| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
EU Directives
12. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the implementation of EU directives by his Department. [7897]
Mr. Oppenheim: The Department carries out full consultation with industry during the negotiation and implementation of EC directives. National legislation implementing EC directives is scrutinised to ensure that there is no confusion between European and national laws, and that legislative requirements are as light as possible.
Mrs. Gorman: Does the Minister agree with the view expressed by Mr. Bryan Cassidy, a Member of the European Parliament who came to speak to a Back-Bench committee recently, that none of the European directives comes with penalties attached or requires the attachment of such penalties? Does he agree that much of the damage that such directives cause to industry is due to the fact that we do not treat them as the rest of Europe does--as examples of best practice that should not necessarily be implemented fully? Could not the Department set a shining example by refusing to gold-plate any of the 19 major directives that Mr. Cassidy warned us were in the pipeline, and that were recently announced by Mr. Santer?
Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend has made some fair points. There is currently more awareness of the need to ensure that we do not gold-plate directives, and that responsibility is taken seriously. Eight directives are being reviewed, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has a programme of visits to other European Union states to ensure that they realise how burdensome regulations can be, particularly for small businesses. Penalties are sometimes needed to ensure compliance with, in particular, health and safety regulations, which involve important considerations, but I have much sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that, to date, Britain has done more gold-plating and adding on to European directives than any other European Union nation? The Government have done that to prevent the
House from discussing the issues. Will the Minister go a little further than he did a few moments ago, and guarantee that that will not happen in future?
Mr. Oppenheim: There are so many self-serving fallacies in that that it is difficult to know where to begin. The hon. Gentleman's party accepted the social chapter, which would impose a further huge burden of expensive regulation on British business and would cost people their jobs. Moreover, surely the idea of the stakeholder economy is all about regulation. What is it if it is not regulation? Opposition Members have a cheek talking about a stakeholder economy; when they were in power we had a hamburger economy, because they had made mincemeat of British industry.
Mr. Budgen: I warmly congratulate the Government on their announcement last week in the other place that they would not endorse a European directive that prevents the use of the drug emtryl in game birds. Does that not reflect a fundamental change in the Government's attitude to European directives? Does it not demonstrate that such directives lack democratic validity, are not properly discussed and are not uniformly enforced, and that the general arguments about the importance of the rule of law do not apply to directives that are forced down the throats of the British people?
Mr. Oppenheim: I accept my hon. Friend's warm congratulations, and reciprocate them with the same warmth. However, his sporting credentials in regard to putting drugs down the necks of game birds are probably stronger than mine, and his comments might be more appropriately directed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
We take non-compliance in other states very seriously. Any substantive complaints that my hon. Friend has should be made to the DTI's single market compliance unit, which will investigate them.
Dr. Howells:
Is the Minister aware that, although this country might be prepared to implement European Union directives, other member states are less compliant? The draft directive on the opening up of the electricity market in Europe, for example, continues to be flouted by the French Government, and they deny British generators access to very profitable continental markets. What do the Government intend to do to ensure that our efficient and low-cost companies are given the opportunity to compete fairly with the likes of Electricite de France, subsidised as it is up to its nuclear eyeballs, and secure good futures for our power stations, coal mines and gasfields?
Mr. Oppenheim:
It is a marvellous tribute to the rightward lurch of Labour that an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman is singing the praises of liberalisation and saying that the most efficient and cost-effective companies should have access to the market. If the hon. Gentleman is so against subsidies and regulations and so in favour of competition and liberalisation in France, why do the Opposition constantly oppose those things in Britain?
13. Mr. David Evans:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the total export of the United Kingdom is accounted for by the aerospace industry. [7899]
The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar):
The best currently available estimate of the
Mr. Evans:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that a strong home market leads to a strong export market? Does he also agree that it is a bit rich for that lot over there to start talking about cutting the defence budget by £6 billion and about making things that nobody wants, as they did in the 1970s? Is it not about time that we told them straight that we have the best defence industry and have spent £6 billion more on defence than they would have done? When that lot opposite stop talking about stakes in Britain and start talking common sense, it will be better for all of us.
Mr. Eggar:
I could not have said it better myself.
Rev. Martin Smyth:
Is the Minister in a position to say whether there are any concerns at the moment in the aviation or aerospace industry? What is the latest on the future large aircraft?
Mr. Eggar:
I think it is fair to say that in the civil aerospace industry, including the sector that is covered by Shorts, demand is generally more buoyant now than it has been for a couple of years, and expectations are rising. British companies, Rolls-Royce and BAe in particular, have had some spectacular orders over the past few months. It is an internationally competitive market. We have to continue assisting our aerospace industry to keep costs down and to stay in the forefront of technology. The Government are totally committed to that.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
Would my right hon. Friend congratulate Avro International Aerospace, a subsidiary company of British Aerospace, on its great success with its RJ series which it is selling not just in Europe but in many countries, including America? Is my right
hon. Friend's Department assisting British Aerospace with any future developments of aircraft which are so vital to this country's manufacturing capacity?
Mr. Eggar:
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Avro International, which won a particularly important order in August from Sabena. I pay tribute to everybody in British Aerospace who has transformed that company. There is no doubt that in manufacturing it is a world leader and it is accepted as such by aerospace companies throughout the world. My Department is working extremely closely with that company. One of the encouraging signs is that BAe is working not just with the Government but with its suppliers and engine manufacturers to present to the world a better integrated UK capability in the whole aerospace supply chain. That is in the interests of BAe and the whole country.
14. Mr. Hanson:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that all bids by water companies for other privatised utilities are referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. [7901]
Mr. John M. Taylor:
No. Each merger case will continue to be considered on its own merits and against the background of the market position at the time.
Mr. Hanson:
Does the Minister think that it is in the interests of consumers in places such as south Wales and
Mr. Taylor:
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw my attention to consumers' interests. I will tell the House the story of the privatised utilities. Water investment has doubled. Our water is among the cleanest in Europe. Electricity prices are down 7 per cent., gas prices are down 23.5 per cent. and, since 1984, telecoms prices have been down 35 per cent. That is a success story all round, especially for the consumer.
Mr. Harry Greenway:
What is the position in Thames Water's region? Is it not true that at no point were hose bans introduced during the hot weather, and that supplies were properly maintained to all parts of the Thames region throughout the recent water shortages? What is the quality of Thames Water?
Mr. Taylor:
Better than ever is the answer to the final limb of my hon. Friend's question. He is right to offer an antidote to the scaremongering. I am glad that he brings a proper balance to these issues.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths:
Does the Minister agree with Ian Byatt, the water industry regulator, that there cannot be adequate regulation of a water industry that has been taken over by companies unless they are listed separately on the stock exchange and present separate accounts to stop them hiding gross profiteering from consumers and avoiding complying with Greenbury rules on executive perks and pay disclosure?
Mr. Taylor:
I should not want to comment on any case that is uncompleted. It is for the Director General of Fair Trading to advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who will make decisions and announcements in due course, but I will carefully study the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |