| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Electricity and Water Companies
3. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received regarding the ownership of the electricity and water companies. [32109]
Mr. Eggar: My Department has received, and continues to receive, various representations about the ownership of electricity and water companies.
Mr. Prentice: Does the Minister agree with his friend and colleague the prince across the water, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who believes that electricity and water do not mix and, indeed, said as much in The Times on 1 June? Does the Minister further agree with his colleague that British utilities are becoming the adventure playground of corporate capital, that the Government are paralysed by indecision, that there is no clear policy framework and that the Minister is responsible for chaos and confusion throughout that vital part of British industry?
Mr. Eggar: I always give the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) the attention that they deserve.
Mr. John Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend not to pay too much attention to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who was such a disaster when he led Hammersmith council? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, since the water industry entered the private sector, there has been a massive increase in investment, which has led to better quality water supplies?
Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is also fair to point out the significant real fall in electricity prices for domestic and industrial consumers.
Mr. Battle: In the face of the ad hoc restructuring of the United Kingdom electricity industry, with its daily bids and takeovers, is not the Government's confused for-and-against response simply generating more chaos? On the same day as the Secretary of State overruled the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and blocked PowerGen and National Power's takeover bids, he allowed Eastern to buy some of the generators and form the sort of vertically integrated company to which he says that he is opposed. Will the Minister confirm, as is well known, that he was opposed to that decision by the Secretary of State?
Why is there still no sign of a clear Government strategy or direction? While the mania for bids and takeovers means quick cash for speculators and directors, customers are increasingly becoming a mere afterthought as a result of the Government's approach.
Mr. Eggar:
Typical customers are benefiting from a reduction in their electricity bills, this year and next, of about £90. That is a clear benefit of privatisation, and there are many others associated with it: improving standards of service in the electricity sector, and doubled investment in the water sector following the massive under-investment under the Labour party in the mid-1970s.
Mr. Congdon:
Is not the most significant aspect of the ownership of those industries the fact that they have been transferred from the dead hand of state ownership to the dynamic private sector? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proof of the pudding is in the fact that the old nationalised industries cost the state £50 million a week but now benefit the state to the tune of £55 million a week?
Mr. Eggar:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
4. Mr. Jim Marshall:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those European Union agreements relevant to UK industry that have been delayed as a consequence of the Government's decision of 21 May to use the UK veto at the Council of Ministers. [32110]
Mr. Lang:
The principal measures relevant to industry where Ministers have withheld agreement following the Prime Minister's announcement on 21 May--[Interruption.]--concern legislative simplification and administrative co-operation, accounting standards--[Interruption.]--an action programme for EU industry and certain agreements concerning trade relations with third countries.
Madam Speaker:
Order. There is too much talking going on. I want to hear the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Marshall:
I know that you, Madam Speaker, could not hear the Secretary of State's response any more than I could, so I shall have to pretend that I did.
Madam Speaker:
Indeed, I could not hear it either.
Mr. Marshall:
When will the President and his fellow Cabinet members realise that the Government's position on Europe, far from progressing a solution to the beef crisis, is hindering a solution to it and harming Britain's competitive position? Will the right hon. Gentleman estimate the cost to British industry of the blanket veto that this country is currently exercising on EU business?
Mr. Lang:
The hon. Gentleman may have his own opinions about the effect of the veto, but the Government took the view that it was necessary to bring to the attention of our partners in Europe the great importance that we attach to a solution to this problem, and the need to have in place a framework for lifting the ban, which was not scientifically justified and was imposed without being backed up by scientific evidence. The cost will be very low indeed if the ban is lifted soon and we can resume business as normal, but the cost to British industry if the ban remains in place will be considerable.
Sir John Cope:
Before anyone gets too worked up about the backlog of EU business, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, the moment agreement is reached on beef, all outstanding matters can be quickly put through any available ministerial Council in 24 hours, as what is known in the jargon as an "A point"? What matters is reaching an agreement on beef. The veto has simply put beef back at the top of the European Community agenda, which is where it should be.
Mr. Lang:
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: once the matter is resolved, the United Kingdom will be as keen as any other participant in the European Union to make speedy progress on the other matters that are being held up.
Dr. Howells:
Will the President of the Board of Trade say whether he will be attending the Council of Ministers a week from tomorrow to reverse the Government's previous policy on the Post Office? Will he be casting his vote behind the Commission's proposals to liberalise direct mail services and thus threaten the future of the Royal Mail by sneaking through, by qualified majority voting, a privatisation measure that the House rejected last time it was debated?
Mr. Lang:
The Labour party seems to be in a muddle about its policies on competition and on the Post Office. No, I will not be at the Council myself.
Mr. Waterson:
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that a significant section of British industry is represented by companies such as Anglo-Dutch Meats in my constituency, where some 350 jobs are under threat as a result of the wholly unlawful worldwide ban imposed by the European Union? Does he agree with me and with many of my constituents that until our European partners choose to approach this matter on the basis of science and not from political or commercial considerations, the British Government should continue to use their veto wherever they think appropriate?
Mr. Lang:
My hon. Friend is right, and he emphasises the importance of having the matter resolved quickly. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear precisely when and where our veto will be exercised. We hope that the matter will be resolved soon, that a framework will be in place for the lifting of the ban, and that business will return to normal.
5. Mr. Campbell-Savours:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next intends to visit Maryport to discuss matters relating to industrial development. [32111]
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor):
Although I have no immediate plans to visit Maryport, I have made regular visits to the north-west since becoming a DTI Minister and I am well aware of the issues in Maryport.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State, who is sitting next to him, whether he is prepared to call in on Maryport, which is in my constituency, in the next few weeks on his way home to his own constituency in the Borders? The visit would give him the opportunity to discuss with Maryport town councillors the escalating difficulties of the town. It would also give him the opportunity to explain why we cannot have back the development area status that we lost some years ago, a loss which is now costing us dearly.
Mr. Taylor:
The hon. Gentleman can take some comfort from the fact that unemployment in his constituency is now falling by 8 per cent. He will remember debating these issues with me in an Adjournment debate on 4 March. I remind him that Maryport is an assisted area, and any investment proposals that create or safeguard jobs will be considered for support. West Cumbria is also an objective 2 area and eligible for European funding for business support measures, training and reskilling.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |