House of Commons
Thursday 30 November 2000
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
The Secretary of State was asked--
Innovation
1. Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton): What steps he is taking to raise the level of innovation in the United Kingdom's industrial base. [139531]
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government believe that innovation is the key to industrial success. By providing economic stability, the Government are giving business the opportunity to raise its levels of innovation.
Mr. Love: My right hon. Friend may be aware that, tomorrow, my local business innovation centre will be presenting the annual London innovation awards. On show will be 126 new technologies, many of which can be turned into commercial ventures. Last year's winner has already established a turnover of £600,000 and is poised for major expansion. Will my right hon. Friend give us some tangible examples of innovation making the difference to both jobs and investment in the British economy?
Mr. Byers: I congratulate those who will be receiving awards at the London innovation awards ceremony tomorrow. There are several good examples of innovation that has been developed here in the United Kingdom, which have been beneficial to employment and have had wider benefits. One immediately thinks of Viagra, which has been useful to a number of people in the UK--[Interruption.] I have not had to use it myself. One thinks also of the Dyson vacuum cleaner, the Psion organiser and something that came directly from a Department of Trade and Industry grant--a smart award--to the production company responsible for "Walking with Dinosaurs", some of whom are on the Opposition Benches. That was a very good money-earner for the UK, and based on a grant that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) would abolish.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many long-term technology programmes are dependent either directly or indirectly on Government contracts? That is particularly so in defence-related industries. Does the right hon.
Gentleman also agree that one factor that should be taken into account when deciding on defence procurement contracts is the ability to sustain the technological research and development base in the UK rather than among American competitors?
Mr. Byers: I have no doubt that public procurement can be a very effective way of developing innovation and supporting research and development in the UK. Over the years, the defence sector has played a valuable role in achieving that. I know that the Ministry of Defence continues to keep under review its procedures to ensure that the decisions that it takes on its procurement programme will not weaken but support the UK's industrial base, while at the same time providing our armed forces with the quality of equipment that they need to discharge their responsibilities.
Gillian Merron (Lincoln): I welcome the commitment to promote innovation in British industry, but how will my right hon. Friend ensure that it will be relevant to the needs of engineering companies such as Alstom Power in Lincoln, which faces hefty competition on the world market?
Mr. Byers: I compliment my hon. Friend on her very active work with Alstom, which I know is a major employer in her constituency and plays an important role in the UK's manufacturing and engineering base. Alstom is one of the forward-looking companies that has been prepared over the years to innovate. That is one reason why it has been successful in a highly competitive international market.
The role of the Government in such circumstances is not to try to tell companies such as Alstom how it should innovate or develop products for the future. We should offer incentives and try to work alongside such companies. That is why I hope that the Chancellor will consider the extent to which R and D tax credits--he announced this in the pre-Budget report--can be extended beyond the small and medium sector, to support larger employers and companies such as Alstom in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): This week, the Confederation of British Industry estimated that the additional burden on British industry over this Parliament totals £32 billion. How does the Secretary of State think that helps competitiveness and innovation? Instead of inflating his Department--by 1,000 civil servants since the election--and fiddling around with a lot of gimmicky initiatives, will he at last start to stand up to the Treasury for the real interests of British business, begin to roll back the tide of red tape and regulation and do something about the £32 billion extra burden about which the CBI complained this week?
Mr. Byers: The £32 billion of red tape to which the CBI referred includes the cost of providing people with four weeks' paid holiday a year, which the right hon. Gentleman would scrap. It also includes the cost of implementing the national minimum wage, which he would scrap. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman, in his principal position as shadow Secretary of State, and his deputy, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), do not believe in the principle of a national
minimum wage. They are clearly on the record as saying that, so there can be no doubt about it. The right hon. Gentleman attacks red tape, but in reality he is trying to attack basic decent standards in the workplace. That is a classic Tory agenda which the Government reject. We believe that decent standards in the workplace support improved economic performance.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about our policies on the minimum wage. [Hon. Members: "No."] He is factually incorrect, but we are right about his policies. He is more concerned with preserving all the extra jobs and expenditure in his own Department than with helping British industry to generate jobs in its sector. How can he be so complacent when the Institute of Chartered Accountants has produced another survey that shows that the cost to the average small business of implementing the additional regulations and legislation has risen from under £5,000 last year to over £8,000 this year? Will the Secretary of State leave his fantasy world of initiatives, advisers and extra civil servants and start to stand up for British industry? Will he take the lead from us and switch some of that expenditure over to make a cut in business rates for all small businesses?
Mr. Byers: Let us get away from that fantasy world and address what Opposition Members have said on the record. The right hon. Gentleman's deputy, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, called the national minimum wage a "cretinous" idea--he should know. The right hon. Gentleman himself has said that the national minimum wage would undermine the country's economic performance, as the record shows--
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Totally untrue.
Mr. Byers: The shadow Chancellor did not consult the right hon. Gentleman when he suddenly announced that the Conservative party was going to endorse the national minimum wage.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the problems that the Government face. However, the facts show that over 1 million more people are in work since the Labour party took office. Today, we are announcing that we have delivered on one of our key manifesto pledges, as 250,000 young people are in jobs as the result of our measures. That is the reality of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman can live in his own fantasy world, but we are delivering for the people of our country.
Manufacturing Industry (West Midlands)
2. Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak): If he will assess the performance of manufacturing industry in the west midlands. [139532]
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Office for National Statistics figures for 1997, which are the latest figures available, show that the performance of manufacturing industry in the west midlands, on a gross value added per employee basis, is 91.5 per cent. of the UK average.
Dr. Jones: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many manufacturing businesses in the west midlands face
an uncertain future. At a meeting with the Engineering Employers Federation this week, there was considerable concern about the impact of the climate change levy on the competitiveness of companies with high energy costs that do not qualify for negotiated agreements under current arrangements. One business faces additional costs of £1,000 per employee. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to raise with the Chancellor the possibility of a rebate for companies that undertake to reach ISO 14001 environmental standards? In that way, CO 2 emissions can be reduced--
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's question is far too long.
Mr. Caborn: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concern and the representation made by the Engineering Employers Federation. She will accept that taxation is always a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but I shall ensure that her concerns and those of the industry are passed on to my right hon. Friend at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Is the Minister aware of the CBI's view that the climate change levy favours only organisations that are going to make a change, rather than those that have already invested in change, which include Sony in south Wales--[Hon. Members: "West midlands"]--and many organisations in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). I am a west midlands Member of Parliament, as you know, Mr. Speaker. Has not legislation introduced by the Government destroyed industry in my constituency, including Armitage Shanks, one of the largest manufacturers of toiletware in the United Kingdom? It is all very well for the Minister for Trade to laugh, but hundreds of people were employed by Armitage Shanks, which was a major exporter--
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has got the point.
Mr. Caborn: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the director general of the CBI, Digby Jones, made clear in his speech that he was pleased that boom and bust had been removed for the first time in a long time. One of the most expensive commodities for business is uncertainty. This country now has the soundest macro-economic framework that it has had for many years. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we also have the best employment figures for many years. We have reduced by a quarter of a million the number of young people who were unemployed when we came to power. This country's biggest impediment to growth is lack of skills and the diabolical position in which the previous Administration left the economy, which we are now struggling to put right.
Biotechnology Clusters
3. Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North): If he will make a statement on the development of biotechnology clusters. [139533]
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): My noble Friend Lord Sainsbury led a team to look at the development of biotechnology clusters. Its report was published in August last year and the Government have acted on all its recommendations.
Dr. Gibson: In a recent high-profile debate, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
- Biotechnology is the next wave of the knowledge economy. This is an industry whose market in Europe alone is expected to be worth over £70 billion by 2005. The number of people employed in biotech, or who depend on its uses, could be as high as three million, as we catch up with the American industry--currently eight times the size of Europe's.
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right about the importance and potential of the biotechnology industry. He will have welcomed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement last week of a £725 million increase in the science budget. Of that increase, £110 million is earmarked for genomics. My hon. Friend will also welcome the fact that we are investing during the next three years a further £165 million through the regional development agencies, including those in the east of England and in the west midlands, to support cluster development, including biotechnology clusters.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): Does the Minister understand that the reason why new companies form every week in the United States is that it has a low-tax, low-regulation economy? Will not the £32 billion of additional regulation introduced by the Government drive the clusters to other countries around the world?
Ms Hewitt: It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to talk down the United Kingdom. The fact of the matter is that we have the second-largest and most mature biotechnology sector in the world. We remain the biotechnology leader within the European Union. Three quarters of the new drugs developed in the European Union are developed here in the UK, which has excellent companies. By investing in the science base, as we are doing, and by helping science institutions more effectively to commercialise their research, we will get many more new companies. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the announcement made by Conservative Front Benchers yesterday, stating that the Tories would cut the funding that we are investing in those new companies.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): I welcome Lord Sainsbury's report, but what steps will the Government take specifically to assist industrial biotechnology? Bearing in mind the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been doing along with others in the north-west, will my hon. Friend consider carefully the fantastic successes in industrial biotechnology in the north west and urge the Government
to inject more support into the projects going to our academic institutions there, thus helping our industrial partners?
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am glad to say that, as a result of the north-west science review competition, we have already invested more than £26 million from the science budget in the north-west's science base. Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set up the north-west science and Daresbury development group, which includes a wide range of local partners, to consider how further to build upon the north-west's considerable science strength, and that group will report shortly.
Tobacco Manufacturing
4. Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): When he last met the Tobacco Workers Association to discuss job prospects in British tobacco manufacturing. [139534]
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and I met representatives of the Tobacco Workers Alliance on 26 October. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) were also present.
Mr. Chope: That has not done much to satisfy the workers who will be affected by the Government's deliberate and wilful campaign to destroy 1,600 tobacco manufacturing jobs in Southampton. We know that the Labour party received £1 million from Bernie Ecclestone to save a few jobs in Formula 1, but what price is the Minister demanding to save 1,600 jobs in export manufacturing in Southampton?
Ms Hewitt: I do not recall the hon. Gentleman expressing any concern about the fate of the hundreds of thousands of miners whose jobs were destroyed by the previous Administration. Crocodile tears from the hon. Gentleman will not impress anyone. I stress that the EU directive on labelling and tar levels, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, will not take effect before January 2004 at the earliest. There is a great deal of time for the tobacco industry and other sectors in the supply chain to adjust to those changes. I have every sympathy for the workers, who of course are anxious about their job prospects, but I have stressed to the Tobacco Workers Alliance not only that the companies have time to adjust to the prospect, but that direct help will be available to any workers who lose their jobs. We do not accept the estimates that have been made, but if any workers face the threat of redundancy, we shall ensure that we give them every help to find other jobs.
Liz Blackman (Erewash): I, too, have constituents who work in the tobacco industry who are equally concerned about job losses. Has my hon. Friend made any rough estimates of the job losses if the directive is implemented, and will she agree to meet representatives of the tobacco industry in my constituency to hear their concerns?
Ms Hewitt: Of course I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and any colleagues whom she wishes to bring
to discuss the matter with me. I stress that neither the European Commission nor my Department accept the estimates that have been offered by the Tobacco Workers Alliance and the industry of potential job losses. British American Tobacco has said that much of the overseas market for its cigarettes depends upon the premium "made in Britain" brand. There is every reason to think that the industry can continue to export successfully even if the tar levels are reduced. It is also worth saying that, when the earlier directive on tar levels was introduced, the industry predicted that there would be hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect job losses, but they did not materialise.
Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry): Do the Government recall that, in past years, tobacco workers sounded a clear warning about the consequences of increasing taxation on tobacco? That was ignored, and we have seen a constant rise in smuggling and the consequent loss of jobs in the United Kingdom industry. Why do the Government continue to ignore the warnings that are being sounded by tobacco workers on the EU ban?
Ms Hewitt: It is worth remembering that tobacco kills and that high-tar cigarettes kill more people more quickly. Our estimate is that the new directive will strengthen the internal market and protect health. In particular, we estimate that between 400 and 750 lives a year could be saved by the implementation of the directive in the UK. We must take account--the president of the Tobacco Workers Alliance herself made this point to me--of the health impact of smoking. That is why we strongly support the directive.
Citizens Advice Bureaux
5. Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth): What steps he is taking to ensure that the citizens advice bureau service is available at a consistent level throughout England and Wales. [139535]
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government help to ensure that the citizens advice service is available at a consistent level throughout England and Wales through their support for and funding of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. This year, the Government provided £15.7 million to that organisation to maintain standards through support and training to the individual citizens advice bureaux in England and Wales.
Mr. Michael: I welcome the Government's support for the national association, to which I pay tribute for its work throughout England and Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of consistently maintained support is of use only if it is accessible to people in all parts of England and Wales? Will he encourage local authorities in every area of the country, especially those providing services to deprived areas in towns and cities, or flexible services in more rural areas, to ensure that local services are adequately supported and funded?
Mr. Caborn: First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his work in the voluntary sector--he has been a great supporter of citizens advice bureaux. Local authorities deal with the local distribution of the service.
It is worth noting that the UK gets £30-worth of work for every £1 spent on voluntary support, which makes the service very cost effective. I concur with my right hon. Friend--any local authority that does not take cognisance of that should now do so, to ensure that that valuable service is available to its electorate. Secondly, the consumer support network, which was announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs in October, is giving a first-class service to many people who have problems with consumer affairs.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): What would the Minister say to any county council that refused to help citizens advice bureaux?
Mr. Caborn: I would say that such a council should review its position. Although the Government are very supportive of citizens advice bureaux, the decision rightly rests with local authorities. However, I would ask any such authority to revisit the electorate's need for the service.
Post Office
6. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): If he will make a statement on the future of the post office network. [139537]
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government are committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices. That commitment was clearly demonstrated when we accepted all 24 recommendations of the performance and innovation unit report, "Counter Revolution: Modernising the Post Office Network", which was published in June. A key recommendation was to develop the role of sub-postmasters and mistresses as government general practitioners. I am pleased to inform the House that, later today, the contract will be signed to begin the government general practitioner project.
Miss McIntosh: Is the Secretary of State aware of the number of post offices and sub-post offices in the Vale of York that have closed under his stewardship? Is he also aware that utility companies such as Northern Electric and Gas have written to sub-post offices such as that run by Mrs. Holden in Huby to say that they are passing on the climate change levy to post offices and sub-post offices? I am not aware that they are heavy industrial users of electricity. Is that not another hammer blow against sub-post offices, which will put them out of business in rural areas such as the Vale of York?
Mr. Byers: I shall certainly examine the hon. Lady's example with great interest and concern. On the wider issue of the post office network, we have recognised the important role that post offices play in rural and urban communities. That is why, for example, we have introduced measures to provide a subsidy to the network. That is the first time that that has been done and it clearly demonstrates our commitment to maintain a nationwide network.
Mr. Martin O'Neill (Ochil): Post offices in central Scotland are going through a period of renewed confidence as a consequence of the announcement that
was made in the summer. They are already benefiting from being online, and there has been a reduction in the tedious work load that so troubled post offices in the past. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that there is a genuine feeling in many areas of the country that the post office problem is on the way to being resolved?
Mr. Byers: I am pleased to hear that the network in central Scotland is responding positively to the measures that the Government are introducing. There is no doubt that we need a modernised network to meet the new demands that are being made. I believe that the more than £500 million that we are investing in the computerisation of every post office will pay enormous dividends in the future, and will allow post offices to extend their facilities and the range of services that they offer the public. That would never have happened under a Conservative Government, who were prepared, through neglect, to see the network decline. We believe that we now have a clear process in place that will support the network and ensure that it can meet the challenges that lie ahead.
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): Does the Minister recall his recent answer to my written parliamentary question, which confirmed that the annual rate of decline of post office branches has accelerated from 200 a year to 333 in the first six months of this financial year? Is not a major factor in the uncertainty of the branches the lack of confidence in the concept of the people's bank? Although it is welcome that the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation has this week endorsed the people's bank, are not other leading clearers rubbishing it in the press? As Treasury Ministers have declined the opportunity to put the social obligations of the banks on a statutory footing, what confidence has the Secretary of State that the people's bank will take off and provide income for the banking system?
Mr. Byers: It is worth reflecting on the fact that in the first half of this year closures in rural areas were 20 per cent. down on the corresponding period for last year. There are clear indications that people are responding positively to the programme that we have outlined.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the important role that universal banking services can play in a modernised post office network. Like him, I welcome the announcement by HSBC earlier this week of its broad support for the concept of a universal bank--a post office-based solution. However, the hon. Gentleman should not believe all he reads in the press. The discussions and negotiations with the banks are proceeding well, and I hope that an agreement will be concluded in the not-too-distant future, so that we can provide banking services through the post office network.
Mr. David Borrow (South Ribble): A couple of weeks ago, the Minister responsible for the Post Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson), met sub-postmasters and sub- postmistresses in my constituency, and he went a long way towards satisfying many of their concerns. However, he was unable completely to satisfy their concern about the perception that the Department of Social Security is still encouraging benefit recipients, including pensioners, to have payments made direct into their bank accounts.
May I urge my right hon. Friend to have further discussions with his colleagues to ensure that all sections of the DSS understand Government policy in this area and realise the importance of maintaining the post office network?
Mr. Byers: I am aware of those concerns. I ask my hon. Friend to provide any evidence of such action by the DSS. I had the pleasure of addressing the national council of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters last Friday, when this issue was raised. I invited them also to provide evidence. The agreement in government is clear. Although from 2003 there will be a progressive move towards automated credit transfer, that will not be the case between now and then, so we have a period in which to ensure that new revenue streams are developed within the post office network.
Mr. Richard Page (South-West Hertfordshire): Is the Secretary of State aware that, with two sub-post offices closing every day, with the universal banking service looking increasingly flabby and unlikely to plug the gap, with the rural White Paper acting as a fig leaf of support for sub-post offices and with the savage introduction of ACTs, he is presiding over the meltdown of our sub-post offices?
Bearing in mind the embarrassment of the dome, the confusion on the railways, the collapse of our textile industry and the climate levy which will destroy business after business, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we shall have a Minister who will take responsibility for his or her actions? When will he do the decent thing and resign?
Mr. Byers: That was almost worth waiting for.
There is a serious point here--I have been trying to find out what constitutes Conservative policy on the Post Office. One of the issues with which we have had to deal in government is the problem of years of neglect of the network, over which the Conservative party presided.
Yesterday evening I consulted "Believing in Britain" to see whether there was a page about the Post Office, a paragraph about the Post Office, a sentence about the Post Office, or even a word about the Post Office. The Tories' programme for the future did not include a single word about the Post Office.
That stands in stark contrast to what we have done in office. There is now a statutory requirement to protect the network, and we have the ability to give it a subsidy. More than £500 million is being spent on computerising post offices up and down the country, and £270 million is guaranteed in this year's spending review. We are a Government committed to the post office network and delivering it with a real vision of a network of the future.
That, as I have said, is in stark contrast to the Conservative party, which says nothing about the Post Office. Ours is a party with a vision for the future, which we intend to deliver.
Consumer Protection
7. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): What plans he has to provide stronger consumer protection by way of regulation of trade associations. [139538]
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government consider self-regulation through codes of practice run by trade associations to be an effective way of strengthening protection for consumers. My Department has no plans to regulate trade associations.
Tony Wright: When our constituents want the services of a tradesman--perhaps a plumber, a builder or an electrician--and turn to "Yellow Pages", they find lists of people who claim to be members of this association or that federation, all of whom seem to offer some kind of protection for those who buy into their services. The fact is that that protection is entirely bogus: no protection at all is built into the schemes involved. Why cannot the Office of Fair Trading provide a kite mark, so that those who use members of such schemes are given the reality of protection rather than just the appearance of it?
Mr. Caborn: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. We hope to present a Bill when we have time to do so. In the meantime, let me say that my hon. Friend has made his point before, and that my Department is discussing with "Yellow Pages" how the arrangements can be tightened up. There are a number of pilot projects with various trade associations to ensure that there is policing of the trade marks that have been issued by the OFT. I hope that when the pilot projects have given us a little more experience, we shall be able to legislate.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) made a good point about misleading advertising in respect of services in particular, but does the Minister accept that trade associations are vital to business? They enable businesses to negotiate from a position of strength with Government and local authorities. Might not further regulation of such associations be counter-productive?
Mr. Caborn: That is exactly the line that the Government are taking. We are not legislating in the sense that we are making regulation mandatory; we are saying that we will have a code of conduct. We believe that a code is the right approach, as it permits flexibility and does not require legislation to be changed. We think that that is the right way forward. Adopting that flexible approach, and working with the Government and the Office of Fair Trading, the trade associations can protect consumers and run out many of the rogues to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) referred.
Mr. Dennis Turner (Wolverhampton, South-East): Will the Minister bring a little Christmas cheer to millions of beer drinkers in Britain by introducing stronger consumer regulations, so that we can achieve a full and fair pint?
Mr. Caborn: I know that that subject is a personal concern for my hon. Friend and one on which he has campaigned for many years. Unfortunately, the Government have not yet made a decision on the matter, but I hope that we will be able to make one in the not-too-distant future.
Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh): I listened very carefully to the Minister's comments on regulating trade
associations. When will he find time to examine the problems in the funeral industry--in which, as he must know, different codes of practice are operating in different associations? When will the Government take action to ensure that the industry introduces a unified code of practice, to include standards and training, to set at rest the minds of millions of people who, in the past few years, have heard stories about the industry?
Mr. Caborn: That is a valid point, and I hope that we will be able to discuss it with the Office of Fair Trading and trade associations. I recently spoke to the secretary general of the Confederation of British Industry, which has 168 affiliated trade associations. Nationally, there are more than 600 trade associations. A little rationalisation might be effective in helping consumers to receive a better service. There are a few problems on the business side, such as the need for rationalisation, and if we could solve that problem not only consumers but their members would receive a better service.
Miners (Compensation)
8. Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire): How many ex-miners and their families in the east midlands have received mining-related health compensation in the last 12 months. [139539]
The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): In the past 12 months, the Department has made more than 252 individual payments, totalling over £1 million, in full, final and interim settlement to claimants living in the east midlands. Progress in settling claims has been too slow everywhere. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe announced in September a programme of improvements to the process, and said that we would be making more than 19,000 higher and additional expedited payments by Christmas, totalling £100 million.
Mr. Taylor: I commend the hard work of the Energy Minister. However, is it not the case that tens of thousands of sick, disabled elderly and dying colliers are trapped in a compensation maze populated by dilatory doctors, lethargic lawyers and middlemen on the make? Can the Minister reassure the House that claims handlers IRISC and medical assessors Healthcall are up to the job of clearing that sorry backlog? Do not the miners who sacrificed their health in winning the nation's coal deserve from the nation much, much better than this?
Mr. Johnson: I agree completely with my hon. Friend's final comment, and I realise how deeply important it is to communities across the country that we get that money to the people who need it as quickly as possible. As I know he appreciates, it is a very complex scheme. We are getting in records and claim packs much more quickly, but there is a bottleneck in medical assessments. We are clearing 400 medical assessments a week, but my right hon. Friend intends to get that up to 1,000 a week.
On the specific medical points that my hon. Friend mentioned, we are introducing nine new mobile scanning teams to collect medical records and, centrally, another four new teams. There is a major push to get more doctors
involved, with considerable success so far, and 13 new recruits being added to the current 173. We are, therefore, very well aware of the points that my hon. Friend has made, and we shall be redoubling our efforts to ensure that that money reaches those who need it and deserve it as quickly as possible.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Given that 6,314 claimants have died after submitting a claim but before receiving settlement of it, would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House what proportion of those 6,314 cases is in the east midlands? Will he guarantee that in each and every case, without fail, the next of kin will receive the sum due, and that in no case will the money be allowed to remain sloshing around in Treasury coffers?
Mr. Johnson: That is a rather superficial question on an important topic. Of course the money will go to the next of kin of those claimants who have died. We have moved to get compensation to miners as quickly as we can--£1 million a day was being paid in compensation last week, and the total cost will be £2 billion. We will provide proper compensation for people who have suffered through all these years. People in the mining communities realise that if a Labour Government were not in power now, there would be no chance of receiving those moneys--that is a different matter from the delays that we face now.
Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling): I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Labour Government on their efforts to make sure that miners and their families get the compensation that they deserve. In the east midlands--including my constituency--there is continuing concern at the speed with which claims are being sorted. Will my hon. Friend make sure that any changes made to speed up the process will be monitored by the Government? Will the Government take speedy action if we do not process the claims from miners in my constituency, Nottinghamshire and beyond?
Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My right hon. Friend the Energy Minister is looking at these points carefully. It is true that in a little short of 18 months in office she has done more for the mining communities than the previous Government did in 18 years.
9. Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire): What representations he has received on the progress of mineworkers compensation claims. [139540]
The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): As I have said, there is wide frustration that progress has been so slow. We have received many representations about this from Members of Parliament and claimants and through the media. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe recently received three petitions, signed by 17,000 people, to which she has responded. The Department and all concerned are working urgently to improve throughput, but we should not forget that this is a part of a continuing legal process. Mr. Justice Turner, who is still handling these cases, noted at the hearing in Sheffield earlier this month that the scheme is of necessity complex
in making sure claimants get all the compensation due to them. This inevitably means there have been delays in putting the process into effect.
Mr. Todd: My visit to the IRISC headquarters in Sheffield prompted me to write to our right hon. Friend the Energy Minister suggesting a range of ways in which the process could be speeded up. For instance, we could remove the wasted time of checking non-existent employment and pension records, which currently delays the payment of claims, and the wasteful process that Healthcall has followed in pursuing claims with GPs, whereby someone arrives, takes just one record and goes away when there are 10 or 12 miners' records in the GP's practice. Will my hon. Friend insist on a review of the entire process to stop time being wasted? I have seen some progress, which I welcome.
Will my hon. Friend work with Healthcall to secure a centre to examine ex-miners in the south Derbyshire coalfield? It could serve that area and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) I would suggest Swadlincote, Coalville or Burton as a location.
Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend makes good points and my right hon. Friend the Energy Minister will consider them. We must clear the bottleneck quickly, but there are legal complexities. It is not just a matter of visiting a GP as though one were making a normal visit for a health check; it often requires a second visit. All our attention is centred on clearing the bottleneck and we will take up my hon. Friend's suggestion. We will keep in touch with him and all other Members of Parliament concerned with the developments.
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam): The Minister has referred to the issue of recruiting doctors who can perform the assessments required for the compensation claims. How would he respond to the case of a constituent of mine who is experienced in this area but is expressly banned from working on the scheme because she once worked for an agency which had some relationship with the Benefits Agency medical services? She was told that within the contractual arrangements from the DTI, any doctor who had ever worked for BAMS was prevented from working on the compensation processes now. Will the Minister consider looking again at this matter, given that many doctors who have expertise in compensation claims may have had some incidental relationship with the Benefits Agency in the past?
Mr. Johnson: The hon. Member raises a matter of which I am unaware and about which I suggest he writes to me. Something about it sounds wrong to me, and we need to look at it. The handling agreement was reached in early 1998, but I am sure that there is enough flexibility to deal with the sort of points that he has raised.
Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone): Will my hon. Friend confirm that the judge monitoring progress in this matter has recently expressed the view that ex gratia payments would not be the way to deal fairly with compensation? He said that they would overcompensate some, and undercompensate others. Will my hon. Friend also take this opportunity to condemn Plaid Cymru, which has distributed literature in south Wales calling for ex gratia
payments? The party has misled miners' families into believing that ex gratia payments represent a simple solution to the problem.
Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Mr. Justice Turner did indeed make those comments about ex gratia payments, and it is important to remember that there is a big difference between such payments and compensation payments. If we went down the route of ex gratia payments, we would not be benefiting the people whom we are seeking to assist.
Sustainable Energy
10. Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South): What action the Government have taken to encourage the development of sustainable energy. [139542]
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government have taken a wide range of actions, which are contained in the UK climate change programme, which was published on 17 November.
Miss Begg: What steps are the Government taking with respect to the development of offshore wind energy? Aberdeen has a great deal of knowledge about the technologies involved in offshore development in the oil and gas industry. Have the Government looked to see whether some technologies in the oil and gas industries can be transferred for use in the development of offshore wind facilities, so that areas such as mine can stay ahead of the game?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Great skills and expertise have been developed, especially in cities such as Aberdeen, as a result of the exploitation of the North sea. There is an opportunity to diversify from the traditional work involved in that exploitation, and to examine ways to harness the power of wind as an alternative form of energy.
The Government have been looking closely at the matter. I was pleased that we were able to announce just three weeks ago that we were now able to make available £89 million in capital grants to support energy crops and offshore wind developments. I have no doubt that that financial contribution will make a real difference in the development of offshore wind technology. That development will be good in terms of renewables, and good in terms of creating employment opportunities in cities such as Aberdeen.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): As far as it goes, I welcome that money, especially if it leads to an increase in the generation of renewable energy from offshore wind. However, will the Secretary of State explain how he squares the provision of that capital grant with the recent lifting of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations? [Interruption.] In addition, may I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the application for a combined cycle gas turbine station in Enderby in my constituency? It is causing a great deal of concern there.
Mr. Byers: I make no comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said from a sedentary position, although I think that he may have been quite accurate. On the important issue of sustainable
energy, we were able to support the lifting of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations because we want a diversity of provision in the United Kingdom energy sector. One way to achieve that balance is to ensure that gas-fired power stations have the opportunity to make a contribution.However, encouraging that contribution must run alongside the need to maintain the coal industry, and that explains why we will be providing a subsidy of £110 million to support the coal industry over the next two years. That goes along with having a sustainable energy policy for the United Kingdom.
Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney): Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we sustain our reserves of oil and gas in the North sea for as long as possible by ensuring that as many marginal fields as possible are fully exploited? There was a clear message in the pre-Budget report that the Chancellor was looking for new levels of investment from the oil companies, which was why he resisted the temptation to impose some kind of windfall tax. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of new levels of capital investment by the oil companies?
Mr. Byers: In the context of how we can develop further the reserves that are still held in the North sea--and certainly off the coast of my hon. Friend's constituency of Waveney--there are opportunities, but they will require additional investment from the oil and gas companies. It was wholly appropriate for the Chancellor to indicate that, in reviewing--as we always do--the fiscal and tax regimes affecting the sector and the industry, he will take into account the level of investment made by those companies. I hope that they will look carefully at the new opportunities in the North sea. Carrying out such investment will place them in a far stronger position, so we should encourage them to do so.
Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton): How does it help the promotion of an environmentally friendly energy policy to have banned the building of new gas-fired power stations for the past three years and to have the implementation of the new electricity trading arrangements delayed yet again, adding £57 to the average electricity Bill? We have higher electricity prices and higher CO 2 emissions. They seem to be the cornerstone of the right hon. Gentleman's energy policy--damaging business and damaging the environment.
Who is responsible for the delays to the new trading arrangements? Is it the Department of Trade and Industry, is it Ofgem, or is it, again, the Secretary of State?
Mr. Byers: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might have supported the decision to lift the moratorium on new gas-fired power stations. It is not true that there was a ban--I allowed one or two to go ahead because of their particular circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important question about the price of electricity. We have changed the way in which electricity is to be traded, and he referred to the new trading arrangements. Of course, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was an architect of the system that we inherited--an inefficient system that inflated prices artificially.
Because of the changes that are being introduced and the forward market, electricity prices are already down. The new trading arrangements will be in place, and prices are already down as a result of that. They are down on last year, the year before that and the year before that. Consumers are seeing a reduction in their electricity prices because of the action that the Government have taken. We have moved away from the failed privatisation of the previous Government. Our system is delivering to consumers, which theirs failed to do.
E-commerce
11. Mr. Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury and Atcham): If he will make a statement on progress made in encouraging businesses to communicate electronically with (a) customers and (b) other businesses. [139543]
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): There are now 1.7 small and medium-sized businesses online, and we are extending the UK online for business programme to help more businesses use the full potential of information and communication technologies to get real business benefits.
Mr. Marsden: I welcome the Government's determination to lead the way in Europe in delivering e-commerce business opportunities. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Shrewsbury's businesses? They are among the first in rural areas to invest in asymmetric digital subscriber line technology, which is being rolled out by BT and is delivering better services and better quality communications.
Ms Hewitt: I am delighted that Shrewsbury and the rural communities have been included in BT's ADSL roll-out programme and I congratulate the businesses that are taking advantage of it. We are determined to ensure
that broadband, high-speed internet access is delivered to businesses and consumers across the United Kingdom as quickly as possible.
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton): In the past fortnight, the prospects for electronic communications have not progressed; they have taken a complete and utter nose dive. The auction of broadband fixed wireless licences has been a complete flop. Of the 42 licences on offer, 26 remain unsold; the auction raised £38 million instead of the predicted £1 billion; and rural areas, in particular, will continue to be an internet black spot. Why does the Minister think that the auction was such a failure? Does she accept responsibility, or does she blame her civil servants? Will she now make a clear statement to the House on how she will retrieve this sorry state of affairs and reintroduce some sort of competence and momentum in developing this important part of the communications infrastructure?
Ms Hewitt: It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman has completely failed to acknowledge the fact that more than half of the United Kingdom population live in areas that will now be served by a new source of high-speed internet, which is broadband fixed wireless access. Those include Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England. That is good news for businesses and consumers in those areas. I am reviewing with the Radiocommunications Agency how we should make best use of the remaining spectrum in other parts of the country.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have not made good progress today. I hope that in the new Session I shall hear shorter questions and briefer answers. It would also help if Ministers resisted the temptation to discuss Opposition policies, which are not their responsibility--[Interruption.] Order. Let the Speaker chair the proceedings.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |