Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Company Car Parking

33. Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): What representations he has received on the impact on small businesses of taxes on company car parking space. [39539]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): Taxing company parking provision was one of the range of options raised in the Government's

5 May 1998 : Column 560

consultation exercise on developing an integrated transport policy. A number of respondents commented on it, some specifically from the perspective of small businesses.

Mrs. Gillan: Does the Minister agree that the last thing that our small businesses want is more taxes? Will she take this opportunity to rule out once and for all the leaked proposals for taxation to fall on small businesses, factories, offices and shops? Does she realise that, if she does not rule that out now, the Government will prove themselves to be bad for business?

Ms Jackson: No final decisions have been taken on legislation to introduce a non-residential parking levy or on the shape that such a levy would take. We have been considering the social and economic implications nationally and individually of, among other things, the coverage of a levy and exemptions for types and sizes of business--those issues need careful consideration. I am told by small businesses that one of their gravest concerns is the seemingly endless congestion on city streets, which not only precludes and delays delivery, but deters people from shopping--pavements are choked with fumes and people take their lives in their hands if they have to cross the road. The Government are committed to ensuring that that is not only curtailed, but improved.

Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): Before my hon. Friend is deterred from going down that path, will she examine the phenomenal success of the initiative taken by Boots in Nottingham, which pre-empted any Government decision and, of its own volition, shifted its priorities in favour of subsidies to public transport use and to car sharing? Given the initiative's popularity with the public and with the employees, does not it represent a better model to commend to large and small firms alike in any local economy?

Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are commending Boots's model to businesses and industries, both large and small. Boots is by no means the only company that has adopted a green transport plan, which brings enormous benefits not only to the company but to their employees.

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): Is the Minister on the side of the teeny-boppers in this argument? Does she accept that a tax on car parking spaces will lead to more red tape, increase the cost of food and give rise to more anti-social on-street parking? Is not it better for cars to be in car parks than to be on the road?

Ms Jackson: I think that the choice of the word "teeny-bopper" was somewhat unfortunate, given the age of the new leader of the Conservative party--although he has shown few signs of being able to bop anywhere. On additional levies for non-residential parking, an interesting finding by the British Retail Consortium is that its customers are less concerned about car parking costs than about ease of access. The charges levied by the business rates are based on the whole curtilage of the building, whereas it has been assessed that the average cost per annum of a parking space for large retail outlets is about £50. Given the turnover of such businesses, that is a small charge.

5 May 1998 : Column 561

London Minicabs

35. Ms Linda Perham (Ilford, North): What measures he proposes to ensure the safety of minicab passengers in London. [39541]

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): The Government intend to introduce legislation for the regulation of London minicabs as soon as parliamentary time permits.

Ms Perham: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is she aware that there were more than 60 sex attacks on women using minicabs in London last year? Can she confirm that the regulation of minicabs in London, which was promised in Labour's London manifesto, is supported not only by the private hire trade but by the black cab trade--many of whose drivers live in my constituency--the police and the people of London? Will she ensure that legislation will cover checks on a driver's criminal record, health and topographical knowledge, matters that were included in a private Member's Bill that was wrecked by one Conservative Member?

Ms Jackson: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend uttered. As she knows, it was part of our manifesto commitment to London to introduce such regulation. It is important that both cars and drivers should be subject to checks. It is greatly to be regretted that a Bill originally

5 May 1998 : Column 562

introduced by a former Conservative Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), has fallen because of the actions of one Conservative Member.

Roads Programme

36. Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): What representations he has received on the upgrading and maintenance of trunk roads. [39542]

The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): About 14,000 representations have been received during the roads review. Overall, they showed an acceptance of the need for a new approach that includes proper maintenance, best use of existing roads and investment in specific improvements.

Mr. Ruffley: In the departmental review, will Ministers give special priority to major strategic trunk roads? Will the A14 be a priority, given that it is one of the major trunk routes between here and continental Europe?

Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about maintenance. He will be aware of the neglect of road maintenance by the previous Administration. We have increased the allocation from £200 million last year to £300 million this year. We must get better use out of the existing road network and maintain it properly.

5 May 1998 : Column 561

5 May 1998 : Column 563

Economic and Monetary Union

3.30 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement about the meeting of European Union Heads of State and Government on economic and monetary union, which I chaired in Brussels on 2 May. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary, and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, were also present.

The aim of the meeting, and of separate meetings of the Finance Ministers during the weekend, was to take decisions on which countries would participate in the single currency from 1 January 1999; on the nominations for the president, vice-president and members of the executive board of the European central bank; on the bilateral conversion rates that will apply between participating currencies from 1 January; and on fiscal discipline and economic reform. I have placed a copy of the drafts of the resulting documents in the Library.

The Heads of Government had before them a unanimous recommendation from the Finance Ministers on which countries should be in the first wave of economic and monetary union, and a supporting opinion from the European Parliament, which had met that morning to consider the Finance Ministers' recommendation. Heads of Government agreed unanimously that the following 11 countries should join the single currency from next January: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.

We also agreed without difficulty on the following nominations for the executive board of the ECB: as vice-president, to serve for four years, Mr. Noyer; and, as ordinary board members, Mr. Issing, to serve for eight years; Mr. Padio-Schioppa, for seven years; Mr. Domingo, for six years; and Mrs. Hamalainen, for five years.

The Heads of Government also agreed on Saturday night a statement that, in future appointments to the executive board, appropriate weight and consideration would be given, according to a balanced system of rotation, to recommendations for nationals of member states not on the initial slate.

The declaration on fiscal discipline and economic reform, which was adopted by Finance Ministers on Friday evening, is a significant document, building on a United Kingdom presidency initiative at the York informal ECOFIN in March. It emphasises the importance of fiscal consolidation in high-debt countries and of economic reform; both are essential to help to create jobs and to ensure that monetary union is successful.

All those issues were decided with relative ease, but, as is well known, there were very difficult negotiations over the presidency of the European central bank. It is important to set out those negotiations in detail. There was ready agreement that Wim Duisenberg, the current president of the European Monetary Institute, and a highly respected former Dutch Finance Minister and governor of the Dutch central bank, was the best choice as the first president of the ECB. As president of the European Monetary Institute, he has already been in charge of the practical preparations for the euro. As president of the ECB, he will be well placed to continue that role.

5 May 1998 : Column 564

It was also readily agreed that we expected Mr. Duisenberg's successor to be the French nominee--President Chirac made it clear that his nomination would be Jean-Claude Trichet, again an experienced and respected governor of the Banque de France--and that both nominations should be for the full eight-year term. Where there was disagreement was not on the substance of any of that, but on the length and form of Mr. Duisenberg's tenure as president.

Because of the controversy--not least in the European Parliament--it is important to be clear what the precise issue at stake was. Much of the subsequent press reporting has rested on this simple factual inaccuracy: that Mr. Duisenberg intended and wished to serve his full eight years, as opposed to being nominated for that time as under the treaty. [Interruption.] In fact, that was not and has never been the case.

Eighteen months ago, before any French candidate had been suggested, Mr. Duisenberg properly made it clear that he would not want to serve a full eight years, in view of his age. Indeed, he did so publicly. At that time, he was saying that he would not guarantee staying more than two years. Later, he talked of between three and five years--but he did insist on being nominated for eight years.

The issues for us were therefore these. If Mr. Duisenberg would not serve the full term, was it right to appoint him? What was the minimum term we should ask of him? Should there also be a maximum term, given the circumstances? The answer to the first question was: yes, in our view, because, as president of the EMI and a highly respected central banker, he was plainly the right person to launch the euro.

The answer to the second question was again clear: Mr. Duisenberg should at least stay until the euro was launched and all transitional arrangements, particularly the introduction of the notes and coins, were in place. That accorded with Mr. Duisenberg's own wishes that he oversee that process and step down shortly afterwards.

It was over the third question that there was disagreement. Some preferred a fixed date for Mr. Duisenberg to retire, while others argued that that would not be consistent with the treaty. The protracted discussions were essentially over how to resolve that issue. Mr. Duisenberg's view, backed by ourselves, was that although his intention was clear, there could be no question of there being any formal obligatory end to his term.

In the end, it was Mr. Duisenberg's view that prevailed. [Interruption.] At our suggestion, he stated his position personally, in his own words, to the Council. He explained that because he would be 67 in 2002, he did not wish to serve the full term--[Interruption.]


Next Section

IndexHome Page