| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : I have two questions about the charges that can be imposed under the ways and means resolution. The first relates to the exceptionally large number of small concerns--many of them run voluntarily--embraced by the Bill. It is not generally appreciated that clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill apply to every railway of any description whatsoever--not just to British Rail but to the Tyne and Wear Metro ; London Underground ; the Ffestiniog railway ; the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch railway ; the Tanfield railway ; the Heatherstane Law railway ; and the Keighley and Worth Valley railway--with which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is well associated. For that matter, clauses 6 and 7 apply also to the 9in gauge railway capable of carrying passengers that runs through a park or one that is erected on a temporary basis for a particular event, such as a model railway exhibiton. That still constitutes the running of a railway. It follows that all railways embraced by clauses 6 and 7 can be the subject of charges imposed as part of the licence conditions by the Secretary of State or the regulator. Voluntary railways had no idea until the day that the Bill was published that it would embrace them, and they are concerned to know the charges and licence arrangements to which they will be subject.
From the day of Royal Assent, it will be an offence for those railways to run unless they have an exemption certificate or licence granted by the Secretary of State or the regulator. We do not know the charge that will be imposed for that certificate or licence. Will it be nominal--50p, say--or will it be related to the scale of operation of a big franchise holder, such as that which takes on the east coast main line and be many thousands of pounds? How is a small organisation such as the North Yorkshire Moors railway to find the money to pay such a charge, if it were that kind of figure? Is it certain that, on payment of the charge, the exemption or licence will be issued immediately? These are railways that organise for the tourist trade each season, and will not necessarily know--even if they have paid the charge specified in the motion--that they will be free to operate when the operating season starts. What will be the position of voluntary model railway organisations that pay the charge but do not know whether they will receive a licence in time for children to ride on their trains on the day of the fete?
Although all that is embraced in the Bill, nothing said by the Minister has explained why all those railways are involved, or why they are to be subject to charges. In fact, I know why they are all involved : they are all involved in the Government's desperate attempt to prevent the Bill from becoming hybrid. The Government have taken every inch of railway track in the country into the scope of the Bill, and said, "Never mind ; there will be licences and exemptions. You will be all right." The ways and means resolution, however, allows charges to be imposed with those licences. In my view, none of those organisations should be charged a penny. What have they done to deserve it? They have simply set up trusts to run railways, often taking over railways abandoned by British Rail. They provide a popular and attractive tourist facility which is much admired by visitors to this country. Now they are being
Column 274
told that they cannot operate unless they obtain the necessary exemption or licence from the Secretary of State or the regulator. We are not talking here about light railway orders or safety provisions ; those are covered separately in existing regulations. We are talking about an Act that will prevent operators from running any such railway unless they have satisfied the Secretary of State that they should have exemptions or licences--and, under this motion, he may impose a charge for a licence. Moreover, for all we know, he may take months to grant it.The Minister may think that that is no problem. He may say that the Government had to include the provision to prevent the Bill from becoming hybrid. But he should know bureaucracies well enough to realise that that could become a significant obstacle to a great many organisations running the railways to which I have referred. My second question about the charges that will be imposed under the ways and means resolution relates to operators who take on franchises for the main routes--for example, the east coast main line. Will the imposition of charges and the monetary penalties mentioned in paragraph (c)--penalties
"imposed on persons who contravene or fail to comply with conditions or requirements imposed by the Act"--
be used by the regulator as a means of maintaining quality of service? That is an important question.
We understand that Mr. Richard Branson is willing to take on the east coast main line if he can run a non-stop line from London to Edinburgh. That may be fine for people who wish to travel from London to Edinburgh, or vice versa ; but it is not much consolation to the inhabitants of Berwick-upon- Tweed, Alnmouth, Newcastle, York, Northallerton, Durham or anywhere else between the two cities. This afternoon, the Secretary of State made an important and relevant statement : he said that the franchises would be based on the existing timetable. From that we must conclude that all the stops that now exist at such places as Alnmouth and Berwick must be maintained by the franchisee. But what happens if the franchisee says, "I have had enough of this ; I do not want my trains to stop at these places. I think that I might be able to get some more Edinburgh passengers if I go flying through all these stations"? Will he incur a monetary penalty under paragraph (c)? If not, has the regulator any other way of controlling a franchisee who starts to depart from the existing timetable?
I an not arguing that existing timetables are sacrosanct ; indeed, the best argument for bringing private contractors on to the railways is the possibility of their adding services that are not on the existing timetable. We all know, however, that the reverse could easily happen : under these arrangements, stations that now have services may lose them. I want to know whether Ministers see the penalties referred to in the motion as a way of ensuring that franchisees provide services to all the stations that now have services on the line. If not, what will be the mechanism for ensuring continuing compliance with the responsibility to maintain the existing timetable?
Column 275
11.33 pmMr. William Cash (Stafford) : Will my hon. Friend the Minister be good enough to deal with some of the matters that I raised on the previous motion, as they apply to the ways and means resolution? 11.34 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : I too want to deal with the private railways established from the 1960s onwards. Some Tory Members may not think that the legislation is needlessly bureaucratic or that it will impose another layer of administration, but they are wrong.
The Keighley and Worth Valley light railway in which I happen to own five £10 shares, which have never paid a dividend--and I should reject it if they ever did--was established as a preservation society in 1962. It obtained a light railway order in 1967 and a transfer order in 1968. An inspection of the operation and rules of operating the railway was carried out under the chief inspecting officer, then Colonel J. R. H. Robertson. From 29 June 1968, that five-mile branch of railway has been operating safely in the metropolitan borough of Yorkshire. Over the years, it has developed a relationship with British Rail which gives it access to traffic that it obtains via the British Rail network. For example, it sometimes runs excursions from the Worth valley to various destinations, hauled in part by steam trains which are attractive and delight many people.
What will happen under these arrangements when the Rail Regulator will be responsible for administering railway licenses and approving access agreements? Clause 6 states :
"No person shall provide or operate any services for the carriege of passengers or goods by railway own a network, a station or a light maintenance depot, or provide any network services, station services or light maintenance services unless he is authorised to do so by a licence or is exempt, by virtue of section 7". The railway to which I referred has been operating for many years, largely on a voluntary basis. It will have made 25 years' of payments this year and will finally be purchased from British Rail. It would have been an abandoned line if it had not been taken over, and that is true for many railways, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said.
I cite as examples the railway that runs from Sherringham to Holt, the North Yorkshire Moors railway, the Severn Valley railway and a dozen others. Incidentally, those railways followed the form of agreement negotiated between the Keighley and Worth Valley railway and British Rail way back in the early 1960s in order to bring to a successful conclusion the aim of reopening the lines.
All those railways are now subject to a licence. Will they operate as they do now? What if they have access to part of another railway? What does "access" mean? Does it mean running into goods yard as happens at Keighley and picking up wagons or coaches which have been transferred from British Rail to the Keighley and Worth Valley railway? That is access of a sort. It means that a separate licence will have to be given unless, under clause 7, the Secretary of State, who must consult the regulator, by order grants
"exemption from the requirement to be authorised by licence to carry on such activities falling within section 6"
to which I referred earlier.
It is fair to ask the Minister to say whether the Secretary of State is minded to produce an order once, or if, the Bill
Column 276
is passed, to grant exemption for all the existing privately operated railways which have been established for a long time and after a struggle.The Bill establishes an administrative superstructure which the privately operated railways can do without. They do not need the superstructure, because they come under the Health and Safety Executive. Any accidents must be reported.
The rules and operation of the railways are to the highest standards. There are no other standards. Railways cannot afford to be 50 per cent. safe. They must be 100 per cent. safe when they deal with passengers, four or five coaches weighing 120 tonnes and a locomotive weighing 50, 60 or 70 tonnes. They cannot afford half-measures. They have passed the test.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister announced today his wish to reduce the amount of bureaucracy? Are not the proposals a clear case of increased bureaucracy?
Mr. Cryer : I was about to make that point. Hon. Members might be interested to know that the Government produced 3,359 statutory instruments in 1992. The Government are supposed to be lifting regulations off the backs of people, although they produced more regulations in one year than any other Government in parliamentary history.
Will this ways and means motion, which is the ways and means of raising revenue for which the legislation provides, extract money from private railways which are run on a voluntary and democratic basis, in the case of the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway and many others, for the pleasure of those who run them and those who see them? I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that they are reasonable organisations. They are run properly and have the best aspirations. Why then should they be burdened?
Even if the Secretary of State makes an order, such an order is still highly qualified. The whole of page 7 and half of page 8 of the Bill relate to the qualifications which apply to the exemptions. I hope that the Minister can give an unequivocal guarantee tonight that, if the Bill is passed and the order-making powers are granted to the Minister, he will produce another instrument. Such regulations are required only under the terms of the Government's legislation. As a result of the ideological perversity of the Government, more regulations will be produced to keep the bureaucracy off the backs of railways which do not need it.
Mr. Spearing : Does my hon. Friend agree that the matter can be disassociated entirely from the general attitude on both sides of the House to the Bill? It is conceivable that such a proposal would result in British Railways staying intact.
The Association of Railway Preservation Societies is made up of charitable, educational and heritage organisations. There is no political difference across the House about them. I suggest that we all want to encourage them, within reason. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether there has been much consultation between the Association of Railway Preservation Societies and the Government, who pride themselves on consultation, before the matter was dealt with in the way he has described.
Column 277
Mr. Cryer : So far as I am aware, there has been no consultation on the ways and means motion. That contrasts very much with the Transport and Works Act 1992. One of the curiosities of the proposals in the ways and means motion is that, according to the Government, the Transport and Works Act 1992 was designed to simplify the position for light railways--small railways with a gauge up to 4 ft 8 in. Railways now have a gauge of about a metre or whatever. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the licensing and the revenue that derives from that. How can the Government reconcile this legislation with the Transport and Works Act 1992, which was designed to provide the Secretary of State with order- making powers to simplify the procedure and avoid private Bills being promoted to secure the operation of minor railways? I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that point. I am not referring to the kernel of the Bill, the whole of which remains objectionable, but it would be valuable if the Minister gave an indication that it was not the intention to use the fee-levying power to impose an additional burden on the light railways.
I emphasise that many people have struggled hard to get the railways operating ; they are not rich men and women's playthings. People have worked their guts out in their spare time--sometimes without much enthusiastic support from British Rail or anybody else. That was certainly true of the Keighley and Worth Valley railway. Local people thought that the idea of a group of people taking over a railway was barmy, but now everyone thinks that the whole thing is marvellous.
I hope that the Minister shares the view those railways are marvellous a chievements, that he will strive to the best of his ability--the Secretary of State can nod his head while the Minister is saying this--to avoid putting any further burdens on them, and that an order will be forthcoming.
11.46 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) : I wish to draw the attention of the House to paragraphs (b) and (c) of the motion. It seems legitimate to draw attention in particular to the absurdity of paragraph (b)--which deals with the rendering of payments to the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising--as it relates to at least one of the prospective franchises that were announced by the Secretary of State earlier today. I refer to the Tilbury-Southend line, in which my constituents have some considerable interest.
I say that that part of the motion is absurd because there will be no prospect whatever of payments being made to the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising by the people who are successful in landing--or who receive as a gift from the Government--the franchise for the line. It is, by general agreement, a totally clapped-out line which cannot generate revenue. To all intents and purposes, the Government will have to give it away. They will dress up the exercise, of course. They will no doubt find someone to take it off their hands.
Mr. Mackinlay : As my hon. Friend says, they will have to make public money available to keep the line ticking over. The tragedy is that it needs major public investment on a scale that the Government are not prepared to fund.
Column 278
The consequence is that commuters from Essex to London will continue to have a totally inadequate form of transport for their recreation and to get to their work.It should be made clear that a fraudulent prospectus is being offered to commuters on the Essex line. Their line cannot generate moneys to be paid to the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising. A public asset is to be given away so that the Government can shed their responsibilities and hide their failure to fund that railway line over a decade or more.
Both the Bill and the ways and means resolution disguise the fact that the Government are probably already scurrying around trying to cobble together something that they will describe as a management buy-out so that they can shed the line. The Director of Passenger Rail Franchising will not receive money as a consequence of the franchising of the Tilbury line--far from it. It is clear that the Government intend to exercise the right, provided in the Bill, to make money available to the managers of lines--including this one, I suspect--so that they may put together a cosmetic buy-out.
Mrs. Gorman : Does the hon. Gentleman know that at least three organisations have expressed an interest in taking over this line, which I understand makes £60 million a year?
Mr. Mackinlay : The second part of the hon. Lady's news is breathtaking. If the line makes so much money, the commuters will ask where it is all going and why some of it is not being invested in the line to provide a modern system of transport from Southend, via Tilbury, into Fenchurch Street. Clearly that is not happening. The hon. Lady alleges that three bodies are interested in taking over the line. It remains to be seen, but I expect that the interested parties will turn out to be of the James Sherwood variety--people interested in franchising lines provided that they can do so on their own terms. I shall be very surprised if anyone, other than managers, is prepared to take on this line. No one could fund it to the extent required by the commuters. It is a matter of simple arithmetic.
While I am thinking about Sir James Sherwood and others, I should say that there are people who are interested in privatisation of the railway network but make it abundantly clear that they are not interested in the Government's proposed methods. Only time will tell, but I believe that the hon. Lady will find--
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is wide of the ways and means resolution, the scope of which is fairly narrow.
Mr. Mackinlay : I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I succumbed to temptation following the hon. Lady's intervention. Paragraph (c) of the ways and means resolution refers to penalties that may be imposed on franchisees who fail to comply with conditions or requirements imposed on them. It seems to me that, in terms of ensuring that franchisers fulfil their obligations, the Bill is fatally flawed, and the motion is inadequate. It is time the Minister told the House how he intends to guarantee the continuation of services when a franchiser fails. Monetary penalties will not get people home from a central London station if a company fails at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. The passengers will be stranded. There is no indication that
Column 279
there will be any system of bonding, any guarantee that money will be available for continuation of the franchise should there be a failure.The Bill contains explicit requirements regarding safety. It is clear from the Bill, as well as from replies to parliamentary questions that I have received, that there is no mechanism to ensure compliance with safety requirements in the event of a train failure or crash. It seems to me that the Government intend to reply on some cosmetic monetary penalty to give the impression that there will be sufficient sanctions to guarantee continued service and safety standards once a line is franchised or privatised. This is wholly inadequate. As several of my hon. Friends have said, there is great danger in this respect. Much more needs to be done. Monetary penalties will be wholly insufficient to guarantee safety and quality of service on the lines that are franchised.
11.55 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman) : I shall be concise but clear in responding to what has been a brief debate. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) raised a number of points. I assure him that, when Union Rail, with permission from the Secretary of State for Transport, goes out to consultation on the rail link, there will be thorough consultation with his local authority. If there is not, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will let me know.
He asked about depots in Norfolk where there are more than two or three franchisees. That seems most unlikely, but as my right hon. Friend said when moving the Second Reading, he will publish a map in due course showing the nature of the franchises throughout Great Britain, and I am sure that any problems will then be identified.
Mr. Spearing : It was an example.
Mr. Freeman : The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that he was giving an example. That is why I have answered in general terms. The map will show where the franchises overlap.
The hon. Member for Newham, South next asked about franchisees paying money back under the resolution. That is the way in which, on profitable lines, the state will receive money on an annual basis for running a franchise, and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred to the east coast main line. That will, in essence, enable the public sector to cross-subsidise, for example, InterCity lines that lose money.
I was then asked about the industrywide conciliation and training service. The Health and Safety Commission report on safety recognised the importance of staff qualifications and training. It recommended high level core standards set on an industrywide basis, possibly by the Railway Training Council.
The hon. Member for Newham, South went on to speak about what he called a danger of wage-cutting. I think that the reverse is true, that we will see greater wage flexibility and the introduction of performance and bonus pay. I would expect to see an industry with better trained and better paid staff.
Column 280
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was out of order for part of her remarks, but in respect of the beginning of her comments that were in order, the re-signalling contract has been signed and is going ahead. We would welcome the bus companies bidding for franchises. If there is concern about anti- competitive legislation, we invite the bus companies to talk to the Director General of Fair Trading.The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to preservation railways. I was fascinated to read of the authorship by the hon. Member for Bradford, South of a document entitled "Steam in the Worth Valley," volume 1 of which he wrote in 1969 and volume 2 in 1972. We now know where his sympathies and interests lie, and I am delighted to learn it.
I have a simple answer to the points that were made at considerable length, although I appreciate the need to express them in that way. The Secretary of State intends to exempt preservation railways from the licensing system under the provisions of clause 7. That is a clear assurance.
In relation to franchising, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked about penalties for failure, and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised essentially the same point. If a railway train run by a franchisee fails in the technical sense, Railtrack is responsible. That is the safety authority, and it will ensure that the train is removed from the station or tracks.
Mr. Freeman : Because Railtrack will have the necessary equipment. Obviously, as the safety authority, it will have to do that. If a franchisee loses financial standing and credibility, the franchising director shall step in and ensure that service continues. If the franchisee fails to meet the performance standards, financial penalties will be incurred and there may be receipts by the franchising director.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) asked about the European Transport Commissioner and an alleged threat not to support with European money the privatised system. We are not aware of such a threat, but in any case, Railtrack, which will be the consumer of large amounts of public sector money, will still qualify to receive money from the European investment bank and from other Commission sources.
We are determined to ensure that this country receives its fair allocation of funds that are contributed by the taxpayers of this country, and I commend the resolution to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Railways Bill, it is expedient to authorise--
(a) the inclusion in licences granted under the Act of conditions requiring the rendering of payments to the Secretary of State or the Rail Regulator ;
(b) the inclusion in franchise agreements, within the meaning of the Act, of conditions requiring the rendering of payments to the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising ;
(c) the inclusion of provisions under the monetary penalties may be imposed on persons who contravene or fail to comply with conditions or requirements imposed by or under the Act ;
Column 281
(d) the imposition of charges to corporation tax by provisions relating to the taxation of persons who are transferors or transferees in relation to transfer schemes under the Act ; ((e) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.
Column 282
Customs and Excise
12.1 am
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that, after motion No. 5 on the Order Paper, we read that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has not considered the instrument. Since that was printed, it has considered it, but I suggest to you that one of the duties of the Chair is to protect the rights of Back Benchers. It is an unsatisfactory state of affairs if that Select Committee produces a report- -and I understand that there are copies on the Table and in the Vote Office --indicating that there is a defect in the drafting of the order if Members do not have a reasonable amount of time to look at it.
I ask you at least to consider drawing to the Government's attention the fact that it is not satisfactory for them to table an order like this until the Statutory Instruments Committee has had an opportunity to consider it and to make a report to the House on which hon. Members can form an opinion so that there may be an informed debate. You will be aware that the Select Committee receives a large number of orders during a year and the whole purpose of the Committee considering them is to produce reports and to inform the House. I hope that you will rule that it is not satisfactory that the Committee should consider a matter like this at half-past four in the afternoon, with the House considering it late the same evening.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : The ordering of business is not strictly a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Member has made his point and no doubt it will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench.
12.3 am
The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope) : I beg to move,
That the Customs and Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs for Goods Permanently Imported) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3193), dated 16th December 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker : I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion : That the Customs Duty (Personal Reliefs) (Amendment) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3192), dated 16th December 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
Sir John Cope : I shall come in a minute to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). These two orders concern personal reliefs for people coming into this country. They are both made necessary by the start of the European single market and both have the effect of continuing the reliefs which concern travellers from outside the European Community. They both replace orders which previously applied to all countries, including the Community. However, under the single market, we do not need reliefs on the same basis because travel within the EC is covered by other regulations.
The two orders basically continue the old reliefs for travellers from outside the Community. The first, No. 3193, primarily continues relief on the personal belongings of people who come to live here. The second order, No.
Column 283
3192, provides for continuation of the familiar duty-free and duty-paid allowances for those arriving from outside the EC. As we have discussed on other occasions, travellers from within the Community now have different rules under different legislation, but for those arriving from outside the European Community the allowance for other goods has also been increased by this order to £36--not a large increase, but nevertheless a small improvement.As the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned on a point of order, the Select Committee has put before the House today a report drawing the attention of the House to the instrument, because there is an argument as to whether the drafting is correct. It is all to do with the definition of "third country", as hon. Members will have seen from the note on the Table. The Customs and Excise says, as is clear from a memorandum which it submitted on the point, that it considers that the legal effect of the present order is clear. Evidently there is room for argument.
It is an extremely abstruse point of parliamentary drafting, but I am advised that it is clear. We will try to persuade the lawyers on both sides of the argument to reach agreement, and, if it is necessary to do so, I shall bring a further order before the House to amend the existing provision.
12.4 am
Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford, East) : I shall not detain the House long, but I should like to echo the point raised by my hon. Friend the member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It is clearly important that the drafting of the orders is right and we are indebted to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments for drawing the error to our attention. I take the Paymaster General's assurance that the matter will be put right.
As I understand the orders and what the right hon. Gentleman said, they amend the personal reliefs from customs duty to remove from relief those goods purchased by travellers from other European Community member states who will now be catered for in another order, but leave in place the previous allowances for travellers arriving from outside the Community.
The orders are part of the general change that we welcome, opening up opportunities for members of the public to derive some personal benefit and enjoyment from the operation of the single market. For many millions of our citizens, such changes do more in an immediate sense to give meaning to the European Community and the freedom of movements of people and goods than many of the economically and constitutionally grander principles and declarations of the Maastricht treaty.
The second order, which applies to permanently imported goods, has the same effect on people importing belongings when moving house, honorary decorations, awards, goodwill gifts, inherited goods and certain goods ancillary to specified visiting forces. It also reflects the commendable achievement of the Community in making it as easy as possible for people to move home from one Community member state to another, thereby rendering the old reliefs redundant except for those moving to the United Kingdom from beyond the European Community.
Column 284
We welcome the orders, but I wish briefly to press the Paymaster General on the staffing consequences for Customs and Excise services, which we touched on briefly in last week's Maastricht debate on the harmonisation of indirect taxation.It is generally accepted that the creation of open border crossings for EC citizens and the fact that excise goods will no longer be taxed at the frontier enormously increases the scope for smuggling. I am talking not about cross-border shopping, which the Paymaster General has already estimated could cost £250 million per year, but about smuggling for resale on the black market. Given the relatively high excise duties on some items in the United Kingdom, the potential financial gains to smugglers are enormous. For example, I have heard that one container shipment of Spanish cigarettes alone could net £30,000 or more in profit.
In regard to the numbers of excise staff, I understand that the board's management plan for 1991 made an allocation of an additional 248 staff for the extra inland work arising from the single market, but following the 1991 autumn statement, this was reduced to 178 staff. That is not many staff, given the potential scale of the problem and the shift to inland scrutiny that the single market necessarily involves. There must be literally hundreds of thousands of potential outlets for smuggled goods.
Secondly, the small increase in staff for inland scrutiny must be set against an overall reduction in staff in the service. I understand that the projected outturn for Customs and Excise staff for the current financial year is 27,800 staff years, of which 2,200 are on excise work, as compared with 28,400 for 1991-92 in the board of management report, of which 2,300 were on excise work. Notwithstanding the allocation of 178 staff to which I referred, the excise department has fewer staff to undertake what is undoubtedly a far more difficult job. The same arguments apply to customs staff, for whom the 1992-93 projected outturn is 9,900 staff, compared with 11,000 for 1991-92.
Those are serious issues and I want a clear assurance from the Paymaster General that they will be kept under the closest review, that staff numbers and the extent of smuggling will be carefully monitored, and that, if it becomes apparent that additional staff are needed, the Government will not hesitate to appoint them, for the public would have it no other way.
12.10 am
Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West) : I have three brief comments to make on order No. 3193. In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall be happy if my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General wishes to write to me about them, rather than attempting to answer me now.
First, paragraph 13 contains two references to a person becoming "normally resident" in this country. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are a number of slightly differing definitions within the tax Acts of what is normal or ordinary residence. It would have been helpful if the appropriate statutory reference had been given in the order to show which definition is to apply, or whether the definition which will apply is to be included in the Government's domicile Act, when that appears.
Secondly, I am slightly worried about the reference in paragraphs 13 and 15 to the registration of property brought in and given relief in the order, which is wholly
| Next Section
| Home Page |