---

Mr. Wallace: That is an important point, about which I often get complaints from constituents. My understanding is that, if the issuing travel agent can link the two tickets and show that they apply to a single journey, and if the second flight takes off within six hours of the previous one arriving, air passenger duty should be levied only once. The Minister may want to confirm that, but it is something that should be drawn to the attention of travel agents.

Mr. Gallie: That is an interesting point, but it is my understanding that, if people change airlines, they lose that option.

Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is correct: it makes no difference whether it is one airline or two; if it is one journey, even though the flight is broken because of connections, the tax is levied only once, and not at a double rate.

Mr. Gallie: I am relieved to hear that, because travel agents in my constituency certainly felt that on a journey from, say, Prestwick to London, connecting with an onward flight to the United States, two charges would be levied. If that is not so, I have little to argue with my hon. Friend about.

Rev. Martin Smyth : The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that the Minister was talking about a through fare. People who fly into London or Manchester and spend a few days there before flying on to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Inverness or the north-east of England would be subject to double taxation.

8.45 pm

Mr. Gallie: I have asked my hon. Friend for further clarification on that point, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment.

It seems to me that a percentage rate would be more appropriate than a flat rate. I have no difficulty with the idea of airport taxes, as they seem to apply in every other country, and, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, our rate is one of the lowest. That apart, there is an unfairness with respect to low-cost flights. I ask my hon. Friend either to address that point today or to give an undertaking to do so in the future.

Mr. Macdonald : I well remember some of these details from a Finance Bill some years back, when the tax was first introduced and we tried to explore some of its complexities. I support what the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) said about the value of considering a percentage, VAT-style approach to the duty, especially if it continues to increase.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) for his undertaking to take an overall view of the impact of transport costs on the

11 Mar 1997 : Column 223

economy of the islands. This debate ties in neatly with a previous debate on vehicle excise duty, and we need an overall view of all such costs and their impact on the economy of the islands if we are to have a strategic approach to targeting assistance in the most effective way.

Three years ago, when the tax was first introduced, I moved an amendment in Committee in terms that were extremely close to those of amendment No. 25, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. That amendment has not been selected for debate, for what must be good and proper reasons, but I regret that, because I believe that it represents the right approach to the issue. If we are to tackle the disadvantages facing the Scottish islands--it is notable that all those who have spoken so far have emphasised the position of those islands as compared with other parts of the United Kingdom--we must target support and assistance in a proper, cost-effective way; so I would have been happy to support amendment No. 25, had it been selected.

I support everything that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said. He gave much background about how this will affect the Scottish islands, and explained that airline routes are essential to them.

It is worth emphasising that the public sector is a big user of the airline routes. The measure affects business people and ordinary consumers, but it also affects the public sector, and especially local authorities and health boards. Perhaps nothing more clearly illustrates the lifeline nature of the routes than the fact that they are used so extensively by local health boards, not only to carry officials around but to transport patients from island to mainland. No other health board in the country flies patients to hospital for treatment, but in the islands, it must be done; that emphasises that the airline routes are essential.

Although I understand at least part of the motivation behind the selection of amendments and the remarks made about them, I fear that they go too wide to tackle the problem specific to the Scottish islands. Amendment No. 22 is not only too wide, but probably unworkable. It is not sensible to link exemptions to objective 1 status, because its lifespan is limited. In two or three years, that status will be reviewed, and it is likely that the highlands and islands will not retain it.

An exemption made to help the region could end up missing its target. Merseyside could continue to enjoy objective 1 status and an exemption but the highlands and islands could be excluded. That would be absurd. It is not the outcome that we are trying to achieve. More sensible is the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central for a proper strategic approach to the range of problems that are tied up in the issue. We can then target help where it is most needed.

Mr. Darling: As my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) said, this debate follows on from that on vehicle excise duty. I want to deal with the two amendments separately. Amendment No. 7 was moved by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). The difficulty is that it deletes all the revenue brought in by air passenger duty, which would amount, when fully implemented, to £415 million. I appreciate that for him and his party, and for the

11 Mar 1997 : Column 224

nationalists, that is not their problem but somebody else's. The hon. Member will recognise that, under the present Government or a future one, if the House deleted £415 million of revenue, all other things being equal, the money would have to be recovered from elsewhere. Some of that money would be spent in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member has no doubt reflected on that; perhaps he will say where he proposes to make good the loss of revenue were clause 9 to be wholly removed.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, in his usual sneering way, that the problem with Labour is that we might be preparing for government. It has occurred to us that it is possible that, in a few weeks, we will be elected to govern the country. That means that there are constraints on us that are not visited on him.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: In due course. I understand that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan leads a party that vehemently opposes Labour and that he must take every opportunity to criticise what we do or propose.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: In a minute. Were clause 9 deleted, some £415 million would be lost to the Revenue. All other things being equal, that money would have to be recovered.

Mr. Oppenheim rose--

Mr. Darling: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan first, because I referred to him in critical terms. The courtesies of the House, as the Minister might just grasp, mean that I should therefore give way to him.

Were amendment No. 7 carried, a traveller going to New York on Concorde would get the same benefit as someone travelling from Stornoway to Glasgow or from Belfast to London. It would therefore be a mistake to support amendment No. 7, but I accept that the hon. Gentleman and others need not concern themselves with such problems, because their position is different from ours.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman should be careful. The last time he was at the Dispatch Box describing a Scottish National party move as a cynical ploy, it was our proposal to reduce VAT on fuel from 8 to 5 per cent. Within 10 months, he was trying to explain why that was not a cynical ploy by the Labour party. Does he expect to be at the Dispatch Box suggesting something like what we propose in the near future, or can he rule out any help for the highlands and islands, Northern Ireland or anywhere else?

Mr. Darling: I shall disappoint the hon. Gentleman in two respects. I am glad that he raised the other point, because I am happy to deal with it. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when the Labour party tabled an amendment to stop VAT on gas and electricity going up to the full 17.5 per cent. rate, the arithmetic of the House meant that it was necessary to win support not only from Opposition parties but from rebel Tories. The nationalists,

11 Mar 1997 : Column 225

as ever, wanted to get in on someone else's activities; they tabled an amendment to go one better than us that would have reduced VAT to 5 per cent. I thought, and I think that I was right, that it was opportunist to table such an amendment then. The argument before the House was whether VAT on gas and electricity should be at 17.5 or 8 per cent. I understand why the hon. Gentleman does this. The whole stance of the nationalist party is to--

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Reference in passing to other matters is all right, but this is taking too long. I would prefer the hon. Gentleman to return to the main subject.

---