| Services of General Interest
|
|
Richard Younger-Ross: Thank you for your earlier advice, Mr. Sayeed. I am very grateful for the fact that the Minister is not trying to defend Liberal Democrat policies. Indeed, he seems to be struggling to defend the Government's measure. Paragraph 2.10 of the Committee's sixteenth report complains, yet again, of his Department's failure
Mr. Alexander: I hope I can reassure the hon. Gentleman directly by referring him to the terms of the new treaty that was signed in Rome and which we hope will be ratified, which gives a direct locus to Parliament for the first time and in a way that has not been recognised before in European law. The new treaty gives Parliament the opportunity not only to be involved in the scrutiny process, but to be directly involved earlier. That bears directly on the hon. Gentleman's question. The Commission's responsibility to make Parliament aware of possible European legislation at an early stage will considerably strengthen the role not only of this Column Number: 14 Parliament but of the Parliaments of other member states by ensuring that there is appropriate scrutiny of these measures.Tony Cunningham: The Minister has talked about the concepts of universality and affordability, but the White Paper claims that
Mr. Alexander: Perhaps unsurprisingly, we do agree that people should have access to high-quality services. That explains both the investment that we are putting into public services after many years of chronic underfunding and our ambitious reform programme. There is a clear understanding in Government that the principles I set out at the beginning of my speech are all necessary to drive up the level of service that people are offered and increasingly expect in this modern world. However, I regret that that view is not shared on both sides of the House. Were there a Government of another hue, I would have grave fears for the future of public services. Mr. Brady: I am forming the view that the Minister's answers are better when they are brief, so I ask him for the briefest possible response to my question—a yes or no answer. The Government have made clear their opposition to a framework directive for services of general interest; will the Minister also state the Government's objection to a framework directive applying to services of general economic interest? Yes or no? Mr. Alexander: With the greatest respect to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I will choose my own words with which to reply and I shall resist the great temptation to comment on the merit of his short or long questions. In response to his question, I reiterate what I said at the beginning: we remain convinced that a sectoral approach to services of general economic interest offers the way forward. Indeed, there is happy precedent for it in terms of previous work. Mr. Luke: One area covered by services of general economic interest is that of the energy market and industry. The whole issue in Europe, as in this country, is that of security of supply. Does the Minister foresee further European legislation being introduced to co-ordinate the industry across Europe, given the large diversity in attitudes toward nuclear power and the supply of gas to different areas? Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am certainly aware that there is a major push to mobilise the energy market across Europe. There is further scope for that to be developed if we are to see a genuinely single market, and further progress that can be made. I discussed security of supply with my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and E-Commerce recently, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to maintain secure energy supplies. That is Column Number: 15 one of the four goals that the Government articulated in their energy policy, which they set out in the energy White Paper last February.We believe that the market-based approach is the best way to deliver energy security, and that it is working well. We saw evidence of the way in which the market is working to deliver security of energy supply last winter, when generators brought a mothballed plant back into service in response to rising electricity prices and signals from national grid Transco that it would like greater capacity going into the winter. As a result, the plant margin for last winter rose from the projected level of 15 or 16 per cent. in July 2003 to over 20 per cent. by Christmas, and electricity supply was sufficient to meet demand throughout the winter. For the market to work effectively, market participants need to know that the Government will let it work. We made it clear in the energy White Paper that we will not intervene in the operation of the market except in extreme circumstances, and as a last resort, for example to avert a potentially serious risk to safety. Through the joint energy security of supply working group, the DTI and the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets continually monitor developments in the market and look for ways to help it to work effectively to deliver secure energy supplies. They also provide valuable information to help market participants to plan investment decisions. I hope that that answer was clear enough. Mr. Brady: The Minister has refused to rule out the possibility of a framework directive for services of general economic interest. That is of particular concern given that the White Paper makes it clear at paragraph 2.3 that once the constitutional treaty is in force, the provision will provide an additional legal basis for community action in this field. At paragraph 4.1, it goes on to set a calendar for the re-examination of these matters once the constitution is in place. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will be able to veto any such framework directive under either the existing rules in the treaty or the extended competences in the constitution? Mr. Alexander: Given the Opposition's record of getting their facts wrong about the European treaty, and given the scare stories that we have heard from them, some of which have been utterly disputed by the result achieved, it ill behoves those on the Conservative Benches to suggest in a characteristically Jeremiah-like fashion that everything will be disastrous. Under the treaty there will be qualified majority voting, so any Commission proposal will be subject to QMV. I return, however, to my fundamental point: there is some confusion in the minds of some members of the Conservative party about what the treaty says. It speaks directly to services of general economic interest, not services of general interest. If one considers the wording of the treaty and of the clause that follows the reference to services of general economic interest in terms of an explicit endorsement Column Number: 16 of the role of member states, given the substance of the treaty one is might think that the hon. Gentleman perhaps worries too much.Richard Younger-Ross: One House that scrutinises European legislation probably more thoroughly than we in this House are permitted to do is the Lords. One question they put was:
Mr. Alexander: I also read the report and the evidence that led to it from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions. I can do no better than refer to the argument advanced in that Committee. The term ''services of general economic interest'' is a sub-group of a broader term, ''services of general interest''. SGEIs refer to services of general interest that are of an economic nature. Those activities
The concept of services of general economic interest includes services provided by the big network industries, such as transport—as we have discussed—postal services, energy and communication. However, as far as we understand it, the term extends to any other economic activity subject to public service obligations. Mr. Brady: Now we are getting somewhere. When the Minister protested a little too much in his response to me, he confirmed, however, not only that the Government will not rule out the framework directive for services of general economic interest but that under the constitution the Government will have no veto. Will he give a straight answer to British businesses in particular, which are deeply concerned about the proposals, and address again my question whether the Government will oppose and vote against any attempt to set out a framework directive applicable to services of general economic interest? Mr. Alexander: The Conservative party strikes a characteristically defensive pose. It is not simply a matter of the view of the British Government, who—I cannot state it any more clearly—see the sectoral approach rather than a general framework as the way forward; equally, we must be aware that other member states share our view. If one considers the wording of the treaty, one sees that it reflected the balance of views in the Community. It makes the case strongly that the Government are winning the arguments. Rather than constantly attempting to sideline our position in Europe with discussion of the veto, we are confidently engaging in discussions about the future of Europe and winning the substantive arguments. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to name the countries that are uniform in their view that they will support a general framework, as he describes it. Equally, I invite him to name the countries that would be on Britain's side in Column Number: 17 arguing for a sectoral approach. If he were to consider that position, he might have a different slant on his question.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 1 December 2004 |
