| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Greenbury Report
6. Mr. Hain: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the Greenbury report. [7081]
Mr. Jack: Since the publication of the report my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a number of representations, both written and oral.
Mr. Hain: Surely there is a strong case for legislation to implement the proposals of the Greenbury report, not least because more than half the electricity companies are being taken over and will therefore not be listed on the stock exchange in the near future. Are the Government selling out to private greed yet again?
Mr. Jack: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman asks that question. It shows that there is a fundamental distrust among Opposition Members and doubt as to whether private industry can put its own House in order in relation to the matters discussed by Greenbury. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in his report, Sir Richard stated that he felt that legislation was an inappropriate way of dealing with the problem. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the stock exchange responded with commendable speed to change the listing arrangements on disclosure, particularly of salary. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has said that a review will take place--when the pensions aspects of the Greenbury report have been studied--with a view to amending the Companies Act, where necessary, where it relates to disclosure.
Mr. Thomason: Does my hon. Friend welcome the extension of share ownership and responsible share option agreements? Does he agree that the Government should be proud of their record of extending share ownership from 3 million to 10 million people since 1979? Does he agree that that is the best way of ensuring that people have a stakeholding in this country?
Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend has put his finger on what real stakeholding is about: having a share of something of which one is a part. That achievement has been made possible in the face of fearsome opposition from the Opposition. The Greenbury report occasioned a thorough debate involving my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, who was able to announce in the Budget the new company share option scheme and enhancement of the profit-sharing and save-as-you-earn schemes which currently benefit 2 million people. I have no doubt that there will be a wide uptake in British industry of further opportunities so that employees can have a stake in the companies for which they work.
Mr. Darling: The Financial Secretary seems to place a good deal of faith in the privatised utilities putting their own house in order. That faith is not shared by the
majority of people. Is he aware that the abuses in the boardrooms of privatised utilities are continuing? Is he also aware that the chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds investment committee--who is himself a member of the Greenbury committee--has warned that powerful voices are trying to block and wreck the Greenbury proposals? Will he give a guarantee that the Government will introduce legislation at the earliest possible opportunity to ensure that the subject of contributions to the pension arrangements of people in boardrooms is brought forward without further delay? Will he also give a guarantee that he will not allow the thrust of the Greenbury report to be wrecked by vested interests in the privatised utilities?
Mr. Jack: Again, Opposition Front Benchers display a fundamental distrust of the idea of private companies being able to put matters right. The hon. Gentleman's attack on the privatised utilities is a typical smokescreen behind which the Opposition hide the many benefits that privatisation has brought to consumers. Many of the privatised companies have given clear public undertakings that they will accept the Greenbury recommendations and are moving towards them. If the hon. Gentleman considers the facts--clearly his boardroom lunches have not enabled him to do so--he will see that the Institute of Actuaries has been engaged by the stock exchange to work out, in consultation, how the issue of pensions and their benefit to directors should be properly valued. Once that exercise has been completed in June this year, the information will go to the revised listing arrangements and, as I said a moment ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will look at ways of changing the Companies Act, if appropriate, to enable matters of disclosure to be dealt with properly.
Living Standards
8. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the prospects for living standards in 1996. [7083]
Mr. Jack: Real personal disposable income is expected to rise by 2.75 per cent. in 1996. A family on average earnings should be about £450 better off next year after tax and inflation.
Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend. Does he agree that living standards have risen at least 10 times faster under the present Government than under their miserable predecessors, the Labour Government? Does he further agree that, in the stakeholder society proposed by the Labour party, people's income, or at least part of it, would be confiscated, as would part of the employers' outgoings and we would have a "Whitehall knows best" job at the worst time?
Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is an astute observer of the scene. He will certainly know that since the Conservative party took office the average family on average earnings has been £4,500 a year better off as a result of our policies. The stakeholder society strikes me as the equivalent of stir-fried politics--a bit of this and a bit of that, all mixed up with no recipe. It resembles today's special--here today, gone tomorrow.
Mr. Sheerman: What effect will the disgraceful 7 per cent. Budget cut in university funding have on living standards? Is it not a disgrace to cut funding to
universities by 7 per cent., with all the knock-on effects not only on teaching and research but on the innovation and enterprise in which universities are becoming increasingly involved?
Mr. Jack: I am not certain whether that question has the approval of the shadow Chief Secretary and his agreement that Labour would immediately restore the position. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what has happened in terms of ensuring that universities can continue to offer the excellence of their facilities to more and more students occasioned by our education policies. They have taken a tremendous interest in the private finance initiative and I have no doubt whatever that they will use that as a good source of funding to continue the expansion of that vital work.
Mr. Riddick: Are not prospects for living standards much more positive in the United Kingdom than in the rest of Europe? For example, this morning's Daily Telegraph forecasts that unemployment in Germany will reach more than 4 million this month and quotes German employers as being angry with the German Government for not introducing more flexibility into the work force. Does not the Labour party want to take Britain down the German road of over-regulation, minimum wages and the social chapter which will produce unemployment of more than 4 million in Germany? Does not Germany also want to take Britain down that road?
Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend highlights some of the important issues that make Britain an ever-improving place to do business. We are competitive, our costs are low, we are not wedded to the social chapter and, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, we will outstrip Germany and France in growth next year. Those factors will lead to further reductions in unemployment and the improvement in living standards predicated by my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget.
Budget (Industry)
9. Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made to him by industry on his Budget. [7084]
Mr. Waldegrave: Industry has welcomed the Budget because it recognises that it gives Britain the best chance of steady growth with low inflation.
Mr. Marshall: That is a typically bullish reply by the Chief Secretary. How does he square that bullish response with a real economic indicator such as manufacturing output, which has shown an increase of less than 1 per cent. over the past 12 months?
Mr. Waldegrave: Manufacturing output is up, as is manufacturing investment. The hon. Gentleman asked me what the response from industry was to the Budget, so I gave it. The director general of the CBI said:
- "We welcome the fact that Government has broadly stuck to the prudent economic line we recommended". Sir John Banham of Tarmac said:
- "The Chancellor is on the right track".
Mr. Gallie: Has my hon. Friend considered what an income tax increase of 3p in the pound for people in Scotland would do to industry? What effect would such an increase have on wage bills and on industrial development?
Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the answer is obvious: jobs would be lost in Scotland and the high road from Scotland to England would have many more Scots on it, to the great benefit of England. It would prove very destructive to the Scottish economy and it would benefit all Scotland's neighbours.
Mr. McAvoy: Can the Minister answer the complaint by the Federation of Small Businesses about the absence of any measures to tackle the problems of late payment which affects British industry? If he has received any representations from that organisation, will he ensure that his Department--which has a disgraceful record of late payments--increases its efficiency in paying its bills?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. My Department's performance was not good enough about a year ago. I am happy to say that since August last year it has improved and it is now making just under 90 per cent. of payments within the time allowed. My Department's performance was not satisfactory a year ago and we shall see that it improves.
PRIME MINISTER
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |