HC Deb 23 March 1988 vol 130 cc351-3
9. Mr. Steel

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board; and what matters were discussed.

11. Dr. Reid

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Rifkind

I last met the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board on 19 March on the occasion of an informal dinner in Edinburgh.

Mr. Steel

I hope that the Secretary of State will pay a deserved tribute to the Scottish TUC for the efforts that it has made to bring its brethren south of the border into line on this issue—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are now on Question No. 9.

Mr. Steel

That was by way of parenthesis, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The Secretary of State should not be let off the hook on this.

On Question No. 9, will the Secretary of State give the House the assurances that have been sought several times on the privatisation proposals: first, that the new South of Scotland company cannot be taken over by a foreign company; and, secondly, that the legislation will provide for social obligations to rural areas analogous with those existing in the north of Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind

The future ownership and acquisition of shares in the industry is still being considered. Information will be given to the House as soon as we reach conclusions on the matter.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the social clause was never applied in the south of Scotland. It has been a feature of the legislation governing the work of the hydro board, the most important aspect of which has always been perceived to be the installation of electricity for the rural communities in the remote islands and the maintenance of common tariffs throughout the area. In the White Paper the Government said that they remained committed to those objectives.

Dr. Reid

Just as the Secretary of State is prepared., apparently, to do nothing to protect jobs in Dundee—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me to finish the sentence, they might realise that there is some sense in it.

Just as the Minister is prepared to do nothing to protect jobs in Dundee, is it not true that he did nothing to protect jobs in the coal industry? Did he not inadvertently mislead the House earlier today when he implied that the current negotiations were a result of his intervention? Is he aware that this morning the chairman of the SSEB was interviewed by the Select Committee on Energy and was explicitly asked, "Has the Secretary of State for Scotland ever discussed with you the social costs and consequences of the loss of the contract to the coal board?" He answered, "No."

Will the Secretary of State confirm that astounding and shocking answer, and will he explain to the House and the people of Scotland what sort of Secretary of State sits to one side doing nothing when 10,000 jobs in the Scottish coal industry are under threat?

Mr. Rifkind

On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I said last week that I would be perfectly prepared to make representations to Ford if and when I believed that such representations would be appropriate — [HON. MEMBERS: "Now."] — and would have some prospect of producting the desired result. I was involved in the negotiations to bring Ford to Dundee, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that that is my clear intention and objective.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am well aware that the Ford issue is of major importance to the House—[Interruption.]—but we must stick to the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Rifkind

I was responding to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

On the second part of his question, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that my responsibility is to Scottish industry as a whole and to the jobs that are found in Scottish industry as a whole. Coming from the constituency that he does, the hon. Gentleman should know more clearly than most the implications for the steel industry in Scotland if electricity tariffs are higher than they need to be—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Tiny."] They are not tiny. Ravenscraig is the single largest purchaser of electricity from the SSEB, and if the hon. Gentleman does not take account of that fact he is doing a disservice to his constituents.

Mr. Allan Stewart

Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it crystal clear to the chairman of the SSEB that his job is to produce electricity as cheaply as possible for his consumers? Is it not the ultimate hypocrisy for an hon. Member representing a constituency in Lanarkshire —the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)—to urge on the SSEB policies which might make Ravenscraig uncompetitive?

Mr. Rifkind

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The House should bear in mind that the chairman of the SSEB has said that he wants to reach a satisfactory conclusion that will enable him to continue purchasing coal from British Coal. In the discussions that have taken place in the past few days both sides have reported progress, so there is a prospect of some satisfactory agreement being reached. That should be welcomed by the House.

Mr. Dewar

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has blatantly failed to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). Has he at any time discussed with the chairman of the SSEB the social costs or consequences of the massive loss of jobs that is possible in the deep mining industry as a result of current policies?

Mr. Rifkind

I have had a number of very general discussions with the chairman of the SSEB covering all the issues that are relevant to this matter.

Dr. Reid

He says no.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I ask hon. Members not to ask questions from a sedentary position, because that gazumps questions that are to be asked legitimately.