| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Terence Higgins: I understand that, but myhon. Friend has not answered the fundamental point, which is that the reduction in value in itself is sufficient to reflect a serious reduction in the enjoyment of the property. That brings out clearly the need for the guidelines to be further revised. If anything, the change tightens the criteria.
Mr. Norris: I am aware that some owners have been disappointed that their applications have not been successful and feel that the guidelines should have been drawn more generously to allow the Highways Agency to purchase an even greater number of properties, but with regard to my right hon. Friend's example of a constituent whom he claims has lost £25,000--if I quote him correctly--and whom he describes as having been the victim of highway robbery, I remind him that the powers under the Highways Act 1980, which allow discretion to purchase properties of which enjoyment will be seriously affected are in addition to, not a substitute for, the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which clearly give owners the right to claim compensation for loss in value one year after a road has opened.
There is no obligation on the Highways Agency to acquire property which is not required for a scheme, and the use of guidelines to ensure that cases are considered in a fair and consistent manner has been established since 1992. The important point is that those discretionary powers are to be applied in cases where the person concerned has no foreknowledge of the effect of the scheme; where the person concerned or a person residing in the relevant property can show serious effect in terms of their enjoyment of the property, as defined, and as qualified as my right hon. Friend said, by the judgment in the Owen case; and where the individual concerned has a pressing need to have the property acquired in advance of the compensation available under part I of the 1973 Act, which inevitably will be paid to any person who can show the loss that I have outlined a year after the scheme has opened. Discretionary purchase is not a substitute for the part I compensation, it simply provides for those exceptional circumstances.
I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend is understandably concerned at the effect of the application of the new guidelines, but I stress that there is no sense in which they affect part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which remains the bulwark on which those who may be refused compensation in these cases can none the less rely if they continue to experience deterioration in the value of their property a year after the scheme has opened. It is that series of criteria taken together that it is important to bear in mind in these cases.
The new guidelines comply in full with the judgment given in the Court of Appeal in 1994. In the case of Owen, a further judicial review in November 1995 confirmed that the Secretary of State had not acted perversely or
irrationally in reaching the decision to reject Colonel Owen's application in accordance with the guidelines and Colonel Owen was refused leave to appeal that judgment on 12 February.
We will continue to consider applications in accordance with the two-stage process set out in the guidelines. Our intention remains to provide relief to owners whose enjoyment is seriously affected and who have a pressing need to sell in advance of entitlement to claim their statutory compensation.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
1. Ms Coffey:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact on British firms of late payment by Government Departments. [13502]
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page):
The Government recognise the problems that the late payment of invoices can cause, particularly for small businesses. It is important that the public sector leads by example and settles its bills on time. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is responsible for Government Departments' payment policies and has instructed them to abide by the Confederation of British Industry prompt payers code and to publicise their payment policies. The average figure for Departments' payment performance in 1994-95 showed an improvement over 1993-94. The Department of Trade and Industry's payment performance has improved, rising to 93 per cent. in 1995-96.
Ms Coffey:
Does the Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that late payments can make the difference between survival and failure for many small businesses, or does he agree with the Deputy Prime Minister who has boasted of his own late payment policy? Does the Minister not regard the Government's £230 million of late paid bills in 1994-95 as a total disgrace?
Mr. Page:
The Government should set a good example, and no hon. Member knows more than I the importance of prompt payment of bills to small businesses. A few years ago, the Government started to publicise their payment policies and the situation has improved, but it must get better. For example, last year the Department of Trade and Industry paid 93 per cent. of its bills in 30 days--that is, 13 of every 14 invoices were paid on time. A recent survey conducted by a reputable organisation found that the average payment time by medium and large companies is 48 days. The Government are setting a good example and leading the way.
Sir John Cope:
Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of support for the actions that he and the Government have taken over late payment which have led, for example, to the CBI code and to the company law statutory instrument obliging public limited companies to report their policy? Should not plcs be obliged to disclose in their annual reports what they have done during the past 12 months, as is the case for Government Departments?
Mr. Page:
I note the comment that my right hon. Friend made about that statutory instrument, and it is currently being considered. However, no magic bullet can be fired which will automatically make the small business man or woman receive their money on time. I emphasise that there is a responsibility on every small business man
Mrs. Roche:
How can the Minister be so complacent when the Government are threatening the very survival of many small businesses to which they owe millions of pounds? The Forum of Private Business found that one in five business owner-managers is prevented from expanding because of late payment. Does the Minister agree that this makes a complete mockery of the Government's hope to make Britain the enterprise centre of Europe?
Mr. Page:
No one in Government is complacent about the present payment policies. When I was appointed to my present post a few months ago, the first thing that I did was to hold a series of bilateral discussions with every Minister responsible for small businesses in every Department. Having spoken to them about their payment policies, I know that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is working on a policy to improve standards so that the Government, who are already setting a good example, can make it even better.
2. Mr. Clifton-Brown:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to assist the overseas trade services. [13503]
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Anthony Nelson):
Through overseas trade services, my Department, together with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, provides the best-ever package of information, advice and practical assistance to all British companies wishing to explore new export opportunities.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
Is my hon. Friend aware that companies such as BP in Azerbaijan and British American Tobacco in Uzbekistan have substantial exports to those countries? Does my hon. Friend agree that those large companies could act as pathfinders for smaller British companies to encourage our export efforts to those countries? For example, in Azerbaijan, the next big contract has just been let to an American hotel chain. Could we not have encouraged British companies to compete for that contract?
Mr. Nelson:
My hon. Friend is right. Those are important contracts and the companies are important pioneers. I believe that they can pave the way for smaller companies to follow in their wake, but it is important to remember that many already do. Some 3,000 companies have participated in 200 missions and 8,000 exhibitors have taken part in trade fairs. They are following in the wake of the perhaps 20 or 30 companies which dominate our trade performance. They have to work together and I am sure that they do so.
Mr. MacShane:
After tomorrow, can the Minister give a guarantee on overseas trade that no Minister will be signing any certificate which could send innocent British people to prison in order to promote the interests of MI6?
Mr. Nelson:
Yes, I can give that assurance. That is the position that has obtained up to now and it will continue
Mr. Elletson:
Will my hon. Friend ensure that the overseas trade services continue to support British defence exporters? Is my hon. Friend aware of the particular importance of defence exports to the economy of Lancashire? Will he take this opportunity to condemn those Labour Members who spend their political lives undermining defence exports and defence jobs?
Mr. Nelson:
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. If we listened to Opposition Members, we would have closed down just about every export market that we have in the world, not just for defence equipment. The supply of legitimate defence equipment under article 51 of the United Nations convention to enable countries to defend themselves is wholly legitimate. It is in our national interest and it provides millions of jobs in constituencies represented by Opposition Members, although sometimes one would not think so.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |