| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Radio Spectrum
9. Mr. Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement about her Department's policy towards maximising efficient use of the radio spectrum. [15398]
Mrs. Roche: The Government are committed to the efficient use of the radio spectrum resulting in the creation of wealth, competition, quality and choice, benefiting operators and consumers alike. The Wireless Telegraphy Bill currently before the House includes a number of new powers to improve spectrum efficiency.
Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for her response. Does she agree that this is yet another example of practical action by the Government in new technology? Will not that action benefit the whole economy? Does not this Government's action contrast starkly with the view of the Opposition who, through indecisiveness and backsliding, have managed to take two different views on the matter, one when in government and the other when in opposition?
Mrs. Roche: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill will provide the spectrum management tools to keep the United Kingdom at the leading edge of the information revolution. Our action contrasts with that of the Opposition, who have made a number of reverses on the Bill. When they were in government, they introduced a White Paper and also included proposals for the Bill in their manifesto at the general election. When we introduced the Bill in the other place, they welcomed it--but when it came to Second Reading in this House, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) denounced it and pledged vehemently to oppose it. However, in Committee last week, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) described it as a modest Bill and not of deep political controversy. I am looking forward to the Opposition's next U-turn on Third Reading.
Mr. Gray: Does the hon. Lady agree that, in reality, the Bill represents a tax increase of £1,500 million?
Mrs. Roche: Absolutely not. That is an incredible suggestion given that the proposals were not only in the Conservative party's manifesto--I assume that the hon. Gentleman stood on that manifesto--but were trumpeted by the former President of the Board of Trade. The Bill is not a tax-raising measure and it has been warmly welcomed by industry.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman has no stomach for the fight. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Wokingham said that the Opposition would keep us in Committee for months. I am glad to tell the House that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks gave up the fight after one week.
Private Shareholdings
10. Mr. John M. Taylor: If she will make a statement on the actions Ministers in her Department have taken to avoid conflicts of interest relating to private shareholdings. [15399]
Mr. Ian McCartney: Department of Trade and Industry Ministers have acted in accordance with guidance in paragraphs 109 to 123 of the ministerial code, which provide a number of alternative options for avoiding conflicts of interest relating to private shareholdings.
Mr. Taylor: Why does the Minister not just say what shareholdings Ministers hold or have recently held, so that we can conclude which of them are disqualified from what?
Mr. McCartney: Ministers have fully complied with the high standards set in the ministerial code. They have avoided conflicts of interest using options in the code. The difference between Labour Ministers and the Tories is a simple one: we are squeaky clean, but they are just squeaky.
Mr. Redwood: The Minister will not answer the questions today, and the President of the Board of Trade never answers them. She has had to go all the way to Australia to ensure that, today, she is not put under pressure on those questions--so breaking another rule of the ministerial code, which states that, when Parliament is in session, Ministers should not go abroad on Cabinet day. She is running scared down under. Why will the Minister not now tell us the answer to a very simple question: which companies, issues and industries each DTI Minister cannot handle because of a present or past shareholding, or a present or past prejudice? He should tell the House and the public the answer to that question, because they need to know who--if anyone--is conducting business in the DTI.
Mr. McCartney: True to form, the right hon. Gentleman is shooting from the lip. He has tabled 70 questions on all conceivable details of the positions held by Ministers--but he knows the position. Ministers have complied fully with the high standards set in the ministerial code.
Mr. McCartney: I am answering. Ministers have avoided conflicts of interest by using options in the code. The shadow Minister has failed comprehensively to get running an allegation and scare story that is completely out of order. Lord Simon, for example, has at all times behaved with complete propriety. That was confirmed by Sir Robin Butler, the Cabinet Secretary. The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), has a small shareholding because of a tragic accident, in which his father died. [Hon. Members: "A pathetic answer."] It is absolutely correct. Consequently, my hon. Friend has acted with propriety.
When the shadow Secretary of State was Secretary of State for Wales, his wife was secretary of British Airways. He declared an interest when she, on behalf of that company, was involved in a £100 million investment programme in Wales. He acted in the same way in which Ministers have acted. He has made no case to answer. How much further will he stoop to get a story going that does not exist?
Rolls-Royce
11. Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the ownership of the Rolls-Royce motor car company. [15400]
Mr. Battle: The sale of the Rolls-Royce motor car company is a commercial matter for Vickers. If the sale proceeds, it will fall to be considered by the appropriate regulatory authorities.
Mr. Winterton: I am sure that the Minister is well aware of my deep commitment to manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom and the contribution that it makes to our economy and to employment. Is he not concerned that the last prestige United Kingdom car company could well pass into foreign hands, and that, if it does, decisions relating to its future expansion and employment might be affected by European regulation? Both manufacturing and employment could be taken out of the United Kingdom--out of my county, and out of the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Will he take a very positive interest in the matter, to try to protect British manufacturing industry and British jobs?
Mr. Battle: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has expressed a passionate concern for manufacturing during his time in the House; we acknowledge that and hope he knows that we share his concern. It is not yet clear whether anyone has made a firm offer. We believe that the company is an example of engineering excellence in Britain, and we hope that that will continue to be so, whoever becomes the owner.
We are not opposed to inward investment per se, but we want the excellence of that company and its contribution to the automotive industry to continue. We are keen that any investors should maintain and develop the company's product range and safeguard the long-term interests of the work force. We shall have to wait until a serious bid is made to know whether it will have to be referred to the European Commission's merger body or whether our regulatory authorities can handle it.
Mrs. Dunwoody:
Is it not a total disgrace, however, that the last remaining wholly British-owned car firm is now at risk of being taken over by German manufacturers who may or may not choose to keep that manufacturing unit in my constituency? The largest employer of the most high-quality engineers is now put at risk because of the greed and voraciousness of Vickers, which has walked away with millions of pounds of taxpayers' money without a thought for the future of manufacturing in this country and without taking any responsibility for this high-quality product.
Mr. Battle:
To some extent, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is fair to say that the UK does not have an automotive industry, but there is a large car industry in Britain--it includes the whole of the supply chain and
The story outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is the story of what has been going on for the past 20 years--restructuring. However, I would hope that the quality and excellence of our companies means that they can hold their own in the wider world.
12. Mr. Skinner:
What representations she has received about maintaining the size of the coal industry; and if she will make a statement. [15401]
Mr. Battle:
We have received a wide range of representations about the future of the coal industry. Our objective is to have secure, diverse and environmentally sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. Deep-mined coal has a part to play in meeting this objective. Since taking office, we have taken several strategic steps to create a more level playing field for the industry to try to ensure that coal is not priced out because we remain convinced of the importance of the coal industry, which still makes a significant contribution to local economies and to the economy as a whole.
Mr. Skinner:
Does my hon. Friend agree that in the three short years since privatisation, it has become apparent to all who work in the industry and many associated with it that privatisation has failed and that if we are to rescue what remains of it, it should be taken back into public ownership? In the meantime, as the Government are not likely to take that path, will they take three other steps: first, will they curb imports dramatically; secondly, will they get rid of the nuclear subsidy in its entirety; and thirdly, will they stop opencast mining and change the planning considerations that allow it? If the Government do some of these things, they will help those miners who are still hanging on to their jobs, some of whom have been threatened with the sack because they have the audacity to report accidents that happen half a mile underground. Whatever else the Minister does, if any money is going directly or indirectly to Budge, he should take a stake in the industry.
Mr. Battle:
It was not just the coal industry that was privatised by the Conservatives, but the power stations, the grid system and even the means of buying electricity. In other words, the whole of the energy industry was fragmented, which is partly what caused the havoc that resulted. My hon. Friend asked what we can do--we are already doing it. In our six months in office, we have taken action by passing the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill through this place precisely to remove the advantages enjoyed by nuclear power and to tackle the import of nuclear energy from France via the interconnector. We have taken strong action to challenge the European Commission on subsidies for German and Spanish coal. I have asked for a review of the electricity pool to ensure that the playing field is not tilted against coal. We are also challenging the
Mr. Paterson:
In 1992, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that, as part of Labour's policy for coal, no more licences would be issued for gas-fired power stations. Why has BP recently been issued with a licence for a substantial gas-fired power station?
Mr. Battle:
A number of power station application consents were under consideration at the time of the general election. There were 25 close to completion. Some have been granted; others are still in the pipeline. The Conservative Government let through 44 gas-fired power stations. The policy was that each should be decided on its merits, after consultation with local communities. That remains our policy. There was no preferential treatment for BP. Some companies are complaining that we are not processing the rest fast enough.
Mr. Tipping:
Did not the previous Government privatise the coal industry and the electricity industry? If there are difficulties with the new contracts expiring on 31 March, is not the problem the fact that the whole industry is in the private sector and the Minister has very limited opportunities to intervene to save the coal industry?
Mr. Battle:
Conservative Members shout, "Buy it back." At the time, they were shouting, "Sell it." The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, was once the parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State for Energy. He has said on television, "With hindsight, we privatised things in the wrong order. Perhaps we ought to have privatised the coal industry first. It should be run like a business and I wish we would hand it over to a great mining company in this country like RTZ. It is all about going out and finding the cheapest source of power, not about employing people in mines." How can the Conservatives complain about employment in the industry?
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) is right. I am not party to the discussions between the private companies and the power stations. I encourage them to get on with those discussions. I understand that there has been more encouraging news in recent weeks, despite the talk in the press. RJB is negotiating with Eastern Electricity and National Power. I wish the company well in its negotiations with PowerGen. I hope that those power stations will buy deep-mined coal from RJB and ensure the continuation of Britain's deep-mined coal industry.
Mr. Redwood:
Will the Minister give a clearer answer on his policy on the dash for gas? In opposition, Labour said that it would stop the policy to protect the British coal industry. How much capacity will he licence?
Mr. Battle:
There is no different treatment. Others have been accepted. The BP application was one of the first ready for a decision after the election. Seven applications have been determined since the general election, one of which involved the use of orimulsion in Pembroke. We referred that to a public inquiry because we did not think that it should go forward without one. The company then withdrew the application. There is no set timetable for completing consideration of the applications. Each one is considered on its merits against the background of section 36 and section 37 consents. In assessing those applications, we have to address local issues and ensure consistency with our wider objectives of secure, diverse and sustainable supplies.
Mr. Redwood:
How many are there?
Mr. Battle:
There are another 27 in the pipeline. I am prepared to read the right hon. Gentleman the whole list. His allegation that the BP application was the only one accepted is not true.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |