| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Employment Prospects
3. Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on employment prospects in the highlands and islands. [30073]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): They remain excellent.
Mr. Macdonald: Is the Minister aware of the continuing damage being done to the economy and the employment prospects of the Western Isles and Skye by the high tolls on the Skye bridge? Is he aware that, on the new Severn bridge, which was opened today, the tolls will be 30 per cent. lower than the charges imposed on cars using the Skye bridge? How can the Minister justify that difference, especially when the Severn bridge was much more expensive to build? Is it not time that he listened to the weight of public opinion in the highlands, and indeed throughout Scotland, and scrapped the unpopular and damaging private toll regime?
Mr. Kynoch: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman takes that line when a bridge has been provided, using private finance, for the people of Skye much sooner that it would have been provided if the project had had to wait in the queue for public expenditure. The tolls are set at the level of the old ferry fares, so the cost of getting to Skye is no greater using the bridge. If people buy discounted tickets, the price of a single crossing can be lowered to £2.44. That compares with a charge for motor cars and caravans to cross the new Severn bridge of £3.80. The hon. Gentleman did not
point out that the Severn bridge concession is for some 30 years, so the tolls will remain for that period, whereas tolls will be in existence on the Skye bridge for only some 14 to 17 years until the cost is paid back. The bridge is of great benefit to the people of Skye and it means that weather does not cut them off from the mainland. The people of Skye should welcome the improved transport to and from their island.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: In view of what the Minister said at the end of his reply, I hope that he will take the opportunity after Question Time to give a resume of those benefits to the local protesters who are visiting Westminster today to make clear the depth of not just local opposition but Scotland-wide and international opposition to what is being done. [Interruption.] Those who laugh do so in ignorance because they do not know what is being said in other countries about this matter.
As the direct employment loss so far has come from the closure of the ferry, when will the Minister come clean about how much more the public purse in Scotland is having to subvent Caledonian MacBrayne's other ferry networks as a direct result of the loss of subsidy that was generated by the high charges on the original ferry? Why will he not tell us that, if he believes in the commercial case for this bridge?
Mr. Kynoch:
The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the difference between the bridge and the ferry. Of course, the ferry was subject to weather conditions, and that was amply exemplified just before the bridge officially opened when, I understand, an ambulance, a police car and a lorry load of fresh fish from South Uist, which was bound for Paris, crossed the bridge when the ferry was not running because of bad weather. Rather than associating himself with people who seem to be intent on flaunting the law and trying to follow a policy of non-payment, which seems surprising for the hon. Gentleman, he should recognise the benefits that the project has brought to that part of Scotland.
4. Mr. Nicholls:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what incentives are currently available to attract inward investment to Scotland. [30074]
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth):
Among the incentives for inward investment to Scotland are a skilled and flexible work force, low taxes, low inflation and the absence of the social chapter or a tartan tax.
Mr. Nicholls:
Is not my right hon. Friend too modest to say that it is a remarkable tribute to his efforts at the Cabinet table that Scotland receives such a massive amount of inward investment and a good deal more for public expenditure than does England? Now that the west country has its own designated Minister, does my right hon. Friend look forward to a time when a similar achievement could be brought about there, perhaps by a modest transfer from the Scottish Office budget?
Mr. Forsyth:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the success of Scotland in attracting inward investment. I am sure that the west country will
I see from today's newspapers in Scotland that the Labour party would abolish Scottish Enterprise as part of the recommendations of the McFadden Commission. The newspapers state that the distinguished Miss McFadden says that Scottish Enterprise will have part of its role taken over by a Scottish Parliament and another part taken over by local government, and that it will then cease to exist.
Mr. Hood:
The Secretary of State will appreciate that street crime is a disincentive to inward investment. Will he take this opportunity to reject the suggestion by the Scottish National party to commercialise prostitution and turn Scotland into the greatest whorehouse in Europe, and assure us that they will have none of that nonsense in Scotland?
Mr. Forsyth:
I know that the Scottish nationalists come up with some eccentric ideas but, as far as I am aware, they have not advocated prostitution as a matter that should be part of our inward investment campaign. The views that they have expressed on that matter are entirely consistent with the most left-wing and most radical party in Europe.
Mrs. Ewing:
On the issue of inward investment, would the Secretary of State care to comment on how many jobs originally pursued by Locate in Scotland went to the Republic of Ireland because of the local corporation tax that is levied there--at 10 per cent.? Will he also, instead of allowing his Minister to conduct an argument through the press with the Federation of Small Businesses, organise a meeting to discuss with it the importance of giving support to indigenous industries?
Mr. Forsyth:
I am surprised that a Member of the Scottish National party--of all parties--should try to argue that Ireland has an advantage because of the rate of corporation tax that it has to offer. If the hon. Lady would care to make an appointment with Locate in Scotland, it will explain to her why we can offer far more than Ireland in terms of financial incentives, and why the 10 per cent. corporation tax levied in Ireland is not a comparative advantage over Scotland. When she has had that meeting, perhaps she will join us in propounding the benefits of Scotland as opposed to Ireland.
5. Mr. Lidington:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the National Farmers Union for Scotland concerning Scottish beef production. [30075]
Mr. Michael Forsyth:
My noble friend the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and the Environment and I have regular meetings with the Scottish NFU.
Mr. Lidington:
Will my right hon. Friend continue to make every effort to secure the complete lifting of the beef export ban, in the interests both of Scottish farmers and of meat exporting companies like Donald Russell of Aberdeenshire, the sales director of which is a constituent
Mr. Forsyth:
Yes; and yes, I do.
Mr. Michael J. Martin:
With regard to beef production, the Glasgow meat market in my constituency was advised by the Scottish Office, as late as 1992, to upgrade its facilities with fridges and stainless steel products to bring it into line with the European Community, and only a month ago received a fax from the Scottish Office to say that it should cease production forthwith. The people who work there have been put out of a job. They have had a great deal of investment and their mortgages and homes are being threatened. All I ask is that the Minister, the noble Lord Lindsay, meets them. I hope that the Secretary of State will pass on that request to him.
Mr. Forsyth:
I well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. Many people in Scotland are affected by this completely unjustified ban on good, quality Scottish beef. Of course I understand the concerns of his constituents, and my noble Friend will, as always, be pleased to meet the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to bring a delegation from his constituency.
Sir Hector Monro:
Does my right hon. Friend accept that all farmers and those involved in the food chain very much appreciate his efforts and those of the noble Lord Lindsay in trying to resolve the problem? Will my right hon. Friend do two things: first, will he try to speed up the 30-month disposal of heifers, which has not yet started; and, secondly, will he produce a newsletter each week, giving explicit details of how the scheme is proceeding and what farmers should do to help their own interests?
Mr. Forsyth:
Officials in Scotland have been working with the industry. The 30-month scheme is now being administered by a group drawn from all the industry's interests, and we have made substantial progress. The task is enormous, and I fully understand the anxiety and concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend and others. His suggestion of a regular newsletter to farmers, some of whom may or may not be members of the National Farmers Union, is good, and I shall certainly ask officials to take that on board and get such a project under way.
Mr. Wallace:
Does the Secretary of State accept that, from the outset of the crisis, one potentially helpful step is the role of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce? Does he further accept that the low volume of meat that has gone into intervention from Scottish farms has been disappointing and that there has been considerable bureaucracy? What steps have he and his fellow Ministers taken to use their good offices with the intervention board to ensure that more meat is moved to try to reduce some of the backlog that is building up, particularly as another tranche is coming on stream?
Mr. Forsyth:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know of one particularly astonishing case from his constituency, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when it was drawn to his attention. A report is being compiled and a number of changes are being brought about. I agree also with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of access to intervention. Some changes have been made and the matter will be kept under review. I well understand the frustration that has been felt, but it is now being addressed.
Mr. Bill Walker:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Monday, when he and I were on the shores of Loch Lomond, the veterans in attendance were in support of the Government's actions in Europe to protect the interests of beef producers in Scotland as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom? My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that the Government's tactics have the full support of my constituents.
Mr. Forsyth:
I was delighted to see my hon. Friend on the bonnie banks of Loch Lomond, where he was joined by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)--and it was a pleasant and non-political occasion. I am sure that most people in our country applaud my right hon. Friend's stance in standing up for the interests of British beef and British farmers. We take that stand with no relish but because we are determined to get justice in Europe for our farmers.
Mr. George Robertson:
We too strongly want the ban on beef exports lifted and convincing measures put in place to eliminate completely bovine spongiform encephalopathy from the British herd, to build confidence in our beef industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that, if the Government's position starts to have more to do with keeping the splinters of an internal argument in the Tory party together, the Government will not only lose the support of hon. Members in other parts of the House but damage, perhaps permanently, relations between this country and our trading partners in Europe--which would endanger countless thousands more jobs?
Mr. Forsyth:
The hon. Gentleman might reflect on the fact that the ban was imposed by qualified majority voting. If the decision had required unanimity, the ban would not have been imposed. The hon. Gentleman and his party want more Community measures determined by qualified majority voting, rather than by unanimity. He should acknowledge that he and his party, with their particular policy on Europe, would give more power to Brussels. It is not terribly credible for the hon. Gentleman to complain about the consequences of decisions reached in Europe that are out of line with our national interests when his party is so determined to hand more power to the bureaucrats in Brussels.
Mr. Gallie:
Is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent report from world veterinary surgeons meeting in Paris, stating that Europe has got it totally wrong in respect of BSE--and that, in going for a programme of culling, now Britain has got it wrong? Those experts were effectively saying that Britain took the correct steps in 1989-90 to correct the BSE situation. Does my right hon. Friend regret to some degree that we have been forced into a culling programme?
Mr. Forsyth:
We have not agreed to any culling programme but have entered into discussions with the Community to have the ban--which, as my hon. Friend said, is completely unjustified--lifted. The World Health Organisation and our own Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which comprises a group of distinguished scientists, has spelt out the scientific position clearly. If the matter were driven by science and common sense, our farmers would be able to sell their beef to Europe, where they would find consumers willing to buy a quality product.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |