§ 2.53 p.m.
§ Lord Benson asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Having regard to the White Paper on competitive-ness issued in May 1994, what measures they propose to convince the many millions of persons engaged in industry that increased competitiveness is needed to support the economy of the United Kingdom.
§ Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde)My Lords, the Government's White Paper on competitiveness has been circulated widely. A summary version was published specifically for that purpose.
§ Lord BensonMy Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to answer the original Question?
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord does not feel that my original Answer was adequate. I was about to answer—and I shall continue —his supplementary question by congratulating him on his tenacity on asking so many questions on this issue in the past and raising the issue in a whole variety of debates.
I can tell the House that the White Paper has been sent to the top 1,000 companies, the top 200 trade associations and other key organisations and in-dividuals. Sales have been extremely brisk since the launch. The summary version has been sent to over 80,000 companies which employ more than 20 employees. To date, we have had requests for over 10,000 additional copies.
§ Lord Clark of KempstonMy Lords, will my noble friend agree that the privatisation policy of this Government has resulted in much more competitiveness in British industry? Will he further agree that the recent report from the Treasury that the growth in the economy is going to increase, inflation is going to remain low, the PSBR is going to be less than anticipated, and unemployment is going down is proof positive that the Government's economic policy is working?
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, my noble friend, with his vast experience in this field, is again right.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonA Central Office brief!
§ Lord StrathclydeEverything that my noble friend mentioned—on inflation, on output, on interest rates, on exchange rates, and of course on our policy of privatisation—has all gone to improve our competitive-ness in recent years.
§ Lord Dean of BeswickMy Lords, is the Minister aware that if we take the salaries that are paid to the chairmen of the privatised former public sector utilities, inflation is not under control in that area? If we bear in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Young (a former Minister who was at the Dispatch Box when this 775 privatisation took place) as I understand it, is now receiving almost £1 million a year, is that control of expenditure and salaries?
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, that is a question that is entirely up to the owners of the companies concerned. We are not generally in favour of increases in pay which cannot be justified by increased productivity.
§ Lord Peyton of YeovilMy Lords, while it would be churlish not to give a measure of applause to the Government for the White Paper concerned, I wonder whether the Minister would care to look through it to see if a little bit more of something resembling a cutting edge could not be given to sections that deal with innovation and such like?
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, my noble friend's comments are always gladly received.
§ Lord StrathclydeBut, my Lords, I can confirm that we are looking at a whole range of areas, including education and training; management and innovation; fair and open markets; finance for business, and so on. Every area of the British economy can improve and increase our general competitiveness.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, bearing in mind that this an extremely important question for our nation and our people, would it perhaps not be wise for the Government to keep in touch with the employers' organisations, the trade unions and other organisations that are involved, so that they can arrive at a policy based on the views of these very important British organisations which mean so much to the economy of our country?
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, the publication of the White Paper has been welcomed by a whole variety of organisations: the CBI, the IoD; the training and enterprise councils; the Federation of Small Businesses; and even from the TUC General Secretary, John Monks.
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, am I right in assuming that the Government place great emphasis on increasing productivity as a vital component of making our country more competitive? If that is right, why not set an example by recognising that signalling staff have massively improved their productivity and that in fact that has gone unrewarded? Would it not be better if the Government recognised that in practice rather than talking a lot of hot air about the matter?
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, the fact is that this Government condemn strike action, and the Opposition support strike action in the way that they always have done.
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, when in fact workers—
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, when in fact—
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonMy noble friend will come back on that point.
§ Viscount CaldecoteWill my noble friend agree that the prime objective of increased competitiveness is to obtain more orders and thereby increase output? Will he make that point clear to all the companies with which he is in contact?
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, my noble friend is correct. We need continually to improve our competitiveness. Only by improving it can we increase the prosperity of the United Kingdom. Only with a strong wealth creating sector can we sustain the rising living standards that we all desire to see.
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, the Minister referred to the Opposition promoting or supporting strikes. Does he recognise that when workers have effectively been swindled out of their wages, they have a fundamental right to withdraw their labour? I do not condemn them. I condemn the people who have provoked the strike and who constantly interfere in it.
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, the noble Lord supports the workers. What about all those workers who could not get to work today? What about all those workers who wanted to get to work but were obliged to stay at home or find alternative means of transport because of the selfish action of a very few?
§ Lord Hailsham of Saint MaryleboneMy Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the original Question was about competitiveness? Does he agree that it is an abuse of the Order Paper of this House to introduce matters concerning a current trade dispute?
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, I am sure that my noble and learned friend is right. I probably should not have replied to the first question of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, does my noble friend agree that to discuss these matters in such a way is in the interests neither of the trade unions nor the employers? Will he accept that this matter is best not discussed in your Lordships' House at this stage?
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, it is important to discuss the whole area of competitiveness. I believe that in the debates in this House and through the numerous questions to which I have replied we have done great justice to this subject.