It is an appropriate time to discuss the path of denationalisation, particularly when manufacturing exports have increased by almost half since 1979. Furthermore, United Kingdom economic growth has been more rapid than it has in either France or West Germany since 1979—and in the previous two decades we had had the slowest growth of the major European Community states. In addition, business investment has risen by two-thirds over the 1980s—by half since 1979 and by three-quarters since 1981. By the end of last year there were nearly 375,000 more businesses in operation than there were a decade ago. So I welcome this morning the opportunity to debate these key matters against such a good and successful economic background, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the front bench.

As a result of all this, the real take-home pay for a married man on average earnings has increased by a third since 1979. Much of this success lies in taking unnecessary parts of the state out of Government control where it was stifled by red tape and putting it into efficient private hands where proper expansion could apply. The number of shareholders has more than trebled since 1979. A survey in February 1990 showed that 11 million people—one in four of the adult population—owned shares.

Denationalisation subjects companies to the discipline of the market place and forces them to put customers first. A private sector company cannot survive if it does not satisfy its clients. The profit performance of former nationalised industries suggests that denationalisation has helped to improve customer service. Furthermore, employees have a stake in the success of their business, as a glance at the National Freight Corporation alone will show. Denationalised companies allow their full potential to be realised and new customers to be won.

Whenever possible, denationalisation has been accompanied by a policy of increasing competition so as to guarantee customers a wide choice of goods and services at low prices. For example, the United Kingdom has led Europe in liberalising the airways following the denationalisation of British Airways. One can recall a time when, under Labour, that fine airline was ranked lower than Ethiopian Airways.

Another example is the fact that the United Kingdom has led Europe in liberalising the telecommunications market, bringing obvious and large benefits to consumers. The denationalisation of British Telecom was accompanied by the licensing of a direct competitor, Mercury, whose success forced British Telecom to cut the prices of long-distance calls.

A further example is the denationalisation of long-distance coaches. Now such coach travel is enjoying a marked revival. Competition has helped to drive prices down, improve the range and quality of services available and make long-distance travel possible for many people such as pensioners.

Yet denationalisation has not been carried out irresponsibly. Tough regulatory authorities have been established to protect consumers where areas of natural monopoly remain. Oftel, the telecommunications watchdog, has been highly successful in this context. Under terms agreed with British Telecom, prices can now only rise by 4·5 points less than the rate of inflation, and British Telecom has agreed to introduce itemised billing and pay £5 per day for failure to repair faults within two working days. Any such suggestion would have been more appropriate to April fool's day under a Labour Government. What a contrast that is with the bad old socialist days. Similar consumer rights have been enshrined in law for the electricity and water industries.

I will cite some specific examples of improvements. Less than three years ago there was a less than 50 per cent. chance of having a business telephone line installed within six working days; today, the figure is 77 per cent. Some 82 per cent. of residential telephone lines are now installed within eight working days. However, faster installation is only one of the many ways that customer service has improved through denationalisation. Any constituent walking on the street would find it hard to discover a public pay phone that was not working. A survey by the Yorkshire Evening Post in the greater York area examined that only a short time ago. It found an incredibly high proportion of public telephones in good working order. Indeed, nationally the figure is 96 per cent. in perfect working order—yet in December 1987 the figure was as low as 72 per cent.

In the same year, 4·3 per cent. of long-distance calls were not getting through; now it is only 0·7 per cent., and the figure is still improving. Where there was once a one in four chance of finding directory inquiries engaged, there is now only a one in 12 chance. British Telecom engineers are now clearing nine out of 10 faults within a working day. Of course, there is a great deal more to be done, but I wanted to give those specific examples of customer improvement that have resulted directly from denationalisation.

Such a denationalisation programme—so beneficial to manager, employee and customer—has brought benefits to the state purse. The coffers have been increased, so that the Government have been able to cut taxes, increase spending on priority areas and reduce the national debt. Richard Pryke, a specialist in the economics of nationalised industries, undertook a careful comparison in 1982. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary may be aware of that study, which was entitled, "The comparative performance of public and private enterprise," which was published in the July 1982 edition of Fiscal Studies. His conclusions are worth examination by the House.

Pryke chose three areas for the like-with-like comparisons. First, in civil aviation he compared the performance of British Airways with that of British Caledonian. Of course, his performance comparison pre-dates the turn around in the fortunes of British Airways. Secondly, in short sea ship and hovercraft services he compared the record of Sealink UK with that of European Ferries, as well as comparing the record of BR Hovercraft with that of Hover Lloyd. Thirdly, for the sale of gas and electrical appliances and contracting, he compared the record of the two nationalised concerns—the British Gas Corporation and the electricity boards—with that of private competitors. In each case he concluded that the record of the nationalised concern was worse than that of its private-sector competitor, whether judged by profitability or by productivity indicators. Public enterprise achieved that poor result despite having certain advantages. For example, British Airways operates out of Heathrow, while British Caledonian operates out of Gatwick.

Two related aspects of management are criticised. First, the nationalised industries appeared to have been slow in reacting to market developments; secondly, they seem to have been willing to continue running sections of their businesses at a loss, and have been reluctant to rationalise their operations. Pryke does not believe that the unprofitability was caused by nationalised industries having non-commercial objectives, such as running social services.

Those views by a respected international economist place denationalised companies in their rightful context.

What is the range of companies that have been denationalised? The list is a long one, and I shall not tire the House with it at this early hour of the morning. However, I shall name some key companies. We can remember Amersham International, Associated British Ports, British Leyland—in which the Government held 99·7 per cent. of the shares—British Aerospace, British Airways, the British Airports Authority—now known as BAA plc—British Gas, British Shipbuilders, British Telecom, Britoil, Cable and Wireless, Enterprise Oil, Jaguar, National Bus, the National Freight Corporation, which has 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's road haulage market, Roll-Royce, Royal Ordnance, TSB and the electricty and water authorities.

Clearly some areas have not been denationalised and perhaps this is one of the most pungent political points that I wish to make today. As I represent York, I am bound to say that the most obvious area in which denationalisation has not occurred fully is British Rail. Some parts have been brought into the private sector. Although many people think that British Transport hotels have been completely denationalised, no fewer than 11 hotels remain in state ownership, although I cannot understand why that should be. Sealink was denationalised in 1984, operating 37 ferries and 10 harbours. British Rail Engineering Ltd. is a highly successful, well-geared engineering company. Indeed, it need not necessarily remain a railway engineering company. It now offers over 20 per cent. more in salary terms to its workers in comparison with equivalent jobs in British Rail. It also offers shares in the company.

Why are the Government holding back from selling the rest of British Rail? Why have they not sold British Coal or the Post Office? Why are they holding back as much as 49·8 per cent. of British Telecom? After the successful launch last week of National Power and PowerGen, why are the Government retaining 40 per cent? Following the success of the flotation of subsidiaries such as BREL, it is high time that bodies like BR were split further. For example, the core of British Rail could be split like the Civil Aviation Authority. There could be a signalling and track authority and trains could pay to cross the system in terms of frequency, time and use. I am sure that denationalisation would be in the interests of employees and the freight and passenger customers.

On the other hand, the Opposition are committed to nationalisation. Their industry policy has not moved away from Clause Four. One of the key messages of the debate is that employees in free enterprise, denationalised companies can expect their shares to be snatched away or invalidated and their wages to fall if Labour is ever returned to power. Customers can expect to return to higher prices, less flexibility and less service. People with pensions can expect a fall in the value of their holdings and hence in the dividend or pension. Lovers of state Intervention and red tape will have a field day. Labour would fuel inflation with such a strategy and could finance its proposals only by a levy on industry, or by raising taxes disproportionately, or both. That would be a return to the disastrous economics of the 1960s with socialist policies of subsidies, quangos and tax allowances. After 12 years in opposition, one might have expected the Labour party to produce some fresh ideas, but sadly that is not the case.

At the next election the public will remember Labour's pledge to renationalise. Labour's rather inadequate representatives try to sabotage flotations within days and hours of each denationalisation going public. What did the socialists do for the water industry when they were last in power? Did they commit proper resources to that industry? They certainly did not. Under socialist control, investment was cut by half.

It is not surprising that the only Labour Member to attend this debate has only just entered the Chamber. Nevertheless, I welcome him