European Community (Newsprint Quota) (Hansard, 16 December 1980)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit)
I beg to move, That this House takes note of the draft proposal by the Commission of the European Communities for a Council Regulation opening, allocating and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for newsprint falling within the subheading 48.01A of the Common Customs Tariff (1981) and extending this quota to include certain other types of paper, as set out in the Department of Trade's unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda dated 28 November 1980 and 11 December 1980. The second and fourth reports of the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation &c. recommended that the proposed regulation should be further considered by the House in view of the sensitivity of the question of paper imports and their effect on production capacity.
The proposed tariff quota for newsprint is a well-established arrangement which raises no new policy implications, and the House will note from the Select Committee's fourth report that it is not being opposed by representatives of the United Kingdom newsprint producers. But I fully understand the concern which led the Committee to recommend the matter for further consideration, and am pleased that time has been found for this debate.
Hon. Members will note that the proposal would, among other things, extend the quota to certain types of paper other than newsprint falling under the heading of 48.01A of the common customs tariff. I should not wish there to be any misunderstanding on this point; the other types of paper concerned are grades of newsprint without a watermark which, for technical and historical reasons, are classified elsewhere in the tariff. The proposal therefore relates exclusively to newsprint and has no direct effect on other parts of the paper and board industry.
The effect of the proposal would be to provide relief from customs duties on Community imports of newsprint within a quota of 2.5 million tonnes, from which the United Kingdom would receive an initial allocation of 946,580 tonnes. Duty relief on imports of newsprint is by no means a new development. At least as far back as 1932, 234 the Government of the day recognised newsprint as a key raw material for the country's press and exempted it from the 10 per cent. general ad valorem import duty introduced under the Import Duties Act 1932. This policy has been observed by successive Governments since then.
Up to the point at which we joined the European Community, imports of newsprint from our main suppliers remained free of customs duties under the Commonwealth preference system and free trade arrangements with our EFTA partners. This was not the case in the original six member States of the Community, but in the negotiations leading up to our accession certain modifications to the existing Community tariff regime for newsprint were secured and these are now enshrined in protocol 13 annexed to our Act of Accession. This provides for newspaper publishers to import newsprint duty-free when it has been established that all possibility of Community supply will be exhausted.
The duty-free import of this balance from third countries is now provided for by an annual Community duty-free quota. This has two elements. First, under agreements made when the Community was enlarged, there is an annual quota of 1.5 million tonnes bound in the GATT. On top of this, there is a further autonomous quota calculated each year to take account of the levels of production in member States and their estimated demand.
It is a point of fact that since the early 1970 production of newsprint in the United Kingdom has been sufficient to meet little more than one-quarter of the needs of the newspaper publishing industry. On latest estimates, it will meet about 12 per cent. of those needs in 1981. There is, therefore, a genuine need to import substantial quantities of newsprint, and it would be unrealistic to require the publishing industry, which is itself in financial difficulty, to pay customs duty on imports of such a key raw material in so far as it cannot be obtained from domestic sources. The tariff regime envisaged in protocol 13 does, however, have a protective element which is intended to ensure that the availability of supplies from Community producers is fully taken into account in determining the size of the tariff quota. The United Kingdom's share of the quota is determined on this basis, following consultations with representatives of the United Kingdom producers and users.
For 1981, the situation is somewhat uncertain. The Bowater newsprint mill at Ellesmere Port closed on 21 November and the closure of a newsprint machine at the Reed paper and board mill at Aylesford has been announced. Moreover, the publishers agree that it is difficult to make accurate estimates of demand for 1981. In these circumstances, it has been impractical to reach firm conclusions on the United Kingdom's import requirements for 1981.
On current estimates, it seems that the publishing industry could require up to 1.3 million tonnes of newsprint, of which 150,000 tonnes would be obtained from domestic producers. This would leave an import requirement of 1.15 million tonnes, but because of the uncertainties the Government feel that it would be prudent to seek a United Kingdom quota share somewhat below that level. It would then be necessary to review the figures with producers and users when the situation is clearer and, if necessary, to seek the agreement of other member States to a supplementary quota early in the new year.
Against this background, the initial quota allocation of 946,580 tonnes proposed for the United Kingdom would 235 be a satisfactory interim measure. It is likely that member States other than the United Kingdom will seek a slight increase in their quota shares, but it is generally accepted that the tariff quota should be established initially at a cautious level. All member States are expected to agree in any event that a supplementery quota should be introduced in the first half of 1981 if updated estimates show that the quota currently proposed would be insufficient to meet the import needs of the publishers. This would certainly be a prerequisite of the United Kingdom's acceptance of the proposal as it stands.
I very much sympathise with our newsprint producers, who face a particularly difficult combination of economic circumstances at present. I particularly regret that Bowater has closed its mill at Ellesmere Port with consequent redundancies, in spite of strenuous efforts by the Government, the Ellesmere Port borough council, the trade unions and certain hon. Members to find a means of averting the closure. This was ultimately a commercial decision for the company. I do not consider that withholding duty relief on imports of newsprint that cannot be obtained from domestic sources would begin to solve the problems of the United Kingdom newsprint industry. It would only serve to exacerbate the current severe difficulties of the newspaper publishers, and who would benefit from that?

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
Is there any significant degree of intra-Community trade in newsprint? If there is not, is there any reason why we should go through this rigmarole whereby we have to go back to Brussels for a supplementary quota? Would it not be easier if we dealt with it here?

§ Mr. Tebbit
As my hon. Friend knows, these matters were provided for in the Treaty of Accession. The import of such newsprint duty-free—that is, free of the duties which are agreed within the whole Community—is bound to be a matter that is conducted through the Community.
I shall take careful note of the views of hon. Members on the newsprint tariff quota. I am sure that the House will bear in mind that the proposals I have outlined tonight have been put to representatives of the consumers and producers, who have indicated their acceptance.
A number of hon. Members will want to say something about the problems of the newsprint industry generally. I shall do my best to deal with any points that are raised. I recommend that the House takes note of the draft proposal.

§ Mr. John Smith (Lanarkshire, North)
The House will be grateful to the Select Committee for having recommended that this instrument should be subject to debate in the House. It has issued two relevant reports. The second report indicated that it wished to take further evidence from the industry, and the fourth report says some interesting things about the present state of the newsprint production industry in this country.
The Under-Secretary of State, in introducing the motion, confined himself to a description of the instrument and said that he would answer questions at the end of the debate on the state of the industry. I imagine that many hon. Members, particularly those speaking for the newsprint industry and perhaps the paper and board industry more generally, will wish to address some 236 questions on Government policy towards the newsprint production industry. That is certainly my intention in my short contribution.
The fourth report of the Select Committee refers to recent developments in the newsprint production industry. The most significant figure in the report is that production recently of 385,000 tonnes of newsprint in this country has been reduced to 150,000 tonnes. The reasons are not hard to find, and the Under-Secretary of State referred to them. There has been the total closure of the Bowater plant at Ellesmere Port and the partial closure of the Reed Paper Group plant at Aylesford in Kent, which have meant a savage reduction in the newsprint production industry.
In its evidence to the Select Committee, the industry indicated that it did not wish to oppose the instrument. That is the view of the Opposition. However, the situation in the industry must give rise to grave concern. There has been a massive reduction in the production of newsprint. The paper and board industry is going through a crisis. Perhaps the most acute part of that crisis exists in the sector that we are discussing. The loss of jobs has been serious. Most dramatic of all has been the many jobs lost at the Bowater plant at Ellesmere Port.
The problems that the industry faces have been highlighted in a number of recent publications, one of which the Select Committee referred to in its fourth report—namely, the pamphlet produced by the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades entitled "Action Now". It highlighted the crisis over a wide area of the paper and board industry and concentrated in one of its sections on the newsprint industry. It was a highly researched and relevant document, of which the society should be proud. However, I am sure that it is not happy that it has had to describe such a serious situation in the industry in which its members work.
Some aspects of these issues have been discussed and set out in the sector working party report of the National Economic Development Council on energy and the paper and board industry. That is almost required reading for hon. Members who interest themselves in these matters. The Select Committee referred to some of the relevant issues.
The problem that the newsprint industry faces is simply and starkly one of rapid contraction. Perhaps a year from now the Government will be coming forward with a proposition different from the present one. We face the possible extinction of the newsprint production industry. I hope that the Minister will address himself to these matters when he replies. What will be the situation a year from now if the same factors as have led to a reduction from 385,000 tonnes to 150,000 tonnes continue to operate? It has been an annual exercise to agree the quotas.
I do not want to detain the House with details of the problems that the industry faces, with which hon. Members who have constituency interests are particularly acquainted. The problems are not dissimilar from those that a number of other industries face. The Government have no industrial policy. However, they have an economic policy of high interest rates and a high exchange rate, which they apply without regard to the industrial consequences that follow in its train. That applies to many industries but, I suspect, to few more acutely than the newsprint production industry.
One facet of Government policy is the tolerance of a high exchange rate, which affects the newsprint industry in a way that affects many other industries.

§ Mr. Marlow
What has this got to do with the debate?

§ Mr. Smith
If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he will understand.

§ Mr. Marlow
I shall be rather surprised.

§ Mr. Smith
I shall be surprised, too, if he understands it, but I think that the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)
Order. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is well aware that he is not entitled to make sedentary observations.

§ Mr. Smith
I am well accustomed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to post-dinner interruptions in debates of this sort. If the hon. Gentleman listens to what I have to say, he will learn a little. I do not put too high a bet on his capacity to appreciate my argument, but I hope that he will listen.
The fact that we have such a high exchange rate means that imports of Finnish paper and board products are at an advantage in Britain vis-a-vis domestic products. There is a particular feature of the industry that means that a high exchange rate bears especially heavily upon it—namely, the system of maintaining the price in sterling of supplies of imported pulp to the United Kingdom industry. The agreement that was reached when the relationship between the pound and the dollar was different from what it is now means that foreign competitors have an advantage over the domestic industry in Britain.
Perhaps the most serious aspect of the present problems faced by the industry is that of energy pricing. All British industry is suffering from the high cost of energy. Figures in the sector working party report of the National Economic Development Council indicate rather starkly the nature of the problem. In an appendix to the report, it indicates the price of fuel oil in Britain compared with that of some of our competitors. Heavy fuel oil in Canada, the United States, Sweden, Holland and West Germany is cheaper than it is in Britain. That complaint comes from many sectors of British industry. It especially affects the paper and board industry as a whole, of which the newsprint industry is only a part, because it is the sixth largest user of energy in Britain.
Gas prices are affected by the Government's financing policy towards the nationalised industries, which is causing another problem. The Government have turned the concept of market economies on its head. They are raising prices when demand is falling. That will mean lower profits for the industries and an even heavier requirement on the public sector borrowing requirement. The position with regard to oil is ironic. Britain is the only country in Western Europe, apart from Norway, that is self-sufficient in oil. It appears odd that we are charging our domestic industry more for oil than are the countries that are dependent on supplies from OPEC.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government are rejecting the argument about energy prices on the basis that there is a divergence of opinion among a number of organisations about the level of prices internationally? One senses that the Government are sowing the seed of confusion in establishing energy prices. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could indicate how we could establish an acceptable analysis for the Government on energy prices.

§ Mr. Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that point. For many months, industry has complained to the Government that our prices for oil are higher than those charged in many other countries in Western Europe which have to import their oil and do not have the benefit of North Sea oil.

§ Sir Anthony Meyer (Flint, West)
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, will it be in order for anyone speaking from the Back Benches to make a speech on any subject that he chooses to raise but which has nothing whatsoever to do with the motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
We are debating the question of newsprint. Provided that a point is relevant to newsprint, it is in order.

§ Mr. Smith
I am puzzled why Conservative Members do not wish to discuss the factors that are highly relevant to the preservation of the newsprint production industry in Britain. If Conservative Members understood what the industry was saying in its communications to hon. Members on both sides of the House, they would understand the relevance of my speech.

§ Mr. Marlow
Has the right hon. Gentleman read the document?

§ Mr. Smith
The hon. Member, who is making a fuss, has only a limited knowledge of the newsprint industry and the paper and board industry. I notice that some of his hon. Friends are nodding in agreement. I hope that he will take that as a suitable rebuke from them, even if he will not take it from me. Members with constituency interests will understand how crucial the price of energy is to the paper and board industry. It is right at the heart of the problems faced by the industry. Unless it receives some relief from the Government, it may face virtual extinction.
My hon. Friend the member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked what the Government would do. He was right to say that the Government's response to the energy problem was that they did not know the figures. They say that they are not persuaded that British industry pays higher prices than its European competitors. The Government should have established that on their own account. They should not have to wait for industry to prove it. When a problem like this arises, the Government, with their vast statistical services and international lines of communication, should be able to establish that for themselves.
What has happened? In the National Economic Development Council, when the matter was raised by the trade unions and by representatives of the Confederation of British Industry, it was eventually agreed that the CBI would set up an industrial energy consumers group that would seek to establish the facts. I understand that it has not yet reported. It was set up on 6 August. We are trove well into December. It does not appear to be a statistical exercise of enormous complexity. The facts could have been obtained, if the Government had wished, and put before both sides of industry and the House for consideration. The truth is that the Government are not prepared to face the fact that we in this country are charging higher energy prices than our competitors to such industries as the newsprint industry, and we are, therefore, at an industrial disadvantage.

§ Mr. K. Harvey Proctor (Basildon)
Perhaps one difficulty with the CBI's energy policy committee and the 239 reason why it is not so persuasive on the issue is that it is stacked with nationalised industry energy concerns as well as private enterprise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will come back to the question of duty-free quotas and newsprint.

§ Mr. Smith
One reason why the subject was recommended for debate by the Select Committee was the general interest created by the situation in the newsprint industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
We are bound by the motion that is before the House.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not true that the degree of protection that is or is not afforded by EEC regulations has great influence on the prosperity and perhaps even the existence of any industry in this country, and the paper and board industry is a case in point? The factors that my right hon. Friend is outlining are germane to that point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
As long as we are talking about newsprint, the right hon. Gentleman is in order.

§ Mr. Smith
I was speaking of little else but newsprint and the effect that energy pricing has on the newsprint production industry in this country. If the newsprint industry in this country is not able to survive because of the high energy costs imposed on it relative to its competitors, it will cease to exist. That is what concerns most people who have concern for the future of the industry.
What should the Government do to assist the newsprint production industry over energy costs?

§ Mr. Marlow
What about quotas?

§ Mr. Smith
Behind the problem of quotas lies the survival of the industry. If the industry goes down, there will be a higher quota next year and the year after, and we may reach a situation where the whole matter becomes academic because there is no newsprint production industry in this country.
One matter that the Government should consider carefully is the excise duty on heavy fuel oil of £8 per tonne. We should examine the cost of oil in this country and the cost for some of our competitors. It is ironic that we should be oil producers yet charge our newsprint industry more than our competitors, who have to import their oil.
The importance of the debate is not only in the narrow question of quotas, which is the subject of the motion, but in the future health of the industry. We feel obliged to ask the Minister some questions about the future of the industry. Indeed, he invited us to do so in his closing remarks.
First, what is the Government's policy towards the newsprint production industry? Do they want such an industry to exist, or do they believe that we should allow it to die and import all the newsprint that we require from Scandinavia or North America? If so, they should say so so that the industry knows that it has no support from the Government in its very difficult battle to maintain economic existence.
Secondly, if the Government reach the view that there should be a newsprint production industry in this 240 country—and I hope that they do, otherwise those who use newsprint will be subject to price rise exercises as soon as the domesic industry ceases to exist and will be at the mercy of those who supply us—what will they do to support it? What will they do about energy prices?

§ Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)
What would the right hon. Gentleman do?

§ Mr. Smith
I have already suggested that the Government should revise the excise duty on heavy fuel oil.

§ Mr. Moate
What did the previous Government do? They did nothing. The trend has continued progressively under successive Govenments for many years.

§ Mr. Smith
The industry has been under pressure for many years. The acceleration is particularly acute this year. As the Select Committee said, a reduction from 385,000 tonnes to 150,000 tonnes is acute. In this year, when we are self-sufficient in oil production and are the beneficiaries to the tune of £4 billion a year from North Sea oil revenues, we should be able to take a more relaxed view of the excise duty on fuel oil. That is my short answer to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate).
If the Government's policy is to preserve newsprint production, how will they do it? Some important questions must be asked about the exchange rate, but I should be out of order if I referred to that. The most important and acute problem faced by the industry is energy pricing. I hope that the Government will say something useful and helpful about energy pricing policy.
Unless there is a change of policy, the industry may disappear and thousands of jobs will be lost. Britain will lose yet another manufacturing capability. We seem to lose them month by month. The process must stop some time. I hope that the Government decide to take a determined stand to preserve newsprint production in Britain.

§ Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)
We are indebted to the Select Committee for recommending this subject for debate and for the manner in which it recommended it. The report states that the Committee nevertheless take the view that the whole question of paper imports and their effect on production capacity in the United Kingdom is currently of such sensitivity that the instrument should be further considered by the House. That offers the House scope for a more helpful and wide-ranging debate than one might expect on such a document.
I have an interest in the newsprint industry. It is not financial but is based on my constituency. I suspect that the remaining 150,000 tonnes of newsprint is now produced in Kent and that more than half is produced in my constituency. I say with sadness that we are reduced to such pathetic amounts of newsprint production. It is a tragedy that the motion is before us.
However, the tragedy has not happened suddenly. Even the reduction from about 385,000 tonnes to 150,000 tonnes is no more precipitate a drop than that which has occurred in recent years. I do not have the precise figures, but not many years ago we produced between 600,000 and 700,000 tonnes of newsprint. As a proportion of our consumption of 1.3 million tonnes, our production has dropped dramatically. It is extraordinary that Britain, one of the largest consumers of newsprint, should be almost a total importer of newsprint.
241. The point is made graphically by the closure at Ellesmere Port. We shall now export timber to Scandinavia, which will then manufacture newsprint from our timber and export it back to us. I always thought that one of the Scandinavian strengths was its resource of raw materials, but our raw materials will be used to produce our newsprint. It is a tragedy, but it has happened over a decade or more. That is why I do not blame my right hon. Friends.
The closure of Ellesmere Port is the direct reason for the quota proposal of a reduction to 150,000 tonnes. The right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) said that the Government have no industrial strategy. I should have thought that the efforts that were made by my right hon. Friends to try to avert that closure went far beyond anything that the previous Government did for any other industry. The fact that it was unsuccessful is a tragedy. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, that is a commercial decision for the industry. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has seen the figures. The offers of grants and loans were very impressive. My right hon. and hon. Friends made immense efforts to try to produce a package that would save Ellesmere Port, and I am deeply sorry that they failed. The cash flow situation was grave, and the losses in the interim period before we could get a new mill on stream were such that any industry would have had to think twice.

§ Mr. Barry Porter (Bebington and Ellesmere Port)
As the hon. Member representing Ellesmere Port, perhaps I should explain what the Government offered. In terms of capital grant, they offered £14 million against a required capital investment of £36 million, with the balance to come from the European Investment Bank at "soft" interest rates. But, even though those grants were available, the Government were prepared to make, through various means such as the Forestry Commission, the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board, not grants but subsidies towards the revenue commitments of Bowater of about £2½million on the Bowater figures, and possibly £3½to £4 million on the Government figures. No one appears to have appreciated that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention in another hon. Member's speech. If he should decide to make a speech, he knows what to do.

§ Mr. Porter
I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and this is one of my shorter interventions. I shall do my best. The point is that Bowater is making so much money in North America for various reasons—I shall not go into them, because I am not making a speech—that it was in its commercial interest to close the Ellesmere Port plant. I regret that.

§ Mr. Moate
That was a long intervention, but it was effective and demonstrates the point. There are two matters that I should like to take up in that connection.
First, most of the grants that were offered were regional grants, and here I should like to put on record a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter), who worked tirelessly for weeks and months to try to avert the closure. As I said earlier, the current newsprint production is in Kent, and there is no scope for regional assistance there. That limits the 242 opportunity for the Government to assist in the way that they were willing to assist in the case of Ellesmere Port. Secondly, part of that package was the encouragement by the Government to the Forestry Commission and to the National Coal Board to reduce the costs of the raw materials, energy and coal that they were supplying to Bowater.
The National Coal Board and the Forestry Commission should be as interested in the survival of other paper mills, and they should be actively encouraged by the Government to try to see whether it is in their commercial interests to reduce costs further. The answers that I have had so far from the Government suggest that that is a commercial matter for the National Coal Board and the Forestry Commission. But the Government have considerable influence with those bodies, and they can talk to them and encourage them to try to reduce costs as far as is humanly possible. I urge them to do that, otherwise we shall be back in a year's time with a nil production figure for British newsprint.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Have the Government repudiated the insistence of the British Paper and Board Manufacturers Federation that the Forestry Commission's assets nationally were sold off?

§ Mr. Moate
That has nothing to do with it. It is still standing timber, whether it is publicly or privately owned, which will be sold for paper or other production. I hope that it will encourage forestry and ultimately reduce the cost of paper to the timber industry.
The manufacturers' federation has made clear that it raises no objection to the Commission's quota proposals, and, therefore, it would be foolish of us to oppose the plan, even though we may deeply regret that it has come forward in this form. The Select Committee document says: The Newspaper Raw Materials Committee"— that is basically Fleet Street— for its part would feel very strongly about paying duty on imported newsprint at the best of times, let alone in a situation when newspapers are experiencing serious financial difficulties. I have little sympathy for the newspapers. If they had taken a longer-term view, been more consistent purchasers of British newsprint and struck up longer-term relationships with the British paper industry, they could have kept in being a larger proportion of British newsprint production. That would have been in their long-term interests.
One reason why the newsprint industry is happy with the proposal is that it will allow slightly higher prices for our remaining newsprint production. If that goes, exporters to this country will get even higher prices. If we produce no newsprint—and we are not far off that position—the Scandinavians and Canadians will be able to name their own price and our newspapers will pay dearly for their shortsightedness.
The right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North endeavoured to make his case on the strength of sterling penalising the paper industry. That has undoubtedly been the key factor, but the level of sterling is something with which the nation has to live. It is not an artificial level created by high interest rates. It is a fact of life, in many ways an advantageous fact. It results from North Sea oil and not from interest rates. Somehow we have to contend with it. There is no easy way out.
The right hon. Gentleman spelt out the problem. It is a tragedy that the newsprint industry is in such a predicament, but the previous Government did not 243 produce the answer and I am not sure that we know the answer now. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have a tragic document before us, and I wish that we could put together a formula to give a more assured future for our vital paper industry.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
We should be grateful to the Select Committee for giving us an opportunity to discuss this issue. I sometimes think that when the Committee recommends matters for discussion on the Floor of the House it gives some hon. Members an opportunity to air their anti-EEC views on issues that would otherwise not be raised in the House.
When Conservative Members were making sedentary interventions earlier, they seemed to fail to understand a central problem of the industry. In all the recommendations made by lobbies from the paper industry, the subject that starts on top of the agenda and is never removed from the agenda is energy prices. Costings of the national paper and board and newsprint industries show that energy costs form 15 to 20 per cent. of total budgets. One can understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) raised the subject. He was right to do so.
I wish to speak specifically to the motion. I shall therefore be much more in order than I usually am in such debates. The regulation raises the ceiling from 1.5 million tonnes to 2.5 million tonnes as regards newsprint imports into the EEC. As has been said, it follows the closure of Bowater. It will reduce the industry's capacity to 150,000 tonnes. That must be put alongside the decline from an 800,000 tonnes capacity only 10 years ago to a 340,000 tonnes capacity in the middle of this year.
The explanatory memorandum, available in the Vote Office, says that there are no new policy implications. There are. By increasing the ceiling for triggering duties, the Government are accepting a supply of imports on to the market. They are saying that they will not pursue the expansion of domestic production. There are further policy implications. The Government accept that there will be a downward trend. This measure only reinforces the present downward trend in newsprint manufacture in Britain. They are rejecting the argument that was put forward by Bowater when that company was being closed down as a result of the Government's policies. Bowater argued that it was not a lame duck. It was right.

§ Mr. Tebbit
Perhaps I can prevent the hon. Gentleman from going off on the wrong tack and failing to use well the short time available. The memorandum says that there are no new policy implications. There are always policy implications. There is nothing new about the fact that the Government have taken a view about how much paper will be supplied by the home industry and consider that the remainder should be let in duty-free. It has been going on for years.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
If there are no new policy implications, the Conservative Party must have had a prior commitment to run down the British newsprint industry. The Government faced two options. They could have pursued the expansion and retention of the industry or they could have allowed it to run down. The Government have a deliberate policy. They take certain sectors of British 244 industry, and when those sectors reel and keel and cannot compete due to international pressures and due to the Government's failure they have to go to the wall. That is unacceptable.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)
It is silly.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
The hon. Gentleman may say that, but he should consult his hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter). He will tell him what happened in Ellesmere Port. Both he and the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) know the truth. The Government have systematically destroyed the British newsprint industry. As a result, only 10 per cent. remains When the Conservative Party took office, British newsprint producers were providing 30 per cent. of the market.
In the explanatory memorandum, the Minister says that United Kingdom newsprint producers have been consulted about the proposals and have raised no objections. It would be interesting to know whether Bowater was consulted. I have a copy of a document that was produced by Ellesmere Port and Neston borough council. It concerns action taken to avert the closure of the Bowater newsprint mill in Ellesmere Port. The document is important. One section of it is entitled: Solution based on EEC tariff quota". It refers to the Ellesmere Port and Neston borough subcommittee and states: The Sub-Committee began by seeking to secure increases in the price of UK newsprint by using the mechanism of the EEC tariff quota ststem. Under the EEC tariff regime, imports of newsprint are subject to quotas, and in theory, to duty on imports above the agreed quotas. Moreover, Protocol 13 of the UK treaty of accession was designed to protect the home-based newsprint industry, but it is clearly ineffective. In theory Protocol 13 requires that before deciding on the size of the duty-free import quota, the EEC have to be satisfied that home production in the member States has been taken up and that demand cannot be met from home production. Obviously, that is what the document is about. In theory, too, imports above the quota fixed by the EEC should be subject to duty at a current rate of 6 per cent. for Scandinavian newsprint and 11.6 per cent. for Canadian supplies. The Sub-Committee, therefore, sought a solution based on strict compliance with Protocaol 13; a reduction in the size of the duty-free quota, and, if necessary, the imposition of duty on imports above the quota, unless guarantees were given by the UK newsprint users that they would take up all UK newsprint at agreed prices. This proposal was discussed by the Chief Executive"— I assume that the Minister will know the chief executive— at a meeting in London on September 10, attended by Mr. Andrew Pearce, EMP, a senior EEC official from Brussels, and representatives of Bowaters. The proposal was recognised as being soundly based in law but it was recognised that there would be strong opposition to it by the newspaper users who would strongly object to the use of import controls to increase the cost of home-produced newsprint. When I was trying to find out what happened at that meeting, it was clear that Bowater at that time recognised that this was a way of preventing the demise or the destruction of the industry. It is incumbent on the Minister tonight to give us an answer on behalf of the Government and to put on record why the Government at the time in question did not respond in this area. Had they done so, there would have been an argument going on within the EEC and we would not have been confronted by the document tonight. The only reason why the Minister can come forward with it tonight is that Bowater is closed, and 245 the domestic capacity that Bowater provided originally is no longer available to provide for the domestic market. That is why the Government are failing.
The report continues: Councillors Chrimes and Venables and the Chief Executive put the proposal to the Minister of State at the Department of Trade at a meeting in London on September 11, 1980, which was also attended by Mr. Barry Porter, MP"— I assume that Bebington and Ellesmere Port is a constituency nearby— Mr. Andrew Pearce, EMP, and members of the Bowater Action Group. After a lengthy discussion the Minister undertook to examine the Council's proposals very carefully, and as a matter of urgency. On September 25 Councillor Venables and the Chief Executive met a senior official of the Department of Industry, who explained that the proposal had been carefully examined but that the Government were not prepared to press the EEC for a restriction of the newsprint quota or the imposition of duty notwithstanding the fact that mechanism existed for doing so. The Government were reluctant to pursue a scheme which sought to compel the UK publishers to bear increased costs. The Minister can say that the Government have tried to do something for the British newsprint industry, but here in black and white is a report—with no political input—by officers of a local authority saying that the Government refused to intervene.

§ Mr. Spearing
Has my hon. Friend any information as to the price differential that the newspaper users would require as a percentage comparable to either the Scandinavian tariff or the one for North America? That would appear to be a germane and important point in the matter of the judgment which Her Majesty's Government have just taken.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I cannot give my hon. Friend figures for the United Kingdom. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily. In the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill tomorrow night, I shall hope to show the differentials in Europe, where Governments have arranged for voluntary agreements to be sponsored between newsprint consumers and newsprint manufacturers, to ensure the retention of a domestic manufacturing newsprint industry in those countries.

§ Mr. Spearing
Is my hon. Friend telling the House that the sort of arrangement that was asked for from the Bebington Bowater committee—if I may call it that—is operated inside some of our partner member States in the EEC but that the Government are refusing to operate that sort of agreement in the United Kingdom?

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Not in that particular area. But a number of recommendations made by that committee apply within the European Community—if not that one, certainly others. Again. I shall be drawing the attention of the House to those matters tomorrow night.
I turn now to the level of the quota. I understand that the idea is to raise the ceiling from 1½million to 2½million tonnes. That is done under our GAIT obligations. It is also to supplement the domestic production deficiency. In other words, the gap between what we can produce and what we need is to be made up by imports which would not carry tariff.
According to the "Proposal for Council Regulation", in page 3, the United Kingdom is to take 40.28 per cent. of the new quota. I understand that that is 946,580 tonnes, if my calculator is correct, plus 60,000 tonnes in reserve, making a total of 1,006,580 tonnes that we can take duty-free under the quota. Before the introduction of this 246 document, we had taken 39.43 per cent. of the 1.5 million tonnes EEC across-the-board quota—a total of 591,450 tonnes. Therefore, the increase in duty-free imports under the quota, if we take it up, is 415,550 tonnes.
What is the duty loss? That question needs to be answered. The explanatory memorandum, in the final sentence, which is in parentheses, states: The duty relief on the proposed UK share is estimated to be of the order of £23 million. Assuming that £23 million is the relief on 1,007,000 tonnes, which includes the reserve, I estimate that the average duty per tonne must he £22.84. That means that the 415,550 tonnes represents a total loss to the Treasury of £9,491,162. I think that Opposition Members will ask: what could that loss of £9½million do for the industry?
The hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port made a crucial intervention. Indeed, I was worried, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you might tell him that he had to sit down, because the more he spoke the more the drew attention to the truth—that the Government's offer was the wrong offer. That was how I understood the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Money was being asked for to help the cash flow, the general turnover, problems of the company. Some £3½million per year was being asked for.

§ Mr. Porter
It got it.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
If the hon. Gentleman says "No", I can refer him to the document produced by his district authority.

§ Mr. Porter
Too late.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
No, it is not. I assure the hon. Gentleman that from what I have heard in my discussions with his local authority—and I have informed him of this matter—there was no political input in the document. In conjunction with representatives and executives from Bowater, who could hardly be regarded as bastions of Labour support, the local authority produced an apolitical document in support of its case. Under "Aid sought by Bowaters", this is said: The Company in their discussions with the Government have asked for:-

(a)short term direct aid;

(b)minimum to long term volume/price protection;

(c)a reduction in the energy and timber costs so that these can be made comparable with the costs paid by foreign competitors;

(d)long term capital investment aid to achieve profitability so that the need for the above measures can be reduced."

§ Mr. Porter
It got it.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
As will be known, if it got it, the only one that it got on offer was the last one, and it was the wrong one, because without the other three it could not make a package. That is what happened.
The same authority produced another document in which attention was drawn to the findings of a group of economists at Cambridge university who estimated the loss to the nation of revenue that stems from paying unemployment benefit to those who lost jobs in Ellesmere Port—£19 million.
The more that one goes into the sordid affair of what has happened to the British newsprint industry, the more one has to realise that large amounts of money are circulating and that the Government have found themselves as yet quite unable to channel this money into the newsprint and paper and board industry nationally. If they had done so, and done it long ago, we would have 247 much of the industry left intact today instead of having 14 mills close since 1 January this year, 51 machines closed down and 9,500 people losing their jobs due to the inaction and incompetence of that lot on the Conservative Benches.

§ Mr. Barry Porter (Bebington and Ellesmere Port)
Perhaps I may make a speech instead of interventions.
I am obliged to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for his courtesy in indicating that he would be mentioning Ellesmere Port.He said "mention"; he devoted his whole speech to the place. I am fascinated that he got his information from where I know not. I should like to take his speech point by point.
Certainly, energy prices was one of the matters that Bowater mentioned. I concede at this stage—it is always better to concede bad points at the beginning of a speech—that I am not at all convinced either way about the energy price situation of British industry generally, or what the energy price situation of the British newsprint industry was, and certainly about that of Bowater when it decided to close.
One read in The Daily Telegraph a couple of weeks ago an apologia by my right hon. Friend the Minister in charge of these matters which was so complicated that I failed to understand it. Having listened to debates in the House on energy prices, I doubt whether any hon. Member really understands these matters and is prepared to say that our energy prices are worse than, better than or equal to those of our competitors. I do not know one way or the other. It seems to me that it is marginal either way, but I leave that to my hon. Friend the Minister to explain to the House. But whichever way it was, that was not a significant feature in the closure of Bowater in Ellesmere Port.
In my intervention, I have already indicated that it was my view that it was North American profits that caused Bowater to decide to close at Ellesmere Port. Those North American profits are related to the relative strength of the pound to the dollar. It was a very complicated matter. The whole thing was negotiated with the Newspaper Publishers Association some time ago, when, under the previous Administration, the pound was through the floor. Everyone thought that it was absolutely splendid at the time. This has all gone very well since, and there has been investment in North America and Bowater is doing extraordinarly well there.
As the hon. Member for Workington has said, this is not something that has happened over the last year or so. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), who has equal interest in the paper industry, has said the same thing. This has been going on since 1964. If my memory serves me right, at that time we were producing about 800,000 tonnes of newsprint and we were down, before the Bowater closure, to 350,000 tonnes. Therefore, this is not something that the present Government have created. If that is so, it cannot, in all conscience, be anything to do with the strength of the pound in relation to the dollar.
One might think of rivers and trees and where they are and how energy is produced, but I shall not weary the House with all that. We do not have a large number of trees or rivers. We are not capable of producing energy at the price at which some others can produce it, as it turns out.
248 The House should be able to consider, without the sniggering that we hear from the Opposition Front Bench these days, the long-term future of newsprint. I exclude, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who sniggers at most things. In the discussions I had during the Summer Recess with the managers of Bowater and others, only one significant remark was made. I asked about the strategic importance of newsprint in the future. One gentleman—it would be wrong of me to mention his name—said "What strategic importance?"
What long-term future is there for a high volume of newsprint? Earlier this week, we discussed the electronics industry and the way in which the equipment it produces will disseminate information. I urge hon. Members to think on that, to think on the number of provincial newspapers that are closing and on the probability of a number of daily newspapers closing. How much newsprint shall we need? That was the question that Bowater asked and upon which it took its decision.
It is not by accident that the number of customers for newsprint has fallen over the past 15 years. If one considers what will happen with television and the indications for electronic equipment, one can see where the future lies. Any retailer in the electronics trade will confirm that in spite of the recession people are buying video recorders. That is the type of equipment that will disseminate information. Items will not appear just once. People will be able to record them and see them again. The House should consider the future of the newsprint industry in that light.
My ever-vociferous friend from Workington referred to Bowater as a lame duck.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I did not.

§ Mr. Porter
In that case I withdraw the remark. Someone described it thus, however. It was not a lame duck, given the appropriate investment. The hon. Member for Workington was mistaken in suggesting that the Government had not made the appropriate revenue commitment to the Bowater corporation. They made it a capital offer. But, equally, they made a £3.5 million revenue commitment via the Forestry Commission, the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board which would have met Bowater's requirements.
I do not apologise for my next remark, which was made at a relatively private meeting. At the beginning of this affair, a senior person in Bowater told me "If we were losing only a million or two we would stand it." The Government offered it revenue support that would have left it losing "a million or two". The Government certainly would not offer it a straight subsidy for the £7 million it was losing in any one year.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I shall send Bowater a copy of the hon. Member's speech tomorrow.

§ Mr. Porter
The hon. Gentleman may indeed. I do not think that it will like it much, and it is highly unlikely that I should be appointed parliamentary consultant to the Bowater corporation. The gentleman who said that to me knew that he said it and that he said it to me.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
Presumably in confidence.

§ Mr. Porter
Not at all. He never said so. But if Bowater could have stood losses of a million or two, it had that offer. I believe that it was totally surprised that the Government ever went as far as that, but they did.
I turn next to the suggestions by the Ellesmere Port and Neston borough council, which has been dominated by the Socialist Party for many years. The suggestion of the chief executive of the council about protocol 13 was put to the Minister. It was answered properly and sensibly, and the local authority accepted the explanation given. However, I ask my hon. Friend not so much about what is happening about protocol 13 but what happened to the other suggestion which came from the borough council that the Newspaper Publishers Association should take certain quotas of British-produced newsprint, which would not, so far as we could see, affect the cost to the association.
That suggestion was put in detail to the Department. I gather that it was probably turned down by the association rather than by the Government. I saw the details, and it seemed to me a sensible approach. It could well have done something to save our Ellesmere Port mill at that time. But the mill has gone, and in some way I feel that I am following a funeral. Hon. Members on both sides of the House made every effort they could to save the mill. We thought that it could have been saved. I felt, and still feel, that the Government had made almost every effort to save it, for very good reasons.
The one difficulty that I had, the one trouble that is still with me, is whether more pressure could have been put on the Newspaper Publishers Association in connection with that suggestion from the borough council—and here I pay tribute to the author of the suggestion, the chief executive of the council. I wish that there were more chief executives like him, especially in the borough of Workington.
It may be that the Minister does not have all the details. I have no doubt that the pincer movement from North America and Scandinavia will squeeze out not only British newsprint but, in the end, European newsprint as well. Whilst I, with some of my hon. Friends, may have failed to save the Ellesmere Port mill, there may well be a necessity for British newsprint to be saved, and, if not that, certainly the European newsprint has to be saved, because, whatever the diminution in the need for newsprint, some base for newsprint in Europe must be saved. I doubt whether we are going about it in the right way.

§ Mr. Tebbit
As I suspected would happen, the debate has ranged reasonably wide, although I do not think wrongfully wide. To imply as much would question your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I should not say so even if I thought it. But I think it only right that the various points raised should have been raised, and I shall do my best to deal with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) put his finger on one of the most important points about this whole matter. There has been a decline in this industry over 10 years. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was well aware of that. He made a point of it. Yet at times he seemed extraordinarily surprised by the fact that the industry was declining today. I find it hard to believe that everything can be explained by sterling changes or energy prices. After all, during those 10 years sterling has fluctuated wildly. I am sure that the hon. Member remembered the sterling crisis which forced the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) 250 back from London airport when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was when sterling was in a trough. It had its peaks. There have been variable parities for sterling, so it cannot be said that the fault is that of sterling.
Energy prices have varied widely over the 10 years. It cannot be that recent energy prices account for the problem. We have had Governments of different political complexions, so it cannot be that the fault is due to one Government. I suggest that it would be wiser to look for a common thread throughout those years which applies not only to the newsprint industry but to many other industries, including Fleet Street. That is perhaps one of the finest examples of this common thread.
The common and constant thread has been that labour costs have gone up far faster than those of our rivals while our productivity has gone up far more slowly than that of our rivals. It is sad that the efforts to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) referred—and he played a great part in bringing those concerned to see the Government to make their case—were not made until the fate of Bowater's mill at Ellesmere Port was virtually sealed, not by the events of a couple of months but by the events of years beforehand. Those efforts could have been made at any time in the last 10 years. It is superficial, glib and inadequate to suggest to the contrary. It may be that, apart from that, the mills of North America and Scandinavia have natural advantatges which we lack. They have the timber and in some cases they have ideal siting and fewer planning constraints—all sorts of things which make a great difference.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham that I am not at all sure, if it came about that we had only a derisory newprint industry, that the North American and Scandinavian industries would be in a position artificially to push up prices. After all, they have had 75 per cent. of the market for some time. When people have that sort of share, they are in a position to push up prices pretty easily, particularly when they know that their competitor is owned by one of their number and is in a soft position over holding down prices.
The hon. Member for Workington made a characteristic speech. He suggested that the document had new policy implications when we had all agreed—except the hon. Gentleman—that it was merely a continuation of similar documents dealing with similar matters. He had some odd figures. He seemed to have the idea that there was some enormous change in the total quota for Europe. I can tell him that the tariff quota for 1980 was 2.8 million tonnes, of which the United Kingdom received an allocation of 910,000 tonnes. The proposal for 1981 is not wildly different. It does not increase the quota from 1.5 million tonnes to 2.5 million tonnes. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. He has got wrong a point of detail and a point of philosophy, too.
Clearly, what the hon. Gentleman wants, and it was to some extent implicit in what the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) said, is to place what is, in effect, a tax upon newspapers. It is not a novel idea. It has been suggested by many people in the past, but it has' not received much support. The right hon. Gentleman wants to tax newspapers to protect the makers of newsprint. His bright suggestion for that was that we should increase the tariff. "Let us have a bigger and better tariff; let us have more of a tariff', he said. There is only one technical snag—the tariff would not come to the 251 British Exchequer but would go to the European Community. It would not be a very effective ploy in any case. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman got very far there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port asked: what is the future of demand for newsprint? That is a difficult question to answer, but when one looks at the closures of newspapers that have taken place in Britain, and when one looks at the problems of The Times—I understand that a mere £15 million or so has gone down the drain there in a very short time, yet the right hon. Gentleman wants to put a tax on The Times, just to increase the chances of the men in Fleet Street being put out of work—one realises that the newspaper industry in Britain is not in that good a shape to take extra taxes and to absorb more newsprint in the future. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right when he says that, for structural reasons, the industry is in decline. As I said, nobobdy could have done more than my hon. Friend has done to avoid the closure of that mill, but he himself raised questions about the long-term future of the industry.
My hon. Friend asked about the suggested quota by the NPA and whether the newspapers should have volunteered to buy newsprint at a higher price than they might otherwise have done. I can only say to my hon. Friend that these matters were put to the newspaper industry and that, not surprisingly, in view of the look of the balance sheets of most of Fleet Street, it felt that it could not volunteer to put up its costs beyond what it had been accustomed to paying in the past.
The other matter that came through almost everything that was said this evening was energy pricing. I think that this is one of the most interesting points that has been raised in the debate, and it could not have been raised on a better evening, in view of the business that is to follow. I say that because the right hon. Gentleman and others suggested "Let us get rid of the tax on heavy oil. That is a good idea. Let us perhaps reduce the price of gas." That was the implication of what he said. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider, with his hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), what would be the effect on the coal industry in this country if the other energy producers started to undercut it. What good would that do for the jobs of miners in the coal industry? I see that the hon. Member for Midlothian is eager to answer. I hope that he has a good answer.

§ Mr. Alex Eadie (Midlothian)
The hon. Gentleman's history is not accurate. The reason for the introduction of the tax on oil had nothing to do with the miners. It was introduced by Selwyn Lloyd as a means of raising revenue for the Exchequer. Times change, and I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not divulge what will be in his Budget, but perhaps circumstances will change. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is paying attention to the high productivity of the miners at this time. We have nothing to fear. The hon. Gentleman is raising a white elephant.

§ Mr. Tebbit
The hon. Gentleman says that he has nothing to fear, but does he want a price war to break out between oil, gas and coal? Does he want them to try to undercut? I am delighted, as the hon. Gentleman is, with the levels of productivity that are being reached, but I should be even more delighted if the price of coal were 252 falling rather than increasing. It would be very dangerous to start price-cutting in the other energy areas for the benefit of the coal industry.

§ Mr. Eadie
The hon. Gentleman should talk to somebody who knows the facts.

§ Mr. Tebbit
Yes, and I am sticking to this, because I know it very well indeed, and so does the hon. Gentleman. He is very loyal to come to the aid of his friends, but it will not go down all that well in the coal mining districts that the Labour Party wants to start a price war to undercut coal. I know, as the hon. Member for Midlothian and his hon. Friends on the Labour Back Benches know, that if oil and gas become cheaper than coal there will be a flight away from coal. There could be nothing more stupid than to do that. I am astonished that it was even suggested.

§ Mr. Edwin Wainwright (Dearne Valley)
Does not the Minister realise that other Governments are subsidising energy in their countries to ensure that energy-using industries produce cheaper manufactured goods of all types? When they are in competition with us, we are at a loss. Does the Minister have an answer to that?

§ Mr. Tebbit
The hon. Gentleman should have gone to Bali this week to have a chat with the OPEC Ministers. He should have told them that the British Labour Party has another new policy. To suggest that we should embark on a programme of subsidising all energy prices in a world that is desperately short of energy is nothing short of madness. The Americans have an economy that is in serious trouble, not least because they have failed to grapple with their problem of properly pricing energy. I am glad to be able to tell the House that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade in Brussels today has been raising support from other members of the Community for a concerted approach to the Americans on their policy of subsidised energy prices. It is bad for trade, for industries in Europe and for the world economy in the long run.

§ Mr. Frank R. White (Bury and Radcliffe)
Will the Minister assure the House that his hon. Friend will report to the House on the decisions that have been taken at Brussels, which will be of major importance to all sections of British industry?

§ Mr. Tebbit
My hon. Friend the Minister of State is happy to talk to the House about these matters whenever it is possible for him to do so. It does not depend on me to determine the allocation of time in this place. I shall bring what the hon. Gentleman has said to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

§ Mr. Moate
If we had gone to Bali—many of us would have liked to do so—we might have stood a greater chance of getting some clearer facts than we are getting currently from many of our Ministers on the costs of energy to industry. We do not want energy to be subsidised for newsprint and other industries, but we want to be sure that we are not paying more than our European competitors.

§ Mr. Tebbit
I agree with my hon. Friend. The problem is that it is not easy to get at the facts. The paper and board sector working party formed a working group on energy prices. I understand that it hopes to report to the sector working party in January. That will be an interesting report. The CBI initiative does not seem to be producing any very clear facts.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
rose—

§ Mr. Tebbit
There will be an NEDC meeting early next year. I think that it will sit on 7 January. The CBI survey is expected to form the basis of the discussion. Some agreed facts may emerge from that. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no unwillingness to try to find the facts. However, to compare like with like in these matters is extremely difficult.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
rose—

§ Mr. Tebbit
It is not too difficult to ascertain what is paid in Britain, but it is extremely difficult to ascertain what is paid abroad.

§ Mr. John Smith
Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unsatisfactory in a matter of such importance to British industry that it is left to a working party organised by the CBI and by various interest groups to try to establish facts when the Department of Energy and the whole of Her Majesty's Government and their commercial and diplomatic services overseas should be able quickly to establish the facts? Why are not the Government, with all the power at their disposal, taking effective action to settle the argument once and for all?

§ Mr. Tebbit
The Government think that it is settled. Our industry is not paying excessive prices in comparison with most of its competitors. On the other hand, we are happy to accept evidence, if the CBI or others can bring it forward, to show whether our information is wrong. We are not arrogant about the matter. We are willing to consider the evidence if and when it is produced.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Will the Minister acknowledge the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who, in a debate on the steel industry today, informed the House that a company directly related to a company in Britain, with premises in Calais, is buying electricity as an industrial consumer at 30 per cent. less than it is paying in Britain? There is the example for which the hon. Gentleman asked. Will he follow up that example? If he wishes, I will table a parliamentary question asking how his investigations are progressing.

§ Mr. Tebbit
If the hon. Gentleman tables a question, I shall no doubt transfer it to the relevant Department. I can give him two pointers. First, one has to look more closely than the unit cost. One has to look at a number of terms—for example, the period of contract and many other matters. Secondly, I understand that the French are now producing 52 per cent. nuclear electricity. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell some of his hon. Friends, and some of my hon. Friends, about the implications of that.
When asked about the Government's plans towards the industry, the answer is that we want to see a British newsprint industry that is competitive and able to meet the requirements of its customers. We cannot afford a newsprint industry that requires subsidisation or a tax on newspapers—that is what the suggestions about import duties amount to—in order to protect the industry.
We have ranged fairly widely in the debate. I hope that I have dealt with most of the matters that were raised, even if not to the entire satisfaction of the whole House.