| Services of General Interest
|
|
Mr. Alexander: I will allow the Commission to speak for itself. Let me try to explain with suitable brevity but, I hope, explanatory clarity how we understand the position of the British Government. Article III-6, which is now article III-122, represents a statement of the commonly held view that public services have a special position in the economy and should not undermine the single market. In that regard, we support it. Of course, that article draws on article 16 of the European Union treaty, which is distinctive in that it does not include a legal base for action by the Community. That has been changed by the new constitution—but, as I suggested, the new constitution refers specifically to services of general economic interest. That reflects some of the debates in the Convention on the Future of Europe and reflects—I hesitate to say one of the many victories—one of the many areas in which the British view prevailed in ensuring that the appropriate balance was struck between a recognition that the Union had an interest in such matters and, none the less, upholding the principle of the key role of member states in that regard. The Chairman: For the guidance of colleagues, when documents are held in common by Committee members, there is no requirement to read the whole text of a particular document. Stephen Hesford (Wirral, West) (Lab): The Minister may appreciate that some of us are not as familiar with these issues as he is. Will he say a bit more about the White Paper on services of general interest to define in more detail the concepts of universality and affordability? Mr. Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question. I am respectful of those hon. Members who are relatively new to this issue in which there is a terminological thicket in which I have been known to lose myself in the wee small hours of the morning while preparing for debates not dissimilar to this. I hope that the time and effort has proved worth while, but I shall leave that to other hon. Members to determine. The White Paper speaks directly to the approach that we uphold, which is that a sectoral approach is more useful. To return to the point about Scotland for a moment, the relevance of universality of service in relation to the railway sector is fairly limited if people live in Benbecula or Stornoway, where there are no railways. In that sense the idea that there can be grand horizontal views of universality or affordability is undermined in some cases by practical examples. In contrast, specific definitions of some of the sectoral areas of policy making, particularly in relation to telecommunications and e-commerce, have been offered in the past. In that sense the points that my hon. Friend raises about the two general terms strengthen the Government's case, which is that trying to establish horizontal certainty on such matters is a more difficult undertaking than trying to define issues such as affordability or universality in relation to particular sectors. Column Number: 11 Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con): Will the Minister join me in congratulating the party that has tabled the amendment on its apparent conversion to the cause of Euroscepticism? Does he share my dismay that the arch-Euro-federalist and Euro-enthusiast party appears to be demonstrating such duplicity? Mr. Alexander: Challenging though it sometimes is to get on top of one's brief, given the technical nature of the subject, the ability to defend the Liberal Democrats is far beyond my competence or ability. The hon. Gentleman has referred to just the most recent example of the Liberal Democrats trying to have it both ways. I do not want to stray too far from the subject in hand, but I think that their position reflects a desire to speak to a constituency of voters that has little sympathy for the approach that they have adopted. Jim Dobbin: Will the Minister say something about the Government's discussions and consultations on these documents in relation to the TUC? Mr. Alexander: Meetings and exchanges have taken place, with representatives of the TUC in particular. Given John Monks's departure from the TUC in Britain and his position at the ETUC, I assure the Committee that very strong links exist between the British and European trade union movements. However, in the interests of balance, I should point out that we have also had exchanges with business organisations such as the CBI and the Institute of Directors. In June, a seminar was held with representatives of the devolved Administrations and the Local Government Association to make sure that we were capturing the insights and views of local councillors. Officials drew the Commission's Green Paper and consultation on services of general interest to the attention of a number of parties to make sure that the relevant constituencies in Britain were fully apprised of the issues. Mr. Brady: In responding to me and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), the Minister made clear his view that there is no EU competence for services of general interest as opposed to services of general economic interest. Yet the order before us refers only to services of general interest. May I press the Minister on that point? Is he saying that the Government do not have a fundamental objection to the extension of a framework directive for services of general economic interest, but only have an objection to the proposals in the Green and White Papers? Mr. Alexander: To return to the terms of the order, we stand by the fact that we welcome the debate on services of general interest. That is different from saying that in every circumstance we would support the Commission's view on the proposals. Equally, we support the view that sector-specific regulation is the way forward, and we have upheld that position during discussions.
Column Number: 12 It is fair to say that some of the terminology bandied around in such discussions does not simply reflect the position of the European Commission as expressed in the Green and White Papers, but also some of the discussion on the European Convention. I sought to be clear about where some of the terminology had arisen. It is clear that some of the Commission's thinking has been informed by discussions during the Convention on the Future of Europe, but did not find expression in the final treaty that was recently signed in Rome.On the way forward, there is not the legislative competence at the moment. However, we uphold the position that sector-specific discussions are the way forward. We shall see, in light of what the European Commission says in response to our position and that of other member states, whether we shall continue to prevail with the Commission following the ratification of the treaty signed in Rome. Tony Cunningham: The Minister has kindly considered how the measures will affect railway companies and aviation, for example. Will he consider how they will affect the potential new entrants into the service markets across the EU as far as the provision of public sector broadcasters, such as the BBC, is concerned? Mr. Alexander: That is a good example of the British Government being engaged in a constructive dialogue with the European Commission, both on public service broadcasting and the Post Office. There have been discussions on the applicability of state aid rules, and we were successful in both circumstances in upholding the principle that the position of the British Government was clear. The position of new entrants is guaranteed under single market legislation in specific sectors across Europe, but, as far as I am aware, no specific measures on public service broadcasting are proposed in the White Paper. Rev. Martin Smyth: May I press the Minister for clarification? There is a reference to non-national companies being involved in public-private partnerships. Does that mean that only national companies in Europe can be involved, or can companies from other countries also be involved, bearing in mind the large number of countries with companies that are currently investing in the UK? I can think of Canada, the United States and Australia. Do the measures limit the right of some companies to invest in PPPs in the UK, or in Europe at large? Mr. Alexander: The answer is no in relation to current investments in PPPs. I think of the Skye bridge—a recent and controversial PPP proposal in Scotland. If I remember correctly, the Bank of America was one of its principal investors. All member states may use PPPs to provide services of general economic interest if they wish to do so. They can then look to the capital markets or whatever other means they are using to fund those projects, regardless of the nationality of the funders. Column Number: 13 Stephen Hesford: Further to that point, will my hon. Friend say a little more about whether these measures affect PPPs and the provision of infrastructure services or renewals throughout the EU? Mr. Alexander: The British Government have strongly supported PPPs. We believe that they are some of the ways in which we can address the investment gap—the legacy that was left to us—so we are confident that there is further scope for PPPs in other member states. Indeed, I have had the opportunity in recent weeks to meet my counterpart in the Czech Republic to discuss some of that country's concerns about the applicability of PPPs there. I was struck by how similar the concerns expressed by the Czech Government were to some of the concerns expressed earlier in the UK about PPPs. I assured him that we could ensure that the expertise developed by the British Government over the past 10 to 15 years, first on private finance initiatives and now on PPPs, is shared with other member states' Governments. One can engage constructively with the private sector on that basis—an engagement that is leading to new investment in my constituency and in the constituencies of many other hon. Members—without the risk-reward balance for the private sector being inappropriate. We have learned a great deal in recent years. We are not simply encouraging PPPs throughout Europe; we are actively working with other member states' Governments to ensure that they can benefit from the expertise that we have accrued in recent years.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 1 December 2004 |
