman should know that delivery mechanisms were the subject of the MMC inquiry in 1993. On that occasion, there were no adverse findings. I am well aware of the concerns raised recently as to whether the position has been changed by the events outlined in representations to hon. Members and to me. As the hon. Gentleman has had so much to say about the operation of competition policy, he should know that a responsibility is placed upon the Director General of Fair Trading to keep matters under review and all those representations have been drawn to his attention. I have no doubt that he will also be receiving representations from the hon. Gentleman, given the force of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend accept that certain parts of the country such as my constituency and the north-west have been particularly badly affected by the problem? The National Federation of Retail Newsagents has drawn attention to particular difficulties in the north-west. In addition to his helpful comments this afternoon, will my hon. Friend ensure that the Director General of Fair Trading is made fully aware of the particular problems faced by newsagents in the north-west and in constituencies such as mine in that regard?
Mr. Evans: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. For the benefit of the considerable number of hon. Members who have written to me, I should couple with that assurance the information that, as I have made clear in my responses, full details of the concerns outlined have been passed to the Director General of Fair Trading. In my judgment, publishers and wholesalers must recognise the particular role of retail newsagents. I am at least reassured by the information that discussions within the industry are now taking place. It is a complex industry and in the circumstances all the relevant parts of the industry are interdependent and interrelated. Further discussions between relevant parts of the industry cannot come too soon.
Indonesia
2. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions are placed on trade with Indonesia. [26804]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): Trade with Indonesia is subject to the normal requirements of United Kingdom law. There is no European Union or United Nations embargo on arms trade with Indonesia.
Mr. Corbyn: Despite the lack of an embargo by anyone else, does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on the British Government to recognise that the illegal occupation of East Timor has led to the deaths of up to 200,000 East Timorese people, that young East Timorese are being sentenced to up to three years' imprisonment for taking part in peaceful demonstrations and that journalists in Jakarta and other cities who attempt to
Column 779
expose the facts are being given prison sentences merely for trying to speak the truth? Should not the British Government stand up against such a monstrous regime and put a total embargo on all arms sales to that country?Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has made allegations in relation to East Timor which are not upheld in United Nations policies. Although the United Kingdom has not recognised the annexation of East Timor, we are relying on dialogue which is continuing at the moment under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General.
[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party which, like the Conservative party, supports the activities of the United Nations. Why, therefore, does he not observe the rules and regulations that the United Nations itself observes? There are no United Nations embargoes on arms sales to Indonesia. That is recognised internationally and it is recognised by the Government in dealing with any export licence applications.
Mr. Nicholls: Is it not interesting that Labour Members were prepared to junket around the former Soviet satellites in eastern Europe without mentioning anything about illegal occupation or the abuse of human rights which occurred there on a vastly greater scale than anything in Indonesia, yet they are prepared to malign and traduce a country that most of them could not find on a map if they were asked to do so?
Mr. Taylor: I should not like to comment on the geographical knowledge of Labour Members, but the abuse of human rights anywhere in the world is appalling and one cannot be selective about it, as the Labour party attempts to be, as between those friends whom they cuddle up to and those they do not.
Mrs. Clwyd: If the Minister is found to be at fault in his judgment that the Indonesian Government will not use equipment exported from Britain with licences granted by his Department, will there be a resignation in the Department?
Mr. Taylor: I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Lady's question, given that the Labour party is in favour of selling arms. If the Opposition are not in favour of selling arms, that would make for an interesting statement by a Front-Bench spokesman as it would threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country.
The Government's attitude is to take careful note of the situation in any country to which we are selling arms, and of any undertakings given by the Government of that country. In the event of a change, the position on export licences would immediately be put under review.
East Midlands (Exports)
3. Mr. Garnier: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what his Department is doing to promote exports from the east midlands. [26805]
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): My Department provides an increasingly comprehensive range of services to all sectors of industry in the east midlands. The improved services are delivered more and more through the rapidly expanding network of business links.
Mr. Garnier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the business link office in Market Harborough, which has been up and running since January, has already achieved great things for exporters in the east midlands? Would he care to
Column 780
comment on co-operation between his Department and the Foreign Office to achieve even greater exports, not just from my constituency but from the whole country?Mr. Needham: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the success of the business links and to the Government's export strategy. We recently announced in the competitiveness White Paper that we shall have 30,000 more companies exporting by the year 2000. We are finding £40 million worth of additional funding; we are holding more exhibitions and conducting more missions; there are more posts and more professional, better trained staff. We have more business links, more co- operation between business and Government, more information technology and more exports. The only thing that could possibly ruin it all would be the Labour party.
Mr. Tipping: Is the Minister aware of the participation today of civic leaders from the east midlands in promoting their document, "Give Us A Sporting Chance"? Will he look closely at that document, which sets out a number of recommendations for promoting the textile and clothing industry, especially its desire to export more?
Privatised Utilities
4. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the changes in productivity achieved in the privatised utilities since privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [26806]
The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Generally, the privatised utilities have demonstrated higher productivity increases than those of manufacturing industry as a whole. The productivity performance of the electricity industry and of BT is particularly impressive. In terms of annual averages between privatisation and 1993-94, the regional electricity companies' productivity was up 6 per cent., BT's up 7 per cent., PowerGen's up 15.5 per cent., and National Power's was up by nearly 21 per cent.
Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that no one has questioned Cedric Brown, Iain Vallance and company harder than I have about their salaries and emoluments? Does not the fact that footballers are being paid £15,000 a week put the envy expressed by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats into perspective? The reductions in the price of gas, telephone calls and electricity are what matters--not the sneering, envy and meanness expressed by the Opposition.
Mr. Eggar: As usual, my hon. Friend makes his point powerfully and effectively. BT's prices for domestic consumers have fallen in real terms by 35 per cent. since privatisation. Gas prices for domestic consumers are down in real terms by 21 per cent. Electricity prices have fallen by 8.5 per cent. over two years. Gas prices for industry are down by almost 40 per cent. in real terms, and in recent weeks there has been a fall of no less than 20 per cent. in interruptible gas prices, over and above last year. That is a record of which the privatised industries can rightly be proud.
Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that the privatised utilities are obsessed with getting rid of jobs and employees in order to make a profit? Last year, when
Column 781
BT's system was affected by thunderstorms, the company did not have enough workers to get the system working again and had to bring in engineers from the Republic of Ireland. Is that not nonsensical?Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman lives in another era. He forgets the time when there was a waiting list for telephones and there was only one kind to be had--a big black one. During that period there was nothing like the number of telephones in houses compared with nowadays and the standard of efficiency was unbelievable compared with the present high standard. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should assess the evidence objectively.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Although the Labour party does not want to acknowledge it, an amazing number of privatised industries have become international leaders in their sectors, setting the pace in profits, productivity and growth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the position with British Airways, British Steel, British Gas and British Telecom, and is that not the finest vindication of the correctness of Conservative privatisation policies?
Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Anyone who has seen, as I have, British Gas operating in Argentina or Kazakhstan will recognise the major contribution that British Gas is making to economic growth in those countries and in bringing profits back to the United Kingdom. We must recognise that the sale of services by utilities in the energy and telecommunications sectors is a worldwide effort, not a domestic effort within the United Kingdom. Our former state-owned utilities are leading the way for Britain. That means good profits and jobs for Britain.
Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree that the ability of directors of former public utilities to earn football players' wages, or to win them, is not related to their ability to score own goals? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on today's statement by the Centre for Regulated Industry that profits of £4,553 million were made in 1993-94 in the former public utility sector? Indeed, profits rose by about 14.3 per cent. What does the right hon. Gentleman suggest should be done to give some consolation to the consumers of electricity, for example? Does he agree that the regulator should give greater countenance and support to the other stakeholders--the consumers? A 14.3 per cent. rise in profits is nothing compared with price controls. Surely the regulator should be defending the consumers rather than the shareholders.
Mr. Eggar: Even by the hon. Gentleman's standards, that was a particularly churlish question. The benefits of privatisation have flowed through directly to consumers in lower prices in virtually all the privatised industries, and in higher standards of performance and service to consumers. The hon. Gentleman and the newspapers seem to have ignored the fact that the statement made by the centre that he mentioned referred to results for the year before last.
Export Trends
5. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's latest estimate of the trend in exports in 1995. [26807]
Mr. Needham: The outlook for exports in 1995 is excellent. The Confederation of British Industry reports
Column 782
that export orders are growing faster than ever before and that optimism among exporters is at its highest for a generation.Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. Does he agree that while past economic recoveries have been based on increased consumption leading to a balance of payments crisis, the present recovery is based on increased exports, which means that we can look forward to several years of sustained economic growth?
Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. At Question Time two years ago, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) constantly told the House that as we came out of recession into recovery our export position would get ever worse and the deficit would become ever greater. Perhaps that is why the Leader of the Opposition was sensible enough to move him to another shadow position. We are going through one of the greatest export booms of the century, which will bring untold benefits for the British people. Provided that the Conservative Government stay in office, there is no conceivable reason why that should not continue.
Mr. McAvoy: The Minister will be aware that Hoover Floorcare in my constituency is the only floor care manufacturer in Hoover Europe. He will also recognise Hoover Floorcare's record of exports to Europe. Bearing in mind the fact that the Italian company, Candy, has made a takeover bid for Hoover's European interests and that the bid, if successful, would represent a fresh and, I hope, new start for Hoover employees in the United Kingdom, will the Minister give an assurance that despite the remits of the Welsh and Scottish Offices in the takeover bid, his Department will encourage the bid to give fresh hope to Hoover employees?
Mr. Needham: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says, although he gave me no warning of his question. It is interesting that in this case he wants to see a takeover go ahead when his colleagues are so often against takeovers. The real question that he should address is whether the balance of British manufacturing is becoming more world competitive and improving the opportunities for Britain. In 1979, for example, machinery and transport equipment accounted for 34 per cent. of exports. Now it is 41 per cent. [Hon. Members:-- "Here we go."] Here we go, indeed--it is a success story for British manufacturing and the Opposition should support the Government and industry on that.
Industrial Job Creation
6. Mr. Riddick: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to encourage job creation in the industrial sector. [26808]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): Jobs are dependent on the competitiveness of thwealth- creating sector. The steps that the Government are taking to promote competitiveness are set out in the recent White Paper, "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead".
Column 783
The success of our policies is clear. Unemployment fell further today--the 21st fall in a row. Nearly two thirds of a million people have left the register since December 1992, total employment has risen substantially over the past year and manufacturing employment is up by 31,000.Mr. Riddick: Will my hon. Friend welcome the fact that in May unemployment fell not only throughout the country but in Colne Valley? Is he aware that manufacturing industry is extremely important in and around my constituency and that the key factor in increasing employment in the industrial sector is to maintain and improve competitiveness? Towards that end, will he confirm that the Government will have nothing whatever to do with Labour's twin job destroyers, the social chapter and a national minimum wage?
Mr. Page: My hon. Friend makes the point about the social chapter in a powerful and sensible fashion. Unemployment in the United Kingdom has fallen over the years, thanks not only to the Government but to the Prime Minister in obtaining the opt-out from the social chapter. My hon. Friend and the House may be interested to know that in the United Kingdom since 1993 unemployment has fallen from 10.3 per cent. to 8.6 per cent. while in the European Union it has risen from 10.7 per cent. to 11 per cent., in France it has risen from 11.7 per cent. to 12.2 per cent., and in Germany it has risen from 6.1 per cent. to 6.8 per cent. It is a matter of amazement to me that the Labour party wishes to embrace the social chapter and throw hundreds of thousands of workers on to the scrap heap.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for that lesson in what happens to those who are not party to the exchange rate mechanism. What message does he have for the railway manufacturing industry in this country, which is increasingly being forced into bankruptcy, not because it is not capable of producing jobs and manufactured goods but because the Government, in the total chaos of railway privatisation, have left it with empty order books and a large number of jobs at risk?
Mr. Page: As the hon. Lady knows, the matter of placing orders for the railway industry is the responsibility of British Rail and not the Government. Whenever Governments have tried to interfere in the purchasing process, they have usually made a complete and utter mess of it. I need only cite the National Enterprise Board and the chaos and confusion when the Labour Government tried to run various bits of the industry.
Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most impressive examples of job creation is in Hinckley, in my constituency, where the motor cycle plant is exporting 10,000 motor cycles a year? Is he aware that Triumph is No. 2 in the league in Great Britain and expects to increase its exports by 60 per cent. next year?
Mr. Page: My hon. Friend tells us a success story. It is an amazing fact that Opposition Members always try to condemn success stories. I am surprised that they do not talk more about the success of the Invest in Britain Bureau. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), for example, is delighted that Black and Decker has brought 300 jobs to his constituency, and no doubt the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) is happy that CMC has brought 550 jobs to his constituency. I look across the Chamber
Column 784
and see the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), to whose constituency the Koyo Bearings factory, which I visited the other day, has brought an extra 200 jobs. Then I look at the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), in whose constituency Bristol-Myers Squibb has created 161 jobs. I could go on for hours with the list of successes whereby in the years since 1979 a total of 700,000 extra jobs have been brought to this country. That is a success story.Political Donations
7. Mr. Chisholm: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will amend the Companies Act 1985 to ensure that information on political donations given by companies is made available to customers of the privatised utilities. [26809]
Mr. Jonathan Evans: I have no such plans. Customers of privatised utilities can readily obtain information on any political donations through disclosure in the companies' annual reports.
Mr. Chisholm: Why should shareholders in privatised utilities be told about political donations when customers, who have to foot the bill, are not? As the Conservative party has sanctioned the windfall profits and share option bonanzas of the utilities, surely the public should be told which companies have returned the favour.
Mr. Evans: In a sense the question is disingenuous, because when information on a company's political donations is disclosed in its annual report it is invariably disseminated in the newspapers. Furthermore, I note that the hon. Gentleman is the only one of the top 10 Labour Members in the draw to ask questions who is not sponsored by the co-operative or trade union movement--unlike the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who is sponsored by the GMB. Mr. John Edmonds of the GMB has said that he intends to challenge political donations: he apparently believes that they are unlawful because they do not buy political influence--unlike donations to the Labour party.
Mr. Jessel: Is not the word "utility" misleading, in that it seems to imply that if something has come along a pipe or a wire it must be more useful than a physical article or object bought in a shop? Is that not a nonsensical distinction? Why should someone who has bought a fluid or a gas which has come along a pipe be privy to more information than someone who has bought a physical object in a shop?
Mr. Evans: My esteemed and honourable Friend highlights the fact that what is important is the efficiency of the service delivered.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: How does the Minister justify the fact that utilities such as Thames Water can give £50,000 to the Conservative party by taking the money from senior citizens such as Thomas Monaghan, a military cross holder, who was charged £193 for the changing of a washer? Will the Minister hold an inquiry into that scandal and ensure that Mr. Monaghan and others know that money is being taken away from them to give to the Conservative party?
Mr. Evans: As the hon. Gentleman seems to have no difficulty in finding out what political donations particular
Column 785
companies make, why does he want to place a charge on every customer of every privatised utility by requiring the information to be sent to them?Deregulation Initiatives
8. Mr. Spring: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the importance of deregulation initiatives in increasing the competitiveness of industry in the United Kingdom. [26810]
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): As we made clear in oursecond White Paper on competitiveness, deregulation is central to improving United Kingdom competitiveness. Unnecessary requirements stand in the way of market entry, innovation, investment and jobs. We have a programme of repealing or amending more than 1,000 regulations and we are on target to deliver nearly 500 by the end of the year. We are also taking action to ensure that regulations are enforced in a business-friendly way.
Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the immense frustration in commerce and industry caused by the over-zealous application of red tape and regulations? In view of his considerable success in setting up one-stop shops, does he envisage the provision of specific help in providing advice and expediting the appeals procedures, which would be a great morale boost for the business sector?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises a most important matter. We are exploring the opportunity to improve the appeals mechanism and, with the business links, we are exploring the possibility of introducing a single point of access to information about the regulatory system.
Dr. John Cunningham: If the right hon. Gentleman's ideas and policies are so effective, why is it that, under the Conservatives, Britain has fallen to the bottom of the league of Group of Seven--the largest industrial economies in the world? As he is talking about competitiveness and always lauds privatisation, how does he explain that, in the past five years, increases in British Gas's productivity have averaged only 0.42 per cent. but that, at the same time, increases in the chief executive's salary have averaged 27 per cent.? How does he reconcile those things?
Mr. Heseltine: What the right hon. Gentleman fails to point out is the reduction in prices that have taken place over that period as a result of the improved management that has been brought to that industry. Consumers have gained--that should be attractive to Labour Members.
Sir Peter Hordern: On the question of deregulation, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is increasing evidence that when directives issued from Brussels are translated into statutory instruments, they become far more comprehensive, and that such directives are given different interpretations in different countries in the European Union? Will he therefore consider appointing an independent commission to consider carefully the way in which those directives are interpreted not only in this country, but in other EU countries?
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend raises an important issue. We addressed precisely that dimension of the European single market implementation programme
Column 786
when we invited Lord Sainsbury to set up task forces to consider our implementation of the directives. I am pleased to give the House an assurance that, if any evidence of over-zealous implementation were put before me, I would consider it most carefully.Competition Law
9. Mr. Cousins: To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent United Kingdom competition law is in accordance with the terms of articles 85 and 86 of the treaty of Rome; and if he will make a statement. [26811]
Mr. Jonathan Evans: Articles 85 and 86 apply to agreements and practices that may affect trade between member states. Member states are free to apply national competition law within their own jurisdiction. UK competition law is different in approach from EC law but both share similar objectives in seeking to ensure that competition operates effectively throughout the economy.
Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister not know that this country has no law outlawing fixed markets and cosy cartels, even when factories lie idle? We have no better example of that than Tyneside's Swan Hunter shipyard, which is virtually closed. No British company wanted to touch it. A Dutch company has bought it and its other north-eastern operation has been sold to another Dutch company. We have two new enterprises in our region. That is an example of real competition. When will the Minister crack open the cartels, under which far too much of British industry shelters?
Mr. Evans: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not begin his remarks by welcoming the news on Swan Hunter. That news has been welcomed on Tyneside and, at least, by Conservative Members. On his criticisms concerning the operation of domestic competition policy, the Government have made it clear that we are committed to legislate to improve the operation of the law on restrictive trade practices. It would be right to say, however, that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 introduced a number of changes which the Government had announced at the end of the consultation in 1993, and of which the Director General of Fair Trading is now taking advantage.
Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that some countries in Europe are still in breach of those regulations? For example, France continues to subsidise Air France and Spain continues to subsidise Iberia. Is he aware that France-Te le com and the Bundespost still operate non- tariff trade barriers? Does he agree that Britain, with its veto, still has a strong bargaining card in the courts of Europe and that the Labour party would throw away that veto and any influence that we have in Europe?
Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology continually battles in Europe on the matters that my hon. Friend outlined. We could seek no better champion.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: A moment ago, the Minister spoke about the Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Bryan Carsberg. Does he agree with Sir Bryan that Britain was in the lead in competition policy in the mid- 1970s but has now fallen behind?
Mr. Evans: No, I do not agree with the views of Sir Bryan, who subsequently left as director general.
Column 787
Mr. Geoffrey Preston currently operates in that function. Sir Bryan has argued that there should be a diminished role for Ministers in terms of the operation of competition policy. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman subscribes to that view but it would not command universal support in the House.Directors' Fees and Dividends
10. Mr. David Evans: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to limit the ability of companies to set directors' fees and dividends. [26812]
Mr. Jonathan Evans: Directors' salaries and remuneration packages are matters for individual companies and their shareholders. It is not the Government's policy to intervene in such decisions.
Mr. David Evans: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his reply. The lot opposite want to introduce the social chapter and a minimum wage and want to control directors' pay. Is that not a way of having a pay policy, a policy which failed so miserably in the late 1970s? Does my hon. Friend think that it is a bit rich that the leader of that lot opposite accepts £79,000 from three LWT directors who earned their fortunes from share option schemes? He got the leadership and his pay went up by 125 per cent. Is that the new caring, sharing Labour party, with one rule for them and one rule for us?
Mr. Jonathan Evans: I share my hon. Friend's views but I bemoan the fact that I do not possess his eloquence in putting them forward.
Mr. Harvey: In the context of the monopoly utilities, is it not the case that setting top pay on the basis of profits and share price gives top executives a direct incentive to charge the maximum price that the regulator will allow? Until those industries become fully competitive, would it not be better for shareholders to approve pay packages on the basis of a broader measure of performance which would include customer satisfaction, lower prices and environmental protection, to name but three? Will the Government consider bringing in an index of those wider measures, which customers could look at, perhaps as part of the citizens charter initiative?
Mr. Evans: I do not think that there is a role for Government in operating the sort of function outlined by the hon. Gentleman. The Government have always made it clear that salaries and remuneration are matters for shareholders. That was my original reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans).
Mr. Dover: Does the Minister agree that such matters are far better left to the directors of a company? Does he also agree that, under the Cadbury code, it is for the remuneration committee to see to matters such as directors' fees and top executives' salaries?
Mr. Evans: It seems that that view is shared not only by many Conservative Members but, according to the Financial Times , by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who apparently recently met Sir Richard Greenbury and Mr. Tim Melville-Ross of the Institute of Directors and assured them that Labour's new buzz words were co-operation, partnership and consensus and that its guiding principle will be minimalist intervention.
Column 788
Ms Eagle: The Minister's statements on this matter are contradicted by the Prime Minister, who said that he would be willing to think about legislation if those excesses carried on and if Greenbury recommended it. Does the Minister realise that he is putting his career at risk by disagreeing with his own Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box?Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for showing such concern about my ministerial career. I shall outline the Government's policy in relation to Greenbury, which is quite clear. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that he will await the Greenbury committee's recommendations and that the Government are ready to consider any proposals that Sir Richard Greenbury thinks may need legislative back-up.
Review of Public Expenditure
11. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade who in his Department is responsible for the Government's fundamental review of public expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [26813]
Mr. Heseltine: I am. All aspects of the Department's expenditure are reviewed annually.
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to hear that my right hon. Friend is in charge of the fundamental review of public expenditure in his Department. That is not the case in some Departments, which have left officials in charge of this important task. Does he agree that the recovery in the economy and the export boom that we are enjoying are the results of our firm control of public expenditure? That is in contrast to the Labour party, whose every word shows that it would increase public expenditure and taxation and put the recovery at risk.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. I am amazed that he did not add the social chapter and the minimum wage to the catalogue of disasters that a Labour Government would herald for this country.
Dr. John Cunningham: On the matter of public expenditure, what are the President's relations these days with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is responsible for scrutinising public expenditure? Yesterday, the President effectively announced two inquiries--neither of them independent, I regret to say. The first is to be carried out by Customs and Excise. He encouraged the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to embark on the other, by saying that his Department would co- operate in any such inquiry. As those inquiries will implicate his right hon. Friend in the shambles and fiasco over BMARC, how can the President maintain a sensible working relationship with him?
| Next Section
| Home Page |