| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord did ask my noble friend Lady Jay that question. Her letter stated:
- "The Government is committed to seeking the endorsement of the Scottish people for the proposal to give the Scottish parliament financial powers to vary revenue. These powers will be defined and limited. The exact mechanisms for this process still have to be finalised, but as you know a clear proposal will be put before Parliament in a White Paper. ... In the White Paper we will provide details of the proposed tax varying powers and their implications for spending levels in Scotland".
Lord Marsh: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a related question? To what extent will the costs of devolution and the Scottish parliament be borne by Scottish taxpayers?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, devolution will bring real benefits for the people of Scotland and Wales and the costs will be met from within the spending totals approved by Parliament for Scotland and Wales. They will come out of the block grants or revenue raised.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, there is a misunderstanding for which I apologise. I am not asking about the block grant. I am merely asking to what extent there will be a charge on Scotland as opposed to England?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I repeat my reply. The costs will be met from within the spending totals approved by Parliament for Scotland and Wales. Scotland and Wales have their block grants. The costs of the exercise will be met from those funds.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that if the block grant, which is agreed by this UK Parliament, is a given amount and that if the Scots decide to reduce taxation in Scotland by, say, threepence, then that will have no bearing on English taxpayers who will not have to pay additional tax to finance additional spending or reduced taxation in Scotland? That is the question: the English want to know the answer.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, if the Scottish parliament were to vary the tax rate downwards, Westminster would lose a possible £450 million of revenue but could deduct that from Scotland's block grant.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, should know that a decrease in taxation often leads to such a rise in prosperity that revenue goes up?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I agree entirely.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the only reasonable interpretation of his response to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is that the costs of the Scottish parliament or assembly--whatever it is finally called--will be a charge on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom rather than those of Scotland for whose benefit, one assumes, it is to be brought into being? Does he consider that to be a reasonable approach?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, taxation in Scotland is part of an integral UK tax system. We are dealing here with devolution, not with independence.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister--
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that we must move on. I am sure that all noble Lords are keen to hear the fate of British fishermen.
British Fishermen and the EU
3.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will seek to exempt British fishermen from inclusion in European Union working conditions schemes, in the light of that industry's exemption from the working time directive.
Lord Carter: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are committed to policies which will ensure the health and safety of people at work and prevent the exploitation of vulnerable members of the workforce. The European Commission has been considering how to extend the scope of the working time directive for some time. If proposals are made to include British fishermen in European Union working condition schemes such as this they will be considered on their merits.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reassuring Answer. I am glad that his experience of agriculture and fisheries is being used, despite the demanding duties of his job as Government Chief Whip.
Will the Government ensure that the Commission is aware that most British fishermen are no longer employees of large trawler-owning firms but are share fishermen or self-employed individuals, and that fish do not conform predictably to routines so that at times fisherman have to work long and irregular hours?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome. I am the departmental Whip for MAFF as well as being Chief Whip.
Lord Carter: The industry has not been able to get rid of me that easily! As the noble Lord knows, a share fisherman is someone who is a master or crew member of a British fishing boat manned by more than one
person and is paid some or all of his wages by a share of the boat's profits. It is estimated that there are some 12,500 share fishermen, which is about half the number of people employed or self-employed in the sea fishing fleet. Obviously that has a marked effect on the application of any extensions that there might be-- I emphasise "might be"--in the working time directive, because it does not apply to the self-employed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a very important issue to British fishermen? If he has not seen their representatives, will he give the House an assurance that he will do so? If he has seen them, will he continue to see them because this is an extremely important issue to British fishermen?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the answers are yes, yes and I agree.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if eventually the Government have to accept some European Union working conditions for our fishing industry, will they make certain that the same conditions are applied to the Spanish fishing fleet?
Lord Carter: My Lords, we have not yet even seen the White Paper. It would be no kind of negotiating stance to indicate now what our position might be. However, I am sure that from long experience of the subject the noble Lord is aware that there are derogations under the working time directive--I can read them out if he would like--and that is just the kind of issue that we shall be taking into account.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether these decisions are likely to be taken by a qualified majority vote or unanimity in Brussels and what hope he has of achieving success under either system?
Lord Carter: My Lords, in order to forestall a thought which might be in the noble Lord's mind, perhaps I might say that extension of the working time directive has nothing to do with the common fisheries policy or the social chapter. Therefore, it will be taken under the rules which apply to the working time directive.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as regards safety, is the Minister aware that periods of watches and rest periods can be safely arranged within crews, whose situation is not similar to that of long-distance lorry drivers or factory workers?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. In the eight sectors which have been excluded from the working time directive there are areas such as air, rail and road where safety factors for the pilots and drivers apply. That would certainly be the case if we were considering the directive for fishermen.
As regards fishing, if there were to be--I emphasise "were to be"--an extension of the working time directive, we would have to consider the fact that fishermen must work when the fish are running and must get the fish back to port in the best condition. All such factors would be taken into account when we started negotiating. But we have not yet even seen the White Paper.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord said, and it is a reasonable enough stance, that the Government would not wish to show their hand in negotiations on this matter. However, will they show their hand immediately as regards one aspect of the working conditions directive? I refer to others who work at sea; namely, in the offshore oil industry. Is it not already clear to the Government that if the directive were to be applied to their working activities, far from improving safety there would immediately be a real risk to their lives, not least as a result of the increased number of necessary helicopter flights? In those circumstances, cannot the Government immediately signal the fact that we are not prepared to tolerate an extension in respect of that industry?
Lord Carter: My Lords, that question is wide of the Question on sea fishing, but the noble and learned Lord is right. Those are exactly the kind of facts which must be borne in mind in such considerations. Although we have not seen the White Paper, there have been extensive negotiations with the Commission in its preparation. Although we have not seen the final document, that is exactly the kind of point that has been hammered home.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page