| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ian Bruce: We all acknowledge the difficulties of tackling the millennium bug in the time available, but will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that the Government have slipped on the targets that were set for the civil service? Why has she appointed Don Cruickshank to that post when the Government ignored him when he wrote to them about the Wireless Telegraphy Bill and said that it should protect the consumer?
Mrs. Beckett: That has nothing to do with Action 2000. It is an interesting point and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt pursue it in Committee, but it has no relevance to the point that I was making.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham complains constantly--he did so again tonight--about my parliamentary record. He attacked me for not speaking in the debate on the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, but it is commonplace for other Ministers to handle more minor legislation without a Cabinet colleague. The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), the former Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, did so last year, and the right hon. Member for Wokingham did so himself as a Minister of State.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham keeps saying, somewhat stridently, that he has had the chance to question me only three times in four months and has had no opportunity to debate. Diddums! It is called being in opposition. Did the right hon. Gentleman not notice when in government that parliamentary questions happen only once a month? The rules have not been changed to penalise him. Incidentally, a shorter time has elapsed between the two most recent Trade and Industry Question Times in this Parliament than in a similar period in 1992. As for debates, between May and November this year there were no general industry debates in Government time, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said--nor were there in the same period in May to November 1992.
The right hon. Gentleman has sought to make much of my unavoidable absence at our recent Question Time, claiming that I went to Australia to avoid his questioning. I did enjoy it. As he knows perfectly well, because I gave him advance notice, I went in fulfilment of an engagement made by my Conservative predecessor to promote British business--the culmination of a year's worth of activity--to open jointly with the Premier of Victoria the biggest trade fair that Britain has ever staged in Australia. More than 400 United Kingdom companies competed to take part and 90 did so, many of them small and medium-sized enterprises. No one regrets more than I the unforeseen clash with my duties in this House, which I have never neglected, but to suggest that I should let all those companies down smacks more of the right hon. Gentleman's conceit than of common sense. Incidentally, that visit was one of three major overseas visits that I have undertaken since May.
The right hon. Gentleman also alleges that I do not answer questions and letters. Up to the end of July, he had asked 46 questions about the personal finances, behaviour and duties of Ministers, compared with 28 about the entire area of science, industrial, and energy policy. Up to today, he has just about managed to even the score. Yet all those questions and his extensive correspondence--six letters about the personal finances of my noble Friend Lord Simon, eight letters about the financial consequences of personal tragedy in the family of my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs--have been answered, albeit not to his satisfaction.
You know the feeling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Sooner or later, every hon. Member has one of those correspondents who writes or telephones every second or third day. They always say you have not answered their questions, no matter how hard you try. They always say that they are going to take it up with higher authority or they take it to the press. We all get them. You just do not expect it to be the shadow Secretary of State.
Most recently, the right hon. Gentleman accused me of inaction about coal. The Conservative party's only energy policy was to close half Britain's coalfields and leave the
other half to wither on the vine, having removed all the levers of Government policy. The Conservatives left the coal industry freewheeling downhill like a car without brakes or steering and now they stand at the side of the road shouting to us to stop the runaway vehicle. We found an energy playing field massively tilted against coal and in seven short months we have levelled that playing field, tilted by the Conservative Government over more than seven years.
Inaction and broken promises were the hallmark of the Administration we replaced. Nearly 10 years were spent discussing the reform of competition law. They even got as far as a draft Bill, which we would not have opposed, but they just never got around to doing it. Some may applaud and some oppose my decisions on merger policy, but no one but the right hon. Gentleman has ever suggested that they are not clear. In fact, a recent article in The Daily Telegraph said:
In the two years during which I shadowed this Department, no major piece of legislation came to this House. This Government have overseen the introduction of eight bills in seven months, including the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, the Competition Bill and the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill. We are also backing four private Members' Bills--the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill, the Fireworks Bill, the Public Interest Disclosure Bill and the Weights and Measures (Beer and Cider) Bill--and we have just published the National Minimum Wage Bill. We have published a report from the business and Government export forum and we have already taken the steps called for by exporters to recast trade support policy.
We are undertaking consultation on a fair payments Bill at the request of small businesses and in the new year we shall be publishing a White Paper on fairness at work and a Green Paper for consultation on utility regulation.
We are preparing proposals to give the Post Office commercial freedom and we are working in partnership with business under the umbrella of Competitiveness UK to prepare a White Paper on competitiveness next year.
We are forcing the pace on getting issues of competitiveness and employability on to the agenda of the European Union and again seeking to ensure the participation of and a voice for business representatives from across the EU.
Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset):
The right hon. Lady mentioned that the Government are preparing a paper on the Post Office. Can she tell the House what her hon. Friend the Minister of State failed to tell the Select Committee on Trade and Industry recently-- whether the Post Office will have the capacity, as a normal company would, to give its stockholders dividends rather than being subject to a negative external financing limit?
Mrs. Beckett:
My hon. Friend the Minister of State tells me that he was not asked that, but in any case I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be happy to discuss those issues with him at length when our proposals for the Post Office are published.
Moreover, all that activity--not inactivity--has its underlying themes. Strong markets, modern companies, looking to the future--those are the themes that bind all the activities of my Department to the pursuit of competitiveness, and against which we shall measure the worth and relevance of our activities.
First, on strong markets, I am absolutely clear that a strong competition policy is fundamental to competitiveness. That is why one of this Government's earliest actions was to find parliamentary time for a Competition Bill, which will replace an outdated regime with a modern, effective system. A competition law that creates a more transparent and consistent regime will be a big improvement on the slow-moving and ineffective structures that we have today and will benefit all firms, large and small. Our review of regulation for the utilities is driven by the same desire to see more transparency and consistency in regulation.
The second pillar is modern companies. Only modern companies can address modern challenges. We need modern companies succeeding in new markets with new products--companies that innovate and compete on our strengths in design, science and ideas. It is not a sustainable strategy to compete on price alone. In the increasingly global marketplace, firms need to compete on quality in all its dimensions.
Our third theme is the need to look to the future. What we as the Government do today will make a real difference to the industries and citizens of the future. It is clear that we must embrace the industries of the future and, in particular, we must deal with the specific needs of smaller firms--hence our proposals to enhance the work of business links and drive them, too, towards higher quality: hence our decision to take forward the work of the foresight groups.
"competition she said, and competition she meant".
The Opposition prepared the legislation on spectrum pricing, but they never found time for that, either. Users and industry believe almost universally that our proposals, far from being a burden on business, will make for sensible spectrum management.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |