| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Kynoch: Very briefly, because time is limited.
Mr. Gallie: I accept that the Secretary of State is right to take on board local opinions on such issues, and at least to re-examine them. I also accept that the Minister has not totally finished talking about this subject, but may I point out that, when the power station was built at Inverkip, a stretch of cable was put underground, to protect the environment, and that to the high costs involved must be added the continuing revenue costs for the maintenance of that underground cable?
Mr. Kynoch: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will note those comments by my hon. Friend, whom I am pleased to see here for the debate, because he has always expressed a great interest in power--[Laughter.] I mean, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend has a great interest in power generation.
The hon. Member for East Lothian has also raised the matter of PowerGen's application to build a power station at Gartcosh. Hon. Members will know that the application has been referred by my right hon. Friend to a public inquiry, which should start next April. My right hon.
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1017
The Government's general policy is clear: matters such as need, location, design and choice of fuel for power stations are usually best left to developers in line with their own commercial judgment. As I have already said, that policy has brought substantial benefits to consumers.
Again, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about jobs in his constituency, but the Government strongly believe that competition in the industry is in the public's best interests. No one can easily predict the shape of the generating market in future, and it would be foolish for the Government to introduce uncertainty to the market now, when it is showing how successful it is in delivering cheaper and more reliable supplies of electricity.
There does, however, seem to be confusion in some quarters as to what my right hon. Friend's statement actually means for the scope of the inquiry. I should therefore like to make it absolutely clear that it is for the reporter to decide what evidence he believes should be laid at the inquiry. There is no question of my right hon. Friend seeking to limit the scope of that inquiry.
Mr. Clarke:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Kynoch:
No, I must press on, because of the time.
The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about nuclear privatisation. I would say that the new arrangements are settling down well. I remain confident that Scottish Nuclear will continue to be an important part of the Scottish economy, and that nuclear power remains safe.
The hon. Gentleman talked about Torness and safety. That, of course, is a matter for the company, within the rigorous safety standards policed by the nuclear installations inspectorate. I know that the matter is paramount for the company.
Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric are, of course, bound to take Scottish Nuclear's output until 2005 under the nuclear energy agreement. That gives substantial certainty to Scottish Nuclear, enabling it to plan for the future. I am confident that it will rise to the challenge of competition with other generators.
Both in his letter to the Secretary of State and in his speech this morning, the hon. Gentleman referred to opencast mining. I shall look forward to seeing him when he visits me, but I must point out that responsibility for dealing with planning applications and local planning matters rests in the first instance with the local council concerned.
The Government have put in place a firm regulatory and legislative regime to encourage competition and innovation in the energy industries. I am surprised at the defeatist attitude that Opposition Members have taken towards the ability of Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric, together with the Scottish mining industry, to deal with competition.
Let me remind the House that, since privatisation, the two Scottish electricity companies have not only participated in the competitive market that the
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1018
Mr. Foulkes:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Kynoch:
No, I shall not, because I have four minutes left, and I want to complete my speech so as to cover the topic.
Mr. Kynoch:
Opposition Members have had quite a say in the debate. Clearly there is a significant split on the Opposition Benches, but there is an Opposition split on almost every policy--and I would like to finish my speech.
Mr. Foulkes:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I make it clear that I am speaking as a constituency Member of Parliament elected to represent Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, not as a Labour party spokesperson?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
I am sure that that is true, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Kynoch:
I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course he will speak for his constituents, but it would be reasonable to think that there might have been some consensus on the Opposition Benches on a topic that may have such a major impact on Scotland.
I was talking about the two Scottish electricity companies and their success in competing fiercely with each other in Scotland, and also in the market in England and Wales. Of course some business has been lost to suppliers from England, and more business may be lost in future. But both companies have been successful in doing much more of their business in England and Wales, especially since Scottish Power's successful acquisition of MANWEB and Southern Water, which was mentioned by Opposition Members.
As for coal, the Scottish electricity industry has said that it will continue to buy Scottish coal so long as it is competitive in price and quality, and it is taking as much as the coal industry can produce. I have no doubt that the industry will respond to the challenge, and will continue to be a successful supplier to Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric.
Certainly those companies' commitment to coal has been maintained--indeed, increased. Power stations have been fitted with special burners that reduce the amount of nitrous oxides emitted. Scottish Power has secured a substantial European Community grant to test gas over-burning at Longannet power station, with a view to raising its efficiency and reducing emissions. I was most impressed with what I saw when I visited Longannet not long ago.
The company is also testing at Longannet a new technique that extracts sulphur dioxide efficiently from flue gas. Those developments all exemplify the
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1019
Mr. Norman Hogg:
The Minister has not yet explained to us how all that competitiveness and all those entrepreneurial skills and the rest square with buying a water company in the south of England. What is a Scottish electric company doing buying such a company?
Mr. Kynoch:
I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased and proud of a Scottish company using its expertise to diversify, in the interests of the efficiency of service delivery.
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1020
No market is static, and change is inevitable. Opposition Members sometimes find that difficult to take, but the policies of the Government have released the entrepreneurial drive of those major Scottish companies so that they can meet the challenges that face them. Competition drives down costs--
Mr. Kynoch:
The hon. Gentleman knows that I have less than one minute left.
Competition encourages innovative approaches to the provision of services, and that can only be good for consumers and employees--
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1021
1. Mr. Norman Hogg:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what legislation he intends to bring forward to implement the working time directive. [5779]
6. Mrs. Fyfe:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what his Department is doing to ensure that the provisions of the working time directive are implemented in the United Kingdom. [5785]
10. Mr. Benton:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures his Department is taking to ensure that the provisions of the working time directive are implemented in the United Kingdom. [5789]
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang):
I shall issue a consultation document on the working time directive shortly. We will do all we can to prevent damage to British businesses and jobs from the implementation of this directive.
Mr. Hogg:
Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that Britain and Italy are the only European Union countries where workers have no legal right to paid holidays? Is he further aware that 2.5 million British employees have no paid holidays, and no legal entitlement to paid holidays? Will those people have a feel-good factor this Christmas? Is the right hon. Gentleman doing all this to placate the Euro-sceptics on the Conservative Back Benches?
Mr. Lang:
The directive is, of course, about much more than holidays. I welcome the fact that working conditions and holidays--their length and quality--have improved out of all recognition as a result of the successful growth and expansion of the British economy in recent years. The Government consider that these matters should be negotiated by employers and employees at the workplace, taking account of the circumstances of the company and its ability to enter negotiations with its employees.
Mrs. Fyfe:
Does the Secretary of State accept that long working hours harm family life? If so, why is the Tory party--which calls itself the party of the family--doing so much to harm family life?
Mr. Lang:
Working hours in this country have been getting shorter, and that may well continue to happen. Working hours and conditions should be negotiated by the employer and the employee at the company or workplace, and not by bureaucrats in Brussels.
Mr. Benton:
Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that many men and women in my Bootle constituency work excessively long hours, often for a low wage? Does he agree that that is in no way conducive to family life? Will he look again at the directive and make
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1022
Mr. Lang:
Family life is best enhanced by an expanding economy creating additional jobs. In those countries with social conditions that are rigid and burdensome on companies, the consequence is that the number of jobs reduces. That is one of the reasons why unemployment in this country has been falling for several years and now stands at just over 7 per cent., whereas the EU average is more than 11 per cent.
Mr. Batiste:
Is the real issue not what the directive says but the fact that issues of this kind must be determined in this country rather than in Brussels? If subsidiarity and our opt-out of the social chapter mean anything, all these issues have to be determined in our country. That is why people are so upset by the directive.
Mr. Lang:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the context of the social chapter opt-out negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Maastricht, that has been clearly understood in the past. That the matter should be decided in this country by employers and employees at the workplace is central to the Government's determination that the issue will be resolved in our favour at the intergovernmental conference.
Mr. Congdon:
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's intention widely to consult business and industry to try to minimise the cost of that crazy directive for companies in this country. Will he assure me that the Government will redouble their efforts to prevent our European partners from imposing social costs on us by the back door?
Mr. Lang:
I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is not insignificant that the additional burdens on business in this country represent 18 per cent. of the wage roll, whereas in Germany the figure is 32 per cent. and in France 41 per cent. That may help to explain why unemployment in Germany is more than 10 per cent. and in France more than 12 per cent.
Mr. Ian Bruce:
Mr. Bryan Cassidy, the Conservative Member of the European Parliament representing my area, suggested that implementation of the directive might not require Her Majesty's Government to impose any penalties on British business. Could we implement the directive and impose no penalties on any business that was in breach of it?
Mr. Lang:
It is precisely such points that I hope will become clear in the consultation period, and I envisage that we will consult for a period of three months to enable all such submissions to be put to the Government for further consideration.
Mr. Barry Jones:
Can the right hon. Gentleman help my constituents at Shotton steelworks, who work a 12-hour shift rota and want to continue to do so? Is he
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1023
Mr. Lang:
Indeed they will. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution, and I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench heard him. I also welcome the fact that Shotton is doing so well as a result of privatisation and of the improved efficiencies that have flowed from it.
Mr. Stephen:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the working time directive has nothing to do with shorter working weeks and that it is simply a European manifestation of the socialist and corporatist nonsense that we had in this country in the 1960s and 1970s? It is an attempt to get more money for the same or less work; such practice is making continental Europe uncompetitive and Britain competitive in world markets.
Mr. Lang:
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend's central point. It is precisely to maintain the competitiveness in our economy that, during the consultation period, we are seeking to identify ways to minimise the cost of implementing the directive and to avoid unnecessary burdens, and to decide how best to exercise the derogations and flexibilities that have been negotiated as a result of the efforts of previous British Ministers.
Mrs. Beckett:
Surely the Secretary of State has not forgotten that the Government's case against the directive is supposed to be that it is not a health and safety matter and that he claimed that that was supported by Professor Harrington's report. Although Professor Harrington was critical of some of the studies on which the directive was based, because they related mostly to shift work, he went on to draw attention to the risks to health and safety of inadequate rest periods and pointed out that a review of the evidence showed that working 48 to 56 hours was probably detrimental to health and safety--the opposite of what the Secretary of State claimed.
As the directive was negotiated before the opt-out on the social chapter and could not conceivably be a sneaky way around it, does that not show that, yet again, the Government are being incompetent and dishonest and acting in bad faith, which is why people can no longer trust the Tories?
Mr. Lang:
I am surprised that the right hon. Lady should take that line. She misrepresented Professor Harrington's report the last time we had an exchange on the matter and she seems to be trying to do the same again today. The study states that the scientific basis for establishing optimal hours of work is in doubt. The last time she stood at the Dispatch Box on this subject, she suggested that the Government were suppressing a report by the Department of Health on stress at the workplace, and it transpired that the report had been published six months earlier, so I think that she has quite a lot to apologise for.
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1024
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |