| Services of General Interest
|
|
Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Minister expand on the impact on British business? Has his Department carried out a cost analysis of a sectoral approach as opposed to a general framework approach? Mr. Alexander: The origins of a sectoral approach are of long standing. The Commission now raises in White Papers and Green Papers the issue of taking a more horizontal approach. As such, it would be a huge undertaking to consider the sectoral approach in relation to every area previously covered by such an approach, be it telecommunications, the Post Office, the energy sector or other areas. A lot of work is being done in Brussels to ensure that new proposals are assessed with regard to the regulatory burden they impose. The best example of that is regulatory impact assessment, which was first introduced in Britain and is now commonplace throughout Whitehall Departments. We have taken that matter to Brussels and found some favour and support for it in the Commission. There is more that the Commission could do to implement regulatory impact assessments of the quality that we have experienced in the UK, but we are continuing to push the Commission on the matter of a better regulation agenda. I look forward to the second half of next year when we shall hold the presidency of the EU. I would not be surprised if one of the main focuses of our work was the better regulation agenda, and in that regard I am sure we shall have the support of British business. Tony Cunningham: May I ask for a more specific answer? We have talked about business in general terms, but what effect will be felt by such utilities as energy, telecommunications and water companies, and the regulatory bodies that are designed to regulate the work that they do? Mr. Alexander: Let me turn first to the water industry, where we have one of the most open and competitive marketplaces in Europe. That is certainly the case with regard to the English water authorities. The Chairman: Order. Will the Minister address his remarks to the Chair, so that I can hear what he is saying? Mr. Alexander: Forgive me, Mr. Sayeed. We have one of the most open and liberalised markets in relation to our water industry. If we compare the level of investment that has been secured in the water industry in Britain at the moment with that among many of our European counterparts, we can be confident that the vision we have articulated for the future of the water industry will prevail for years to come. Mr. Brady: Having made great play of the number of other member states that share our reservations about a framework directive or horizontal approach, will the Minister give a clear answer: will the Column Number: 18 Government vote against any proposed framework directive in the field of services of general economic interest?Mr. Alexander: I have to answer candidly. I do not envisage that circumstance coming to pass on the basis of the discussions we have had with other member states and the Commission. In the wording secured in the EC treaty, it is clear that there was an explicit recognition of the importance of member states. In terms of the commissioning of services, the British position prevailed. We would need access to a clearer understanding of what the Commission has proposed before I could answer a definitive question about the nature of the proposal. It is entirely characteristic of the Conservatives' approach to take a hypothetical situation and to say that they would not support it, while starting the debate by recognising that the Government have assumed the right position. Are they with us in our view of the way forward as a sectoral approach? If not, they are chasing shadows. Richard Younger-Ross: In responding to the Conservative spokesman's question, the Minister seems to find ''yes'' the hardest word. If a proposal for a horizontal framework were brought forward, would the Government oppose it—yes or no? Mr. Alexander: I can do no better than offer the words with which I opened the debate: we remain convinced that the way forward is a sectoral approach. We are unyielding in our determination to argue for that approach, and unlike the Liberal Democrats, who have changed their position in the way identified by Opposition Members, we are unchanging in the position that we take. We support a sectoral approach, and we shall continue to advance the case for it. Mr. Brady: Perhaps I can assist the Minister. He is unchanging and consistent in his support for a sectoral approach. Will he therefore state his clear and unequivocal opposition on behalf of the Government to any measures that would introduce a horizontal approach to the regulation of services of general economic interest? Would the proposing of such measures be followed by the Government voting against them? Mr. Alexander: Clearly, I stand by the position articulated by the Government in their response to the White and Green Papers, in which we made it clear that we support the sectoral approach—the exact point that was raised. It seems that the Conservatives, uncomfortable with the fact that there is more agreement in the Committee than is usually the case on European matters, have decided to advance a hypothetical case rather than the practical one that I have articulated. Richard Younger-Ross: Let me go back two or three questions. I asked earlier about not-for-profit organisations and whether a more substantial definition was required. I understood the Minister to say that some not-for-profit organisations might be affected by a sectoral framework if one should be Column Number: 19 brought in, or even by a horizontal framework. I think of some of the large national charities, such as Age Concern England, that undertake work on behalf of the Government—work that they do exceedingly well. Could such organisations be affected by these proposals, should they come to pass?Mr. Alexander: May I ask the hon. Gentleman for more clarity on what ''these proposals'' are? With that information, I might be better equipped to answer his question. Richard Younger-Ross: The proposals before us provide a possibility that we will go for a horizontal framework. What I seek clarity on is that, while the Minister has stated that he is in favour of a sectoral framework, he seems to be reluctant to say that he would oppose a horizontal framework. I would have thought that that was self-explanatory, but it seems to be causing him some difficulty. Should the Commission decide after the Convention that there is a case for the horizontal approach, will organisations such as those that I mentioned be affected? Mr. Alexander: Clearly, we will have to await the ratification of the treaty. I am glad that both the Conservatives and, characteristically, the Liberal Democrats are premising all their questions on the presumption of ratification of the EU treaty. It would be interesting to discover whether the Front-Bench colleagues of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West support him on that issue. I shall, however, leave aside the fact that I am glad about the concession of the success of the referendum campaign that has been made at least implicitly by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman in this debate—a point that colleagues will be keen to note. The question whether an organisation is a profit or not-for-profit organisation is not, given the explicit wording in the treaty, as directly material as the question whether the service is provided for remuneration. In that sense, a service of general economic interest bears directly on remuneration rather than on the internal characteristics of the organisation providing the service for remuneration. Mr. Brady: I have been accused of asking many hypothetical questions. In paragraph 4.1 of its White Paper, the Commission states explicitly that it will
Column Number: 20 Mr. Alexander: That is a most revealing question. Suddenly the foot is extracted from the mouth at great speed. The implicit concession throughout the debate has been that, of course, the European treaty will be ratified. I am sure that, notwithstanding the hasty retreat that was just offered from the Opposition Front Bench, the views expressed from it will have been noted by many following the debate. I return to the substantive point that I made. The wording that the hon. Gentleman used, as proactively as he could, still suggested that there would be consideration by the Commission. That does not change the British Government's position that a sectoral approach is the way forward. Mr. Brady: If the Commission brings forward such a proposal following the hypothetical entry into force of the constitution, will the Government vote against that proposal? Or is the Government's stance against such regulations purely posturing? Can business place no confidence whatever in what the Minister is saying? Stephen Hesford: On a point of order, Mr. Sayeed. Is there not a fairly quaint rule in this House, which is often honoured in the breach, that repetition should not be part of the exercise? With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we seem to be getting repetition time and time again. The Chairman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that point of order to the notice of the Committee, but I am watching that particular point carefully. Mr. Brady: I hope that we have an equally quaint rule that Ministers might occasionally be expected to answer a question.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 1 December 2004 |
