| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Eggar: Obviously not, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Battle: I followed the details through as the Minister related them, but they still conflict with the newsletter and the information that was given to the shareholders. He told us to read the prospectus; I notice that he did not read out the relevant part, because it does not spell it out in the prospectus.
Mr. Eggar: It is sad that, despite a very detailed, explicit, carefully weighed statement from the Dispatch Box, the hon. Gentleman is still prepared, speaking as a supposedly responsible Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, to wave at me a leaked document from a competitor company.
Mr. Battle: "Hinkley Point News".
Mr. Eggar: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that it is, to say the least, unfortunate that a Front-Bench spokesman in the House behaves in that way.
Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) rose--
Mr. Eggar: I want to get on with the debate. I will, however, give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark).
Dr. Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nuclear power stations--indeed, any power station--will from time to time require shutdowns, sometimes scheduled, sometimes not? Despite all this, the power stations about which we are talking at present have increased their load factor in the past five or six years from 52 to 71 per cent. Does that not show the value that the taxpayers are getting when they buy into British Energy?
Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right. Anyone who knows the nuclear industry, who knows the improvement
in the performance of the stations and the dramatic change that has been achieved during the past four or five years, knows that that is a tribute to the skills of the employees of British Energy and to the management of British Energy.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr. Eggar: I will not give way. I want now--
Ms Walley: He is afraid of Labour intervening.
Mr. Eggar: Many accusations could be made, but I am afraid that that one by the hon. Lady is not one that would have much credibility. I have spent disproportionate time on this issue, because it was raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, West. I now want to try to deal with the wider issues raised by the motion.
The debate is entitled "Energy Policy". The hon. Member for Leeds, West made it clear that for him energy policy means centralised command-style planning--the planning that gave us all the energy mistakes of the 1970s.
Conservative Members have consistently applied an energy policy for several years. We do not believe that direct control or ownership of the energy industries is necessary or desirable. We believe that what is needed is competition in open markets, working within a stable framework of law and of regulation. That is how we think we can best promote our energy objectives of providing secure, diverse and sustainable energy supplies in the form that people and businesses want and at competitive prices.
For much of the past 50 years, most of the energy sector was in the grip of state-owned monopolies formed in the splurge of Labour nationalisation after the last war. The lessons that we have learnt since then, at some cost to us all and to the national economy, are as follows. Governments are no good at running a business from day to day. Mistakes produced by a central planning system tend to be large and expensive. Innovation and efficiency are stifled in a monopoly system, as customers have no choice or alternative.
Over the years, nationalised industries' operational efficiency was subordinated to whatever current political imperatives held sway. At one time, prices and incomes policy held electricity prices down; the next year, International Monetary Fund pressures forced them up. That was the reality of state ownership of the nationalised industries and state control of dirigiste energy policy.
The Conservative Government determined that we do a lot about this. We determined that the energy businesses should be run as businesses, not arms of the state. We privatised the nationalised industries. We set up regulatory regimes to encourage the development of competition and to control prices where competition did not exist.
All that has been very successful. Let me take some examples. In the industrial electricity market for supplies over 1 MW, more than half the consumers have switched to a supplier other than the local regional electricity company, and more than one third of the smaller industrial consumers of supplies over 100 kW have switched suppliers. The result has been clear--real industrial electricity prices are the lowest since records began.
In the industrial gas market, as has been said, very many firms have switched to the new entrants. The result is clear: real industrial prices are about half those at privatisation 10 years ago. Despite the fact that full competition is not yet here, domestic consumers have benefited considerably. Real annual average domestic electricity prices are the lowest since 1974. Coke and coal prices are the lowest in real terms since 1975.
In 1986, it used to take the average earner about 77 hours' work to pay for his year's gas bill. It now takes that average earner about 55 hours to pay for the average gas bill. The prospects for domestic gas consumers under full competition appear even brighter. The average earner in the south-west trial area only has to work about 44 hours to pay for his year's gas supply.
Strong regulation and competition are not only about price; they are about higher standards, better service and stronger customer orientation. Social responsibilities have not been forgotten--since privatisation, gas disconnections have fallen by two thirds and electricity disconnections have fallen by a staggering 98 per cent. The system is working. Consumers are already receiving significant benefits from the changes that we have made, and there will be even more benefits in the future. Companies have been encouraged to innovate, to become more efficient and to become more effective. The environment has also benefited because of the reduction in the pollution that is emitted from the more advanced electricity-generating sets. Our market-based policies are working. We have brought about a radical and revolutionary change in the way in which the energy sector works, to the benefit of all.
Mr. Tipping:
The Minister has referred to things that have come down, but will he also refer to things that have gone up, such as complaints against British Gas? Has not the consumer lost out in many ways?
Mr. Eggar:
The consumer has gained from the reduction in real gas prices, which have fallen by almost one quarter over the past 10 years. I have already referred to figures that show that the average earner has to work 22 hours less each year to pay for his gas than was the case at the time of privatisation. That is a significant benefit, and the hon. Gentleman will recognise the benefit that competition has introduced into the south-west.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West did not make a statement about energy policy, but there was something else: a dog that did not bark. We know that one area of Labour policy exists: the windfall tax, which was not mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that he did not mention the windfall tax because, as is well known, the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen for industry and
energy do not support it, as was made clear by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on the "Today" programme.
Mr. Battle:
If the Minister read the newspapers, he would know that we have gathered together in support of the windfall tax and that we have made it plain that we will impose it.
Mr. Eggar:
We have made an advance: we now know that at least one member of the Labour party's industry and energy team supports the windfall tax. I ask the hon. Member for Leeds, West to answer a few questions. Will he confirm whether the windfall tax will be retrospective? There is no answer from the hon. Gentleman--he has failed test No. 1. Will the hon. Gentleman say which energy companies will be hit by the tax? He has not answered--he has failed test No. 2. Will he say how much the windfall tax would be? Again, he has not answered--he has failed test No. 3. Will he say how long the windfall tax will last? Again, there is no answer--he has failed test No. 4. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can confirm how this windfall tax money will be spent.
Mr. Eggar:
Jobs? That is probably another commitment. The Labour party has committed itself to 11 ways of spending the tax, and I am willing to take additions to the list. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether he still intends to finance £75 a week payments to the unemployed from the windfall tax--yes or no? Again, no answer. Is the tax still earmarked for a new environmental task force?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |