| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Newton: If one thing is clear about this appointment, it is that it was in no way the appointment of a politician to do the job. Sir Christopher has wide experience of the broadcasting industry and a considerable understanding of the business, financial and technical issues facing the BBC. That appears to me to have been widely accepted by those who comment on those matters in the public prints.
Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield): May I echo the points made by the shadow Leader of the House about the relevance of the military ambulances issue to next week's debate on the Army? I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the growing concern on both sides of the House about the fact that the Government are even considering placing a contract with an Austrian company when British-built military ambulances are available to meet the Ministry of Defence's quality and cost-effectiveness specifications. When drawing those matters to the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence next week, will the right hon. Gentleman emphasise to him the strength of feeling on both sides of the House--amplified in two early-day motions signed by a growing number of hon. Members of all parties?
Mr. Newton: I take the hon. Gentleman's question to be: will I add his name to the list of those who have expressed their concern and draw it to the attention of the Defence Secretary? The answer to that is yes.
Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate): May we have an early debate on the barbaric practice of shackling pregnant women prisoners? The Government's response on Tuesday to a private notice question on that issue led the House to believe that staff at Whittington hospital in my constituency, where the women are taken to give birth and to be treated, view such practices with equanimity. Yet a report in today's newspaper states that Baroness Hayman, chair of the Whittington trust, has written to Baroness Cumberlege asking for an early meeting and expressing grave professional concern at such practices.
Two issues seem to be at stake: first, the possibility that the House may have been misled; and secondly, the fact that that barbaric and inhumane practice still continues. The sooner we have a full debate and get the matter out in the open and the practice abandoned, the better.
Mr. Newton:
I cannot of course add to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office said in her statement in response to the private notice question on Tuesday, but I will bring the hon. Lady's comments to her attention and bear in mind her request.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock):
Will the Leader of the House reflect on the fact that, over a year, we have general debates in Government time on Wales, Scotland and Greater London, yet outside Greater London in the south-east of England, there are some 13 million people? I hope and ask that he will agree with one thing: to a large extent, that will be the battleground of the next general election. Is there not an overwhelming case for the Government to have a debate in which they could defend--I assume that they would want to do so robustly--their stewardship of the interests of the people of the south-east of England? In such a debate, my hon. Friends and I could attack the Government and Members of Parliament in marginal seats around the M25 in Hertfordshire, Kent and Essex for their defence of a Government who have caused enormous problems to people in terms of negative equity, anxiety about the national health service and lack of mobility on public transport. Let us have a debate--a gladitorial contest-- on the Floor of the House, in which we could attack the Government for their stewardship of the south-east of England and in which Ministers could try to defend their position.
Mr. Newton:
According to my observations over a long period, confirmed this afternoon, the hon. Gentleman is not short of opportunities to make his points without me staging further debates. As to the rest, the Government would defend their record robustly, not only on the south-east, but on the whole of the United Kingdom.
Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Amendment made: No. 1, in page 1, line 24, leave out subsection (5) and insert--
Order for Third Reading read.--[Queen's consent signified.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
First, I am grateful to hon. Members for accepting the amendment. I understand that residential boat owners have some concerns about the way in which local taxation affects them. Those concerns seem primarily to be about the council tax and are outside the Bill's scope, but once we have had full details of their concerns, we shall consider them carefully.
Ms Hilary Armstrong (North-West Durham):
I shall be as brief as the Minister, whom I thank for the commitment to consider the case that the Residential Boat Owners Association is making. Those people are concerned that the Bill, although not directly affecting the owners' council tax problem, will make it more difficult for them to advance their arguments. That is why they were worried that the Bill was going through without their involvement. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for agreeing that their concerns will be considered.
As the Minister said, the Bill restores the position to that which we all thought it was until a valuation tribunal decision. I know that not only many caravan and boat owners, but local authorities will be relieved. They are having enough problems in sorting out council tax issues for this year. The thought that they would have to go back three years to recover money and to repay other moneys did not fill them with great joy.
Therefore, it is in everyone's interests that the Bill receives a speedy passage. I thank the Minister for acknowledging the point that the Residential Boat Owners Association has been making and I look forward to its concerns being dealt with.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Business Links
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Streeter.]
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page):
There is a belief in some quarters that it is easier to run a small business than a big one--it is thought that the bigger the company, the more the problems and the more the difficulties. There is nothing further from the truth. The small business man or woman must be an expert at absolutely everything. They must be knowledgeable when the Health and Safety Executive official appears; they must have tax information at their fingertips when the Inland Revenue inspector knocks; they must be skilled in the details of value added tax when the VAT man calls. They must work through the many layers of officialdom that are needed to run a complex society, and let us not forget that that business man or woman has not yet got around to running his or her business.
Another range of skills is needed: to be skilled in design to produce an attractive product; to be a purchasing agent and to ensure that the raw materials are bought at the best price; to be a production engineer to ensure that the assembly line works effectively and that goods are made to price and quality; and, of course, to be a financial wizard to ensure that the cash flow is under control and that the bank manager is kept happy.
Having done all that, the business man or woman has not even got around to selling anything yet, which is the whole object of the exercise and where another raft of skills is needed: in marketing, sales and, again, in credit control. By contrast, a manager in a large company has a simple life. He can monitor the overall scene and subcontract in and out where necessary, when he thinks that he needs expert advice. Who could possibly believe that running a small business is easy? I do not and the Government do not, which is why, over the years, there has been sympathy from and appreciation by the Government for the work undertaken by the small business sector.
The best thing that any Government can do for a business man or woman is to provide a stable, solid economic environment of low taxation, low interest rates and low inflation--that is what the Government are delivering for the small business sector. Added to that, for the first time we are providing stable exchange rates. I know from hard personal experience that small business is more affected by the swings and changes of inflation and interest rates than large ones, which have the capability to hedge. Small businesses do not have the resources to protect themselves against such future changes. That is why, as I said, the best service that any Government can give to the small business sector is a stable economy.
'( ) Subsection (4) does not apply in relation to a hereditament where--
(a) a proposal for the alteration of a local non-domestic rating list in respect of the hereditament has been made, and not withdrawn, before 30th January 1995 in accordance with regulations under section 55 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988,
(b) the ground for the proposal was that the list was inaccurate because the hereditament ought not to be shown in the list or, in the case of a composite hereditament, the rateable value shown in the list was too high, and (c) the reason or one of the reasons given in the proposal, or on an appeal (in accordance with those regulations) to a tribunal against a refusal to make the proposed alteration, for the list being inaccurate was that any pitch occupied by a caravan or (as the case may be) mooring occupied by a boat was domestic property by virtue of section 66(1)(a) or (b) of that Act'.--[Sir Paul Beresford.]
4.51 pm
4.54 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |