| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Privatised Water Companies
3. Mr. Davidson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will assess the current ability of the consumer organisations covering the privatised utilities to monitor the level of service given by the privatised water companies. [13505]
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): In general, we are content with the existing consumer representation arrangements for the privatised utilities. For the water industry, the performance of the Ofwat customer service committees in monitoring levels of service is a matter for the Director General of Water Services.
Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister accept that, at a time when the number of complaints from consumers is ever rising, this is an area where adequate funding should be provided so as to ensure that the complaints can be dealt with adequately and so that there can be proper supervision of the privatised utilities?
Mr. Taylor: In England and Wales, new price limits for water have cut increases in charges. Water and sewerage companies promise further rebates to customers. The utilities now guarantee standards of service. However, I understand that there will always be some complaints and it is very much part of the Government's anxiety and ambition to ensure that the consumer protection arrangements are thorough and work effectively.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Is it not bizarre that Labour Members take every opportunity to attack the privatised utilities when their paymasters, the trade unions, invest their pension funds in those very utilities?
Mr. Taylor: Yes, it is a strange paradox that the trade union which sponsors the deputy leader of the Labour party is a heavy investor in the utilities. Since
privatisation, the National Consumer Council has been there to put the customers' view. I understand that the Director General of Water Services and the customer service committees regard integration of the committees with Ofwat as a virtue, not a weakness.
Mr. Harvey: Does the Minister believe that the consumer organisations are able adequately to address regional differences between rates of charge for privatised utilities? Is he aware that the south-west already pays twice as much for its water as other regions, and that electricity and gas are heading the same way? How does he think that the consumer organisations can address the economic development consequences for the south-west?
Mr. Taylor: One of the virtues of privatisation is that prices have been falling. The hon. Gentleman must accept, as I do, that there are necessarily regional variations. That is why there is no reason for consumer representation for public utilities to follow any particular model. The structure needs to reflect the particular market.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of water has benefited the consumer through increased investment, better quality water and fewer drought orders than in 1976?
Mr. Taylor: I completely agree with my hon. Friend on every point, and especially on the fact that we are delivering some of the cleanest water in Europe.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: How can the Minister wash his hands of responsibility for the fact that complaints about water companies from customers have almost trebled?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: He can now afford to do so.
Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that water is cheaper, he should speak to his constituents, because it certainly is not. Why have the Government hamstrung the consumer organisations by consistently cutting their funding? The amount for the National Consumer Council has been cut, money for the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has been cut by £767,000, funding for the Gas Consumers Council has been cut by £369,000 and even the consumer safety unit in the Department of Trade and Industry has had a £595,000 cut.
Mr. Taylor: I do not know how many of those questions the hon. Gentleman expects me to answer--[Hon. Members: "All of them."] I shall make a portmanteau of all the hon. Gentleman's generalisations about funding. I especially draw his attention to the fact that the Government grant for NACAB, one of the organisations that he mentioned, has gone up this year by £600,000. Those arrangements have enabled us to have the privatised utilities--[Interruption.] The Labour party is all too keen to say that Governments meddle in consumer arrangements. Governments should not meddle in those arrangements, and part of the virtue of privatisation is to get the Government and Ministers out of the utilities.
Manufacturing Industry
4. Sir David Knox: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry. [13506]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): My right hon. Friend and other DTI Ministers regularly meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss a range of issues.
Sir David Knox: When my right hon. Friend next meets the president of the CBI, will he, after congratulating him on the improvement in manufacturing output over the past three years, discuss with him the fact that manufacturing output has gone up by only 10 per cent. since 1973? What steps might be taken to ensure that it goes up much faster in the next 20-odd years?
Mr. Oppenheim: I note that my hon. Friend started with the figure in 1973. One reason why manufacturing output has not gone up very much since 1973 is that, between 1974 and 1979, in the heroic days of Labour's industrial strategy, manufacturing output fell. Under this Government, manufacturing output has increased sharply. Not only has it increased, but we now have quality, exportable manufactures--in stark contrast with the situation in the 1970s.
Mr. Sutcliffe: Is not manufacturing the key to the economic growth of this country? Since 1979, we have lost 2.7 million jobs, especially in communities such as mine. What do the Government intend to do to create a situation in which we can have more investment in manufacturing and in which manufacturing is seen as more important than the service sector? What do the Government intend to do to create jobs?
Mr. Oppenheim: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that manufacturing is a vital sector of our economy. He will therefore be pleased to note that, whereas in the 1960s and 1970s manufacturing productivity growth in Britain was bottom compared with that of the G7 major industrialised countries, since 1980 Britain's manufacturing productivity growth has been top among the major industrialised countries. That is why industries such as British Steel, which was the world's largest loss maker, is now the most profitable in Europe, why an industry such as British Leyland, which was the butt of music hall jokes, is now producing high quality, exportable cars, and why British Airways, whose passengers rated it below Aeroflot, is now the world's favourite airline.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend initiate a study by Department of Trade and Industry statisticians and suggest the same on the part of the CBI into the effect of European Union cohesion fund and European Union structural fund allocations to countries such as Spain, Portugal and Italy, which are able thereby, at the expense of the British taxpayer, to increase their manufacturing competitiveness and to cost Britain jobs?
Mr. Oppenheim: Despite cohesion funds, Britain still attracts 40 per cent. of Japanese and American inward
investment into Europe. That has been a great success story and has underpinned the massive improvement in British manufacturing competitiveness since 1979.
Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister not recognise that the continuing concern of the CBI and others about Britain's manufacturing strength has been reinforced by the recent sustained fall in output described in the City as an appalling performance? Incidentally, the Minister will, I am sure, recognise that what he told the House about the last Labour Government's record is not correct. [Interruption.] It is not correct--I have told him that before. He must check his figures.
The Government still consistently refuse to take the advice either of the CBI or of engineering employers--let alone of Labour Members--and to take action that would encourage manufacturing investment, which is now 20 per cent. below the 1989 level. Is that not one of the main reasons why, far from being the enterprise centre of Europe, the UK has dropped from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league?
Mr. Oppenheim:
I can see that the right hon. Lady has nicely caught the spirit of St. Valentine's day. I shall not be so churlish and I wish her a happy Valentine's day.
My figures on the fall in manufacturing output under the last Labour Government are correct and I will send the right hon. Lady those figures so that she does not make the same mistake twice. [Interruption.] If she will be quiet for a minute and let me get a word in edgeways, I can tell her that investment has risen six times faster under this Government than under Labour. There is one big difference between investment now and investment in the 1970s: in those days, investment was directed by bureaucrats and politicians into low-grade, dossed-out, state-run industries, but investment nowadays is in high-grade, exportable manufactures.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
Does my hon. Friend accept that manufacturing industry is the only genuine source of non-inflationary economic growth and that it is therefore essential that this country's manufacturing base is widened? Will he therefore not just talk to the CBI, which does not represent manufacturing industry in any adequate way, but spend as much if not more time talking to the Engineering Employers Federation, which does represent manufacturing industry, the United Kingdom Industry Group, which specifically represents manufacturing industry, and the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, which I formed with the support of Members of all parties in the House? Those are the organisations that are in touch with manufacturing industry, not the CBI.
Mr. Oppenheim:
I thank my hon. Friend for his views. I agree with him about the importance of manufacturing industry. Although it is obviously not the sole generator of wealth in the economy, it is crucial. I agree also that it is important to speak to a range of organisations. Ministers in the DTI do that, and intend to continue doing so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |