House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 May 1990

Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams) (by private notice) : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the devastation caused by oil pollution along the south Devon coastline.

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin) : At 15.09 on Saturday 12 May a collision took place between the Liberian- registered oil tanker Rosebay and the Brixham trawler Dionne Marie 14 miles south of Start point. Rosebay sustained damage to her port side, which resulted in about 1,100 tonnes of crude oil being spilt into the sea. The master immediately took action to minimise the extent of the spill, by transferring oil from the damaged tank into other tanks. Within 90 minutes the oil leak ceased. The marine pollution control unit was informed of the collision by Brixham coastguard at 15.25 and activated its counter- pollution aircraft at 15.30. The first aircraft began spraying at 18.00.

The marine accident investigation branch is investigating the collision. Its initial findings are that it was the duty of the fishing vessel under the international collision regulations to give way, but her watchkeeper did not see the tanker and made no alteration of course. The tanker took evasive action but it did not prevent the collision. Visibility at the time was approximately three to four miles. The MAIB report into the collision will be completed as soon as possible.

The dispersant spraying operations, which continued the next day, successfully dispersed 75 per cent. of the spilled oil. However, the remaining 25 per cent. emulsified with sea water to form an estimated 700 tonnes of what in the industry is called "mousse", which does not respond to treatment with dispersant. With natural breakdown that has now reduced to 400 tonnes. Had the dispersant spraying not taken place the original spill would have emulsified into some 3,500 tonnes of mousse. That would have had to be either recovered at sea--a difficult, slow, and weather- dependent process--or cleared off the beaches.

A joint Government-local authority response centre has been set up to direct and control the beach-cleaning operations. The area is difficult, with rocky cliffs and fast-flowing estuaries. There are several important amenity beaches, some bird colonies and an area designated as one of outstanding natural beauty. The MPCU is overseeing the preparation of detailed plans for clean-up by the local authorities. Appropriate techniques and storage sites have been identified.

The main beach-cleaning effort began at first light today. Local authority and MPCU equipment was deployed to appropriate access points during the course of yesterday evening. The main emphasis will be on the mechanical recovery of oil from amenity beaches and accessible rocky areas, pressure washing of hard surfaces and the eventual use of dispersants for final clean-up where that is essential. Much of the rocky areas will be inaccessible and the only option will be to watch for oil moving from those areas to more sensitive ones. Extra specialist personnel provided by the MPCU from the Warren Spring laboratory have been allocated to South

Column 900

Hams district council, which is bearing the brunt of the pollution. In addition, trained operators will accompany specialist equipment as it is deployed, to advise on use.

I pay tribute to the local authorities involved for their preparation, which enabled them to make a rapid response to what is obviously a major threat to an area of outstanding natural beauty. Their concern is shared fully by myself and local Members of Parliament. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is on the Bench with me. It was because of the prompt action of the Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit that 75 per cent. of the oil did not reach the shore.

Mr. Steen : The oil spillage is a major catastrophe for one of the most beautiful parts of the country. I pay tribute to the Minister for alerting me to the problem and then keeping closely in touch with me as the progress of the slicks was reported to him.

The first problem is that although the damage has been curtailed to about 12 miles of the 88 miles of heritage coastline, which is a great tribute to the Government and the county council, it still means that 12 miles of beaches are saturated by oil. In one place--Challaborough beach, Bigbury-- it is up to 18 in. deep. A great deal of work needs to be done. How will those involved disperse 12 in. of oil on some of the heritage coastline? Where will they put all the oil and sand that they clean?

Can my hon. Friend confirm that both public and private beaches will be cleaned and that some of the inaccessible coves will be approached by helicopter? Devon county council has said that helicopters are not available. Will my hon. Friend make them available if required? Will the services of the military be called upon if necessary? There are 700 commandos in my constituency, the Royal Naval college at Dartmouth and also HMS Cambridge. Will the military be called upon for immediate action should that be required?

There has been good co-ordination at local level, but to deal with the mousse once it has landed on the shore, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food needs to issue a licence. Devon county council and South Hams district council fear that getting a licence out of MAFF may mean a further delay. Can my hon. Friend help with that? There are five fine estuaries as well as a number of other inlets. Is everything being done to ensure that oil does not get up the estuaries?

The area is one of the finest in Britain for the tourist industry. Will my hon. Friend say something about that industry and about what will happen to those whose livelihoods have been affected by this terrible spillage? As to the remedial action that is being carried out by his Department, Devon county council and South Hams district council, to which I pay tribute, will the Minister confirm that no cost will fall on the community charge payer and that the Government will find ways of funding it entirely from the centre?

This is a catastrophe of a type which has never happened to this coastline before. We have to learn something about the cause.

Mr. Speaker : Order. This is a question to the Minister. The hon. Gentleman might apply for an Adjournment debate to make all these points.

Mr. Steen : I am grateful to you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

Column 901

Does the Minister intend to investigate not only the cause of the accident but whether oil tankers should be lying along the south Devon coastline for many hours? Should not some of the larger oil tankers have double skins to protect them from such a collision? Will the Minister say something to the people of south Devon to help them deal with the terrible tragedy?

Mr. McLoughlin : I shall try to respond to the many points that my hon. Friend put to me. I can understand that the cost, and the matter of who will meet it, will cause concern to my hon. Friend's constituents. I give him a total assurance that the cost of the clean-up operation will be met entirely by the polluter. There is insurance cover on the tanker. There will be no cost to community charge payers. I am sure that my hon. Friend and his constituents will be grateful for that. It is in line with Government policy that the polluter should pay for the damage that he does. That is an important point, which needs to be made.

If there are any problems about getting agreement from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we shall be ready to help. We have already obtained from the Ministry the permission that is necessary to use dispersants. We keep in close contact with the Ministry. I do not foresee any difficulty, but if there is, we shall take it up.

Special action is being taken to try to safeguard the estuaries. My hon. Friend has rightly pointed out a great difficulty in that there are a number of estuaries in the area. A great effort is being made to protect them by putting booms across to try to stop the oil going up the estuaries.

Tourism is an important point. It is impossible to give a definitive estimate as to when all the oil will be cleaned up, but I very much hope that within two weeks we shall have restored as best we can some of the worst affected areas. I assure my hon. Friend that the restoration operation will apply to the whole coastline. There will be difficulty in the more inaccessible parts, which are rocky and treacherous. Obviously, we could not put anybody in danger. My hon. Friend asked about the use of helicopters. That will be considered. If it is thought the most appropriate way to help, we shall take advice on it.

My hon. Friend asked about the use of the Army. At the moment we feel that there are enough people and facilities in place. However, should we think it necessary to call on the resources of the armed forces, that option is open to us, but we do not yet feel that that is necessary.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives) : Does my hon. Friend accept that serious though the incident is--it is very serious, particularly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen)--if prompt action had not been taken by the marine pollution control unit, we would have had a massive environmental disaster, stretching not just along the Devonshire coast but along the coast of Cornwall? Will my hon. Friend deal with a point that he did not answer? Will he assure the House that there will be a thorough inquiry into how the collision took place?

Mr. McLoughlin : I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the marine pollution control unit, headed by Captain McLeod, and the people who work in it. There was a very prompt response. The unit was informed at 15.25 and was spraying at 18.00. If it had not been for the speed of the response, the position would have been more serious, as my hon. Friend said. I assure my hon. Friend,

Column 902

as I said previously, that an accident investigation is being carried out at the moment and that any lessons that can be learned from it will certainly be learned.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : Above all, I welcome the Minister's statement that the polluter and not the poll tax payer will pay. Will he confirm that the polluter will be prosecuted if any offence has been committed, and that that is being actively investigated? There has been a comprehensive response but sadly it has not been sufficient, and it has not stopped damage to the environment. To that extent, the response has without doubt been too little, or too late, or both. Therefore, given that the estuaries are now at risk as well as the coastline, will the Minister say what action is being taken? I understand that booms are not restraining the oil but have been breached, and that oil is now going up into the estuaries on the Devon coast. Is action being taken to deal with that as well as the other matters that I mentioned?

Mr. McLoughlin : We have been given constant prophecies of doom and gloom by the hon. Gentleman. He started on Monday with a question on energy, telling us that the community charge payer would have to pay. If he had taken the time and trouble to investigate and to find out the facts, he would have realised that that is not the case and that the polluter will pay. It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to say that the response is too little, too late. As far as he is concerned, anything that was done would have been too little and too late. I regard setting up an operation within two or three hours of the incident being reported as very effective. We have 3,000 miles of coastline to protect around the United Kingdom and the Department does an excellent job in protecting it.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch) : My hon. Friend knows that people who live and work along the Devon and Cornwall coast lie in fear and trepidation of such events, and we are grateful for the speed with which the problem was tackled. Will my hon. Friend investigate the links between oil companies and detergent companies? Is he aware that many detergent companies are owned by oil companies, so the companies that create the problem in the first place make a profit out of trying to clean it up? Will he study his files? He mentioned Warren Spring laboratory. If he looks at the old files, he will see that I tried and failed some 16 years ago to get the Department to take seriously an invention by one of my constituents, who was driven out of business because oil companies wanted to go on selling detergents rather than see my constituent's Oil Mop company come to successful fruition. Will he carry out a full investigation so that at some time in the future we may be able to prevent people who have a commercial interest in selling detergents from having a first crack of the whip and let those who have the technology lift oil from the water at an early stage before it comes ashore?

Mr. McLoughlin : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. All the responses to deal with such problems are directed by the marine pollution control unit. It says what should be used and charges the polluter for any costs incurred by the Department of Transport.

I cannot accept some of the theory behind what my hon. Friend said--that somehow masters of oil tankers and other vessels go all out to cause collisions so that

Column 903

companies can benefit from the clean-up operation. Such accidents are serious and it is to the master's credit that he immediately switched tanks to stop any further spill going into the sea. Of course we shall investigate any complaints that my hon. Friend draws to our attention. However, I congratulate those involved on what has been a fairly successful operation. It has not been totally successful. I wish that it had been, as it would have saved us all a lot of trouble and it would also have prevented some devastating effects on the coastline. We regret that there has been pollution, but I assure my hon. Friends that everything is being done to ensure that that pollution is removed as soon as possible.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : The Minister said that the polluter will have to pay. Is he aware that this has the makings of a long-drawn-out legal wrangle? The case of the disaster off Alaska is still being resolved in the courts and the case arising from the disaster off Birkenhead has not yet been settled. I cannot imagine that as there has been a collision there will not be contending parties who will say, "It is not my fault." The Government have a responsibility not to stay at arm's length, but to make it abundantly clear to all those working for local authorities in Devon and for other organisations that might have to foot the bill, that while the wrangling is going on in court, the Government will ensure that money is in place. Otherwise it will be paid for in the community charge. The Minister has to answer those questions so that people in Devon fully understand the consequences.

Mr. McLoughlin : Not only is the vessel insurance cover about £8 million, but the United Kingdom is a member of an international organisation that provides compensation of up to £30 million for oil pollution. I do not think that the Alaska oil spill was covered by such an international agreement.

Mr. Ian Bruce (Dorset, South) : Will my hon. Friend comment on the availability of resources to the marine pollution control unit? It clearly acted with the utmost speed, but it may not have had sufficient resources to saturate the problem. Will he have discussions with the armed forces, particularly the Navy, to see whether the pollution dispersant can be made available to them at immediate notice in the same way that helicopters are made available for sea rescue? Can my hon. Friend assure me that the slicks will not reach Dorset? Finally, if the fishing vessel, not the carrier, is shown to have been at fault, will the insurance held by the carrier compensate those affected?

Mr. McLoughlin : An investigation is going on and it would be wrong for me to apportion blame at this stage. The dispersant is on 24-hour standby and a number of planes which I inspected two weeks ago, are already part of the marine pollution control unit and on standby. We have also substantially increased the number of hours flown around our coastline for observation purposes. Therefore, quite a lot is being done in that regard. Ships were on their way within two hours, so that was a satisfactory response. However, we are always ready to learn from any incident.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes) : My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) is

Column 904

fortunate in representing one of the most beautiful constituencies, and one that I visit every year. However, I am worried by my hon. Friend the Minister's statement earlier that the fishing vessel may have been at fault. If so, any amount of insurance that is carried by the oil company will be worthless and there will be legal wrangles. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), in one of his rare gleams of sense, has put his finger on the important point of who will provide the money while the matter is being sorted out. Will my hon. Friend take a personal interest in the matter and visit the site so that he can experience at first hand its natural beauty? Perhaps he can fly over the site in a helicopter to see the extent of the damage.

Mr. McLoughlin : I am assured that in this case the polluter will pay and that there will be no problem about the recovery of the money. That is the best advice that I have. I was in Devon last week, admittedly in north not south Devon, but I am only too well aware of the outstanding beauty of the area.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : In response to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce), the Minister said, doubtless in good faith, that he hoped that everything possible was being done, but is not the anecdotal evidence that some of us have from the North sea coast that the marine pollution control unit is chronically and seriously under-resourced? May we have any facts that the Minister has on the amount of money that has been spent on it, what the estimates are for a proper unit which, sure enough, will be needed sooner or later, how that will be achieved and what, in the view of his expert advisers, is the shortfall? This is a serious issue.

Mr. McLoughlin : I reject what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am satisfied that we have an effective marine pollution control unit, which responded within a short time of being notified. Within five minutes of the head of the unit being told of the incident, an aircraft was flying to the site. Had it not been for that speedy reaction, we should be dealing with a far more serious incident.

Ms. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) : I am grateful for the opportunity to question the Minister on this subject. However, I hoped that his hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport would be present to issue a statement on the tragic deaths of four railway workers this morning on the Metropolitan line. Perhaps a note could be sent to me about that.

The House is grateful to the Minister for announcing an inquiry into the Rosebay incident. Can he say whether the Liberian authorities have agreed to co-operate? Will he publish the report, and will he ensure that the inquiry examines the level of crewing on the tanker and establishes whether their skills and training were adequate for accident prevention and were properly employed on this occasion? Can he confirm that the tanker was in its correct navigational lane? After similar incidents--for example, the Amoco Cadiz and Torrey Canyon disasters--separate tanker lanes were enforced, reducing the danger of tankers passing near to land.

Does the Minister agree that the devastating effects of the accident might have been avoided if the tanker had had a double skin? There is growing international support for a requirement for all tankers to have double skins, to avoid

Column 905

oil spillage. Will he join me in condemning the economic expediency that rejects such measures, and puts profits before the protection of the environment?

The Minister will be aware that discussions are taking place in the International Maritime Organisation about whether vessels weighing more than 150 tonnes should carry their own oil spill response plan. Will he give us the Government's views on that proposal, which Opposition Members believe could limit appalling environmental damage and the economic threat to the all-important tourist area of Devon?

Mr. McLoughlin : Let me repeat that an accident investigation is in progress, and of course its report will be published, as is normal with marine accident investigation reports. Its initial finding is that, under international collision regulations, it was the duty of the fishing vessel to give way. However, the watchkeeper did not see the tanker and therefore did not alter his course. The tanker took evasive action, but could not prevent the collision. Visibility was three to four miles. I hope that the report will be completed as soon as possible. I have already given its interim findings. The quick action of the master of the Rosebay prevented what could have been a much more serious accident, given the amount of oil on the ship. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) referred to double skins. I accept that that is an important matter, and it is being investigated by the IMO. However, it would be no good trying to apply such a requirement unilaterally. The IMO is conducting a detailed review of technical standards and the procedures that apply to tankers. Double skins may not be the only answer ; I have been advised that there are serious problems with gas build-ups.

Column 906

Caernarfon Hospital

4.39 pm

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

"The closure at the end of this week of the Caernarfon hospital casualty unit"--

the only casualty unit in the town.

The matter is specific as it arises from the recent decision to close Caernarfon cottage hospital--the sixth hospital closure to be announced in the county in the past 12 months--but it has assumed greater importance because we had expected the closure to be phased and that there would be some co-ordination of alternatives, but the casualty unit is to be closed this week. We learned yesterday that the general practitioners who are expected to cover for the closure have not agreed on how that cover is to be achieved.

The matter is important because, obviously, mothers of children who have accidents and need urgent treatment do not know where to go, and given the short notice of the closure, there has been no opportunity for the town to be notified about the alternative arrangements, and in some circumstances it could be a matter of life and death. The matter needs urgent consideration because of the stampede by the health authority, acting without proper co-ordination and public information. No doubt co-ordination has been badly affected because of a senior secretarial strike taking place this week, arising from the failure of the authority to negotiate a proper salary settlement. The problem arises largely from the chaos in the health authority, which has a £4 million deficit this year and is in a mad panic, closing wards and services in all directions.

The responsibility for that must be identified. If it is the fault of the health authority for its failure to manage its affairs, quite frankly, the health authority managers should resign. Alternatively, it is the fault of the Welsh Office for failing to provide the health authority with adequate resources and for failing to insist on proper strategic planning of services.

The casualty unit closure is a blow to the town of Caernarfon, causing considerable difficulty in the area. It requires urgent debate. The Welsh Office Ministers must come out of their bunker and face up to the health shambles for which they must take ultimate responsibility.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,

"The closure at the end of this week of the Caernarfon hospital casualty unit."

I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said about this important matter, which affects his constituency. As he knows, I have to decide whether to give it precedence over the business set down for today or for tomorrow. I regret that in this case the matter does not meet the criteria of the Standing Order. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Column 907

Amusement Machines

(Protection of Children)

4.42 pm

Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower local authorities to prohibit in their area the use by children of amusement machines. There is good support from both sides of the House for a measure along the lines of what I am proposing. That may not be immediately apparent from the number of hon. Members in the Chamber, but I know that I can muster good support for the measure should it come to a Division.

The Bill aims to give local authorities teeth to deal with the serious problem of arcade addiction. It is right that the Bill should specify the age of 16. If local authorities felt that the problem was serious in their areas, they would be given powers to ban those under 16 from amusement arcades. Young people under 16 are not yet responsible for their own actions and need guidance from adults. Sixteen is the right age limit and will achieve maximum support in the House.

We have legislation to protect those under 16 from under-age drinking, smoking or buying cigarettes and solvent abuse. More recently, measures have been introduced to prevent them from using chatlines. We should also protect them from the evil of gambling. I have been involved in the campaign against under-age gambling for at least two years. The misery caused by addiction to

amusement-with-prize machines in arcades is real among young people and their families. Many cases have been brought to my attention in Norwich and in all parts of the country. I am grateful to the National Council on Gambling, Westminster city council and the associated amusement arcades action group and other organisations for bringing all those cases to my attention. There are on record cases of theft, attempted suicide, broken homes, child prostitution and more serious crimes as a result of arcade addiction. Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie), have had serious cases of arcade addiction brought to their attention.

Arcade addiction is more serious than official statistics suggest. Even on the basis of Home Office figures. as many as 1.3 million out of 5 million children in the 10 to 16-year-old age group are spending money on amusement -with-prize machines. Of those, at least 250,000 children could be gambling in arcades unaccompanied by parents or friends. A recent survey conducted by the Gaming Board for Great Britain showed that, of 151 arcades visited in 1987, 94 were admitting under-16s and 53 of them were members of the British Amusement Catering Trades Association. Yet there is a code of practice that seeks to prevent under-16s gambling in arcades. In spite of that, the code of practice is still being flouted and that is why legislation is necessary.

I do not want to place too much emphasis on statistics, but the facts call into serious question the view taken by the Home Office that a change in the law is unwarranted. I do not agree with that view and I am most grateful to my

Column 908

hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for the Home Department for being present to listen to my ten-minute Bill. I have had the opportunity to discuss the matter with him on a number of occasions. However, I commend the various initiatives that the Home Office has taken with local authorities and with BACTA. The display of notices outside amusement arcades and the code of conduct are good practice. I thank the Home Office for its support to that extent, but I seek to persuade my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department that a change in the law commands good support in the House, and I hope that the Bill will eventually be enacted. In Norwich there are very good liaison arrangements between the education and youth services, the social services, the city council and the police, in dealing with arcade addiction. But all those initiatives do not address the main issue. Access to arcades is all too easy for young people, many of whom are also playing truant from school. The figures are extremely disturbing, but time does not permit me to go into detail on that serious connected issue. The attraction of the bright lights is causing young children to go into the arcades and gamble. Even if the numbers were small--it is difficult to ascertain the exact numbers because so many of the cases that have been brought to our attention have been confidential, as families do not seek to publicise the problem--there is a real risk of serious addiction and it is important that we should address it. Under present legislation, potential arcade operators have to apply to local authorities for permits and for planning permission. The wording of schedule 9 of the Gaming Act 1968 makes it more difficult for a local authority to refuse to renew a permit than to deny an applicant a permit and planning permission in the first place. Local authorities are therefore wary of refusing to renew permits unless they are denied access to inspect or unless there are serious problems with the operation of the machines.

That is why I believe that it is sensible to give local authorities discretion, as the Bill seeks, to ban under-16s from amusement arcades should they feel that the problem is serious in their area. It is reasonable to make the age limit of 16 a legal requirement. Acceptance of the Bill would bring amusement-with-prize machines and arcades in line with the law on other forms of gambling. The distressing cases that have been brought to my attention and to that of other hon. Members provide all the evidence that is needed to justify the Bill or a similar measure, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Patrick Thompson, Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Simon Coombs, Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mr. Tony Favell, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr Roger Gale, Mr. Conal Gregory, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Sir Charles Irving and Miss Ann Widdecombe.

Amusement Machines (Protection of Children)

Mr. Patrick Thompson accordingly presented a Bill to empower local authorities to prohibit in their area the use by children of amusement machines : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 June and to be printed. [Bill 142.]

Column 909

Questions to Ministers

4.53 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the ways of calling Ministers to account is by raising on the Floor of the House the difficulties that one encounters.

I have recently tabled a series of questions to the Department of Employment. Often the question produces the rubric, "I will answer this question as soon as possible." I give plenty of time--generally a week--for a priority answer to a written question. The Department is evading responsibility for immediate answer to the House when information is sought for a particular purpose and by a particular date. I raise this matter in the knowledge that successive Speakers have deprecated any unnecessary, planned or deliberate delay, and I wish to re-emphasise the importance of that.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : I join former Speakers and Deputy Speakers in deprecating such action, and I shall make a point of looking into the matter.

Column 910

Orders of the Day

Finance Bill

(Clauses 3, 9, 10, 20, 23, 25 and 68)

Considered in Committee [Progress 15 May.]

[ Miss Betty Boothroyd

in the Chair ]

Clause 20

Care for children

4.54 pm

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South) : I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 11, line 6, at beginning insert

( ) In section 154(2) of the Taxes Act 1988 after "section 155" there shall be inserted "or section 155A.".'.

This is a technical drafting amendment designed to meet a surprising omission by the Government draftsmen. I trust that it will be accepted by the Government in that spirit. It is entirely helpful and non- controversial.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont) : One of the most exciting things that can happen in a football match is when, with the first kick of the ball, someone scores a goal. I am happy to thank the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) for his suggestion.

Amendment No. 40 is not technically correct, but it identifies a defect in the Bill. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for moving it and I undertake to table an amendment on Report to deal with the omission.

Mr. Boateng : I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Boateng : I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 11, line 6, at beginning insert--

The following section shall be inserted after section 131 of the Taxes Act 1988--

"131A. Where an employee makes a contribution out of his emoluments towards the cost of the provision of childcare, and the conditions set out in section 155A below are satisfied in respect of such care, that contribution shall be regarded for the purposes of section 198 below as an expense wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties of his employment.".'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments : No. 25, in page 11, line 6, leave out from second section' to end of line 10 and insert

144 of the Taxes Act 1988--

Care for children 144A--(1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Taxes Acts the provision for an employee of care for a child or the financing of such provision by any means (including vouchers redeemable only for such care and reimbursement of the employee's expenses incurred in procuring such care) shall not be treated as an emolument chargeable to income tax under Schedule E if the conditions in subsection (1B) below are met.

(1B) The conditions are that--'.

No. 5, in page 11, line 10, at end insert--

Column 911

( ) the employee is not a person to whom section 154(1) applies by virtue of his being employed as a director of a company or in employment with emoluments at the rate of £25,000 a year or more.'. No. 6, in page 11, line 13, at end insert--

(aa) the care is provided primarily during the employee's working hours in the employment by reason of which it is provided.'. No. 26, in page 11, line 14, leave out sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert--

(b) the care is provided on premises which are not the normal place of residence of the child or employee.'.

No. 13, in page 11, leave out lines 14 and 15.

No. 7, in page 11, line 15, at end insert--

(bb) the care is provided under arrangements which are equally available to any other employee of the same employer whose child has an equal or greater need of such provision and for whose child it is practicable to make such provision.'.

No. 27, in page 11, line 21, leave out subsections (2) and (3). No. 42, in page 11, line 21, at end insert--

(e) in the case of close companies (as defined in section 414 of the Taxes Act 1988), child care facilities of a broadly similar nature are made available by the employer to all employees (this condition will be satisfied even if not all employees make use of the facilities so provided.)'.

No. 43, in page 11, line 21, at end insert--

(f) at premises where child care facilities are provided, they must be of a broadly similar standard.'.

No. 8, in page 11, line 25, at end insert and'.

No. 9, in page 11, line 27, leave out from persons' to end of line 30.

No. 10, in page 11, line 28, after employer', insert

or an associated company of the employer'.

No. 16, in page 11, line 29, leave out

and managing the provision of the care.'.

No. 11, in page 12, line 25, at end insert

"associated company" has the meaning given in section 416 below ;'.

No. 12, in page 12, line 29, after educational', insert or recreational'.

No. 17, in page 12, line 30, leave out eighteen' and insert sixteen'.

No. 14, in page 12, leave out lines 31 and 32.

No. 18, in page 12, line 37, at end insert--

(3) This section shall operate to relieve the taxable benefit from basic rate tax only. The benefit is still to be charged at the excess of higher rate over basic rate tax.'.

Next Section

Home Page