| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, although I was perturbed to read all its main points, before I came into the Chamber, on a Press Association tape and to learn from journalists that every major item had been briefed to the press by the Secretary of State and his officials before he made the statement. It is not right that Members of Parliament should hear about his proposals from the media before they do so in this House.
I hope that when the Secretary of State draws up his list of sinners who need referral for high pricing, he will include the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is the main offender on petrol and diesel prices and on costs for the haulage industry. I hope that he will take responsibility for the problems that the motorist is now experiencing.
It has taken the Government nearly two years to decide that Britain needs lower prices and more competition. They have abandoned the case-by-case approach of the previous Government. Conservatives broke monopolies and introduced competition on an industry-by-industry basis. This Government have spent two years talking about competition but done nothing significant to further it. All they have done is to put up business costs and business taxes. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are all for lower prices and more competition. That is why we broke the monopolies in telephones, electricity and gas and that is why I have urged the Government to break the monopoly in water. Will the Secretary of State now pledge to introduce water competition for retail householders as well as for businesses? Do the Government want to break the present car distribution system and introduce car supermarkets? Simply telling us that car prices are too dear does not tackle the problem. Do the Government intend to outlaw recommended prices for newspapers, or does the Secretary of State value the present newspaper distribution arrangements? Does the right hon. Gentleman want to change the tied house arrangements in the brewing industry, or not? Will he remove the advantages local pharmacies currently enjoy?
The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle):
What a cheek.
Mr. Redwood:
The Minister may say that, but those are the policy issues, and if the Government want to introduce more competition and lower prices, those are the issues that they should tackle. The previous Conservative Governments were tackling them case by case; we had a fine record of breaking many monopolies, but there are still more to be broken--will the Labour Government do it, or not?
It is a cop out to say that the Government will run a poor man's Which? magazine to tell us how much we are suffering, but that they will take no policy action where they could do so to tackle the problem at source. There is absolutely no evidence that the Government are the customer's friend; they talk about being so and spin that they are, but they funk the decisions necessary to bring prices down.
We are told for the 16th time that the Secretary of State wants to reserve to himself competition issues relating to defence and some other cases, despite his belief in independence; so will he rule out now all Secretary of State involvement in media cases? If his argument is that his views as a Minister could be in conflict with making a fair judgment in certain cases, surely that must apply most of all to cases involving the media, given the Government's predisposition to trying to influence the media in their direction.
Will the Secretary of State assure us that he will have nothing to do with the BSkyB bid for Manchester United and that he will rule out interest in all media bids in the future, contrary to the generosity displayed by him and his colleagues in all their press briefings up to today's briefing on this statement? Does he not understand that to achieve a judgment in the BSkyB-Manchester United case that is fair to the two balanced teams that are fighting that bitter battle, he should set out in advance, working from general principles, whether or not the Government think that media interests should be able to buy sports clubs.
His failure to set out a general policy leaves him wide open to the charge of being unfair to one or the other of the parties when the judgment is finally made.
The Secretary of State has announced an enterprise fund; it has been announced countless times before. It shows how much Labour believes in policy recycling if in no other sort of recycling that we have to hear such announcements time and again. This time, £10 million has been added to the fund to give the excuse for re-announcing it, but, in Labour's old language, it is not new money. The fund is small recompense for the massive tax hike that business is experiencing. Why do the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister not realise that hiking national insurance contributions for the self-employed and hitting business motorists takes away far more money than is being put back through that small enterprise fund? If the Secretary of State left business more of its own money, he would need to propose fewer handouts.
The right hon. Gentleman proposes a Small Business Service at considerable cost. I can tell him what small businesses want: less regulation, lower taxes, no increase in national insurance for the self-employed, no increase in motoring taxes, no increase in haulage taxes, no increase in stamp duty, and no increase in VAT levies--all things that are in the Chancellor's Budget, but which he does not understand are bad for business. Businesses face a massive tax hike as a result of the Chancellor's third Budget, just as surely as the huge tax hikes that resulted from his first two Budgets.
If the Government want to earn the name of friend of business, they must sweep aside the regulations that they are putting in place and genuinely cut business taxes. Instead of gimmicks, they must offer real support to the business community.
Mr. Byers:
It is most noticeable that the right hon. Gentleman has clearly not discussed with business its response to yesterday's Budget and to the measures that I have announced today. Were he to do so, he would learn that the targeted support that we intend to give has been warmly welcomed by industry, which recognises the assistance and support the Government can give in particular areas. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, in a friendly way, that he should begin a dialogue with business if he wants to speak as shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Clearly, he is failing to do that. In addition to that, he appears to be suffering from memory loss: judging by his remarks just now, the policies that he supported as a member of the Cabinet--for example, in voting for the petrol duty escalator--have been suddenly forgotten.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about breaking down utilities and removing them from the public sector, but the Conservative Government effectively created private single monopolies in those areas. It has been left to the Government to break down monopolies and create a market that will deliver benefits to consumers. I can confirm that, as the Chancellor announced yesterday, there will be a review of the water industry as well.
On the new, modernised merger regime, we will operate under the existing provisions for as long as they are in place. I will discharge my responsibilities as Secretary of State, but we will consult because we believe that there is a better procedure that could
be adopted. I hope to be able to bring the results of that consultation to the House in due course. There is no question that we shall discharge our current statutory duties in a quasi-judicial manner that is fair to all parties, and we will be guided by the report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I expect to receive its report regarding BSkyB and Manchester United on Friday of this week.
I was disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's response--I know that that should come as no surprise, but I live in hope. It is remarkable that he did not mention Brussels once in his contribution--which must be a first for him. However, he still missed the point. The statement that I have delivered this afternoon and the range of measures that we intend to introduce will support business. They are about innovation and enterprise and will at last give a new deal to consumers--an area that was totally ignored in the 19 years of the previous Administration.
Mr. Byers:
It seemed like 19 years. I believe that our measures will be welcomed warmly.
Madam Speaker:
Order. We have a lot of business before us today and I am having to restrict Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes in the major debate. I hope that there will be brisk questions and brisk answers from the Dispatch Box so that I will be able to call as many hon. Members as possible.
Mr. Martin O'Neill (Ochil):
Is it recognised that, in recent years, the Office of Fair Trading has lacked focus and resources because of the number of jobs that it has undertaken? Those of us who have had dealings with the OFT have been disappointed with the speed at which it has moved and the urgency with which it has often dealt with matters. I hope that those difficulties will be remedied by the extra resources and extra powers that my right hon. Friend is choosing to commit.
Mr. Byers:
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is no doubt that the Office of Fair Trading was under-resourced as a result of the decisions taken by the previous Government. During my time as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I was pleased to be able to agree some extra funding--a 20 per cent. increase--for the OFT. I think that will help enormously in ensuring that the office can work to a programme that is far more extensive than any of its programmes to date.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |