| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Energy Policy
11. Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): If he will make a statement on the impact of the Government's energy policy on commercial competitiveness. [128950]
The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government's policy of promoting and developing competition in energy markets has led to significant reductions in industrial gas and electricity prices. Average industrial energy prices in 1999 were at their lowest since 1970 in real terms. This is a huge competitive advantage for British industry. Indeed, electricity prices have gone down even further this year in anticipation of the new electricity trading arrangements that we discussed earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham).
Mr. Paterson: In total contrast to what the Minister has just said, a major UK haulier told me recently that, thanks to the Government's energy taxation policy, he would be £1.4 million a year better off if he moved all his 75 trucks to Luxembourg. The Government's energy policy is making every business in this country less competitive. If I am wrong--[Hon. Members: "You are."] If I am wrong, can the Minister, for the first time this Question Time, answer a very simple question? Can she name three businesses that are more competitive under this Government's energy taxation policy?
Mrs. Liddell: It is not often that the hon. Gentleman is right, and he is wrong again. He seems to have forgotten who introduced the fuel duty escalator. That was a direct consequence of the action taken by the previous Government. The Government have listened to the representations from industry. [Interruption.] The Conservatives do not like facts, but the fact is that we have reduced industrial gas and electricity prices, helping every intensive energy user in the country. Much combined heat and power activity imports energy for its schemes; that comes directly from reduced gas and electricity prices. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the views of industry, he should go and talk to those involved about the benefits that have resulted from the Government's energy policy.
Business of the House
12.30 pm
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Monday 17 July--Remaining stages of the Football (Disorder) Bill, which will be taken on a timetable motion unless it is clear from today's debate that there is from the Opposition the full co-operation that they claimed to be offering a few days ago.
Tuesday 18 July--Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday 19 July--Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Thursday 20 July--Debate on Public Expenditure on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.
Friday 21 July--Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
Monday 24 July--Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Government Resources and Accounts Bill.
Friday 28 July--Motion on the Summer Recess Adjournment.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
I should also like to inform the House that the business for Westminster Hall for the remainder of July will be:
Thursday 20 July--Debate on the Fourth Report from the Agriculture Committee on Environmental Regulation and Farming.
Thursday 27 July--Debate on Crime Reduction Partnerships.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the Leader of the House for next week's business and an indication of some of the business for the following week. Can she throw some light on statements that the Government will be making next week? Can she confirm that the Chancellor will be making an announcement about the comprehensive spending review on Tuesday? Will the Prime Minister be making a statement on the NHS on a later date? Will the Deputy Prime Minister be making a statement on transport next week? In the spirit of the debate that is to take place later today, might the Government share that information with the House?
There appear to be a few blank days in the week after next. The House is still owed a debate on procurement for the armed forces which would otherwise run into the traditional two-day debate in October. Could we have that debate before we rise?
The Leader of the House has announced consideration of Lords amendments. She may have noticed that in the other place--where neither party has an in-built majority--the Government are regularly defeated.
Can she confirm that she welcomes this revising role of the second Chamber and that the Government will not automatically use their majority here to overturn sensible Lords amendments?Finally, further to a question that I asked a fortnight ago, is the Leader of the House any clearer on the likely date of the state opening of Parliament?
Mrs. Beckett: I can confirm that I anticipate that the comprehensive spending review will be announced in a statement to the House on Tuesday. The issue of what other statements might follow that is under consideration and we will convey that information as matters become clearer.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the provisional business included what appeared to be some blank days and suggested a debate on defence procurement. He went on to discuss the fact that there are regular Government defeats in the House of Lords. As he will know, and as the figures make clear, these are far more regular than under previous Governments. This Government have been defeated 38 times in the House of Lords in this Parliament, whereas the previous Government were defeated only 19 times in 1992-93, only 17 times in 1987-88 and only 20 times in 1983-84. I know that Opposition Members nurture the illusion that that is evidence of the independence of their Lordships. We think that it is evidence of their bias. On the issue of the state opening, I fear that I have nothing to tell the right hon. Gentleman at the moment.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): Could the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the steel industry in the light of the report published this week by the UK Steel Association and the Engineering Employers Federation, which called for a re-balancing of the economy to support manufacturing? Such a debate should make special reference to the job lay-offs being announced by Corus at a time when the pound is weakening against the dollar and the euro, the company is moving into the black and, according to all analysts, will make a profit of £750 million next year. This is not the time for Corus to cut a swathe through jobs in the industrial heartlands.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern which, I believe, is shared across the House. At a time when there is so much creation of new employment, jobs are still being lost in manufacturing. I share my hon. Friend's disappointment at that, whether those jobs are lost in the steel industry or elsewhere. My hon. Friend is right to use this opportunity to raise the issue of whether Corus should reconsider its plans in the light of recent economic developments, but I fear that I cannot offer time for a special debate.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Does the Leader of the House recall that, in last week's business questions, I drew her attention to the extremely unfortunate precedent of the speedy dispatch of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 and related that to the dangerous yobs Bill that is now before the House? Will the Leader of the House look at the timetable for Monday's debate? First, will she give an assurance that there will be adequate time for all the major issues which, as Members on both sides of the House recognise, raise important matters of principle?
Secondly, will she look at the controversial parts of the Bill, which relate to the third proposition on banning orders and the fourth proposition on the revival of the sus laws that we got rid of some years ago--at least, we thought that we had?Thirdly, and most importantly, will the Leader of the House examine the case for a proper interval between the Bill's Committee stage and its Report and Third Reading? Otherwise, there will be no opportunity for the House and for those outside who have an interest in the matter, such as the police, to take account of Committee debates before we come to Report and Third Reading, which could perfectly well be taken on Wednesday, after 10 pm, if necessary. Does the Leader of the House recognise that the imperative for this legislation appears to be a club fixture in August, and that there is no great urgency for the measure at all?
Mrs. Beckett: I am mindful of the matter. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that he reminded me at the last business questions of unfortunate precedents on the speedy dispatch of legislation. However, he will know that under none of those precedents did we have the degree of scrutiny and the unprecedented degree of consultation and co-operation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has demonstrated. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the Bill's proposals are not all new, although I accept that some are more controversial than others. I accept, as I know that my right hon. Friend will, the hon. Gentleman's point about timetabling enough time to deal with the issues adequately. From what I have said, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government would be pleased if we could do that in a co-operative way. We are offering to do that, but only time will show whether that will turn out to be possible.
As for the notion that there are no relevant international matches, I understand that that is not the case. There is an important international match in early September, and there is some concern that, unless further measures are then in place, more problems could occur.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |