| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim) (UUP): May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to my early-day motion 268?
[That this House notes that with the exception of Denmark and Germany, the UK is the only country within the EU that does not apply a reduced level of VAT for tourism; recognises that the UK's tourist industry is therefore disadvantaged vis-à-vis European countries; further notes that there is a clear correlation between VAT levels and consumer demand; believes that a reduced
level of VAT on tourism services could create thousands of new jobs, increase the UK's tourism revenue and strengthen the UK tourist industry's international competitiveness; and therefore calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce VAT on tourism services, commencing with a reduction of VAT on tourist accommodation.]The motion enjoys cross-party support and calls for a reduction in VAT on tourism, as I understand that only the UK, Denmark and Germany do not apply such a reduction. Research indicates that thousands of new jobs could be created in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we could help our industry to overcome the disadvantage it suffers at present. May we have a debate before 17 March, in the hope of influencing the Chancellor's Budget decisions?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman can apply for a debate in the usual way. On the specifics of the policy, however, I think that he will find that the most likely beneficiaries of a reduced rate would be major hotel chains and luxury hotels. For example, a 5 per cent. reduced rate for hotel accommodation would cost more than £600 million, so it would not really be well targeted. Our high registration threshold means that a substantial number of hotels are not actually registered for VAT, as they come under the ceiling. We can look into supporting hotels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation in other ways, because they are crucial. Tourism is a vital part of our economy, but we can target our support in other ways. I think that he will find that the general approach does not actually assist those whom he wants, quite properly, to help.
Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): On the concern expressed about the way that policy proposals have come before the House as Bills, does my right hon. Friend think that the present haphazard method of examining draft legislation should be replaced by a system whereby all Bills come to the House as draft Bills and all are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny? Will he consider holding a debate on methods whereby that change might be achieved?
Mr. Hain: As my hon. Friend knows, I am very sympathetic to increasing the number of Bills that are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. Indeed, over the past few years the Government have increased the number of such Bills and they are better as a result of that scrutiny. Whether all Bills can be put under that regime is rather doubtful; for example, sometimes we have to bring in emergency legislation on Northern Ireland. I give that as an extreme example, and I know that my hon. Friend will acknowledge it, but I endorse the general principle that Bills are better if they are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and I hope that we can continue to take it forward.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): In evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the retiring president of the National Farmers Union indicated that he anticipated a Government announcement on the implementation programme for the revised common agricultural policy on or before 17 February. To date, the House has not had an opportunity to debate any of those proposals and to
inform the Secretary of State's decision-making process on that matter, so will the Leader of the House look into giving the House an opportunity to discuss it? It is the biggest single change in the CAP since the MacSharry changes of 1992 and so far Parliament has remained silent on the matter.
Mr. Hain: I shall certainly look into that, as Parliament's view on the matter is important. As the right hon. Gentleman says, it is a crucial change and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will take careful note of the points that he made, especially as they come from him.
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes) (Lab): Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. I had an inkling that I might be the next Labour Member to be called.
I appreciate that there will be a debate on Lord Hutton's report next week, but given that the report stated that
- "false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others, including politicians, should not be made",
Mr. Hain: I addressed that matter earlier, but I know that my hon. Friend's feelings are shared elsewhere in the House. The point should also apply to the chairman of the Conservative party who, when The Sun leak took place, said that it had
- "all the fingerprints of a Government which is willing to say or do anything to save its own skin"—
- "now have a morally bankrupt Government which is as corrupt as it is corrupting."
Mr. Hain: Conservative Members say "Hear, hear"—they are at it again. All the evidence was that the leaking of the report was nothing to do with the Government. This morning, Sky news reported that the information may actually have come into the hands of The Sun over the weekend, even before anyone in the Government had seen the report. It is time that we had from the leaders of the Conservative party—whether the Leader of the Opposition himself or the party chairman—a proper approach to these matters and a proper apology for their despicable behaviour.
Pete Wishart (North Tayside) (SNP): A week on Monday, we have the Second Reading of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill, which, as the Leader of the House knows, decouples the reduction of the number of Scottish Members in this House from the 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. The only problem is that we have not had a definite announcement from the Secretary of State for Scotland that that reduction will take place in advance of the next election. Can we, therefore, expect a statement from the Secretary of State next week? If not, the Second Reading debate will be purely hypothetical and based solely on an assumption.
Mr. Hain: Obviously, we do not know when the next general election will be and that is clearly a factor. I
know, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to take careful note of the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): May we have a debate on the question of—as I call them—animal rights terrorists? The Leader of the House will be aware that, recently, investment in Cambridge did not go ahead, but he may not be aware that other investment companies—biotechnological companies from Japan—have chosen to invest in Europe instead of in the United Kingdom because of the threat from animal rights terrorists. One of my constituents runs a guinea pig farm—which is controlled by the Home Office to ensure the protection of the guinea pigs—for medical research. He wrote to me saying:
- "Before New Years Eve"—
- "Before New Years Eve the activists smashed all the downstairs windows of my 86 year old father's home whilst he was in the house, and then threw red paint bombs through the smashed windows . . . he was petrified . . . between Christmas and New Year they were also at my niece's house . . . and they turned off all her water and then concreted the stop cock so she could not get it back on."
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. It is certainly extremely serious that the construction and opening of that laboratory was prevented due to the threat of what, as he rightly says, cannot be described other than as terrorism. Many of us have a lot of sympathy with animal rights movements and support them. We want proper protection for animals and an end to cruelty, but to take things to such an extent and to terrorise scientists, doctors and others involved is wholly unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman is right and I know that the House will share his sympathies.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday two groups of primary schoolchildren were sitting on the extremely cold floor of Westminster Hall eating their sandwiches? Will he set up a process to improve facilities for school visits to the House? We should be promoting all forms of education.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |