| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree that the aerospace industry is one of the best performing industries in this country and is a notable example of where we have world-class manufacturing which can compete against any other country in the world. I do not think that it is the last reservoir of skills in this country. There are other industries, such as the biotechnology industry and pharmaceuticals, which equally are world-class industries. There are many more to which we should give more recognition . The particular measures mentioned by my noble friend are constantly under review.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the letter that his noble friend Lord McIntosh received from the glass manufacturers on 3rd December after a similar Question was asked in the House about the climate change levy? The letter from the glass manufacturers said that a disproportionately large amount of money is taken by the climate change levy—they called it a tax, as I did—from this very delicate industry. Is the noble Lord aware that Pilkington pays £1.75 million and gets £44,000 back and Potters of Barnsley Ltd pays £175,000 and gets only £2,000 back? Do the Government still maintain
that what we call a tax and they call the climate change levy is actually still tax neutral especially as far as concerns the manufacturing industry?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not aware of the letter to which the noble Lord referred. I have been in contact with a number of industries that are in a similar position, such as the plastics and rubber industry. They have made the same point. The position is that the levy is revenue neutral across the private sector. We have never said that it is revenue neutral on a particular industry or a particular company where clearly it is not the case, but across the whole of the private sector it is revenue neutral and therefore not a tax.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us what plans the Government have to revive manufacturing industry—or, indeed, any kind of industry—in the North East of England?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am glad to say that One North East is a good regional development agency and has taken extremely effective action to support particular clusters of industry in the North East. We want to give regional development agencies more scope so that they can play a part in increasing innovation and productivity within regions.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that our adverse balance on visible trade is now at an all-time high and rising? Of course, that means that we are importing vastly more manufactured goods than we are exporting. Is not that of grave concern? If that had occurred a few years ago, it could have led to a governmental crisis but it now seems to be totally ignored.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is obviously an issue of concern. We now have proper control of public finances, so that does not inevitably lead to a crisis across the whole of the Government's financial policy, as it has done in the past.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the climate change levy is haphazard in its impact? The return—the refund—entirely depends on a firm's number of employees, because it is the return of national insurance contributions.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is not a random situation. There will not always be perfect equity between every company, but it seems to us the best method of recycling the money to companies—no better method has been suggested.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, while declaring an interest in training matters, as set out in the Register, is the Minister satisfied that there will be an adequate supply of skilled personnel—especially engineers—for manufacturing industry now and in future?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the question of the supply of skilled engineers is extremely
important. There are severe gaps in some key areas. That is why we are taking action, such as the restructuring of the Engineering Council to turn it into the Engineering and Technology Board, so that we can do more to drive up the supply of engineers throughout the economy.Rights of Way Maps
2.53 p.m.
Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they intend to open up open country and registered common land under Section 2(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 by way of commencement orders on a regional basis as and when the conclusive maps have been published for each region.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we are carefully considering whether to proceed by way of commencement orders on a regional basis. We expect to announce our intentions soon after the consultation on the draft maps in the first two mapping regions is completed in February next year.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that half encouraging Answer. Will he pass on congratulations from these Benches to the Countryside Agency on the way in which, so far, it is adhering to its fairly rigid timetable? It has issued the first two draft maps for the South East and what is somewhat oddly called the lower North West regions on time. That is extremely encouraging. Would it not cause problems if conclusive maps for those first two regions were published perhaps more than two years ahead of the conclusive maps for other parts of the country, so that everybody knew where the new access land was to be during a long period when access was still not possible? Would that not be a recipe for confusion and confrontation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am happy to pass on the noble Lord's thanks to the Countryside Agency, which has a difficult task but has completed those draft maps. Clearly, we need to consider from the reaction to those draft maps what problems may follow in other regions before we take a definitive decision on whether producing conclusive maps should lead to the commencement orders applying to those two regions or a slightly larger number of regions, or whether we should wait until the full mapping process has been completed. We shall consider that next spring.
Earl Peel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the two areas where mapping has started—the South East and the North West—considerable areas of land have been mapped that have no bearing whatever on open country? That is causing considerable distress to those involved. For example, in Kent, I know of at least two private parks that have been designated.
Parks are exempt under the Act. In the north-west of England, much in-bye land, which has nothing to do with open access, has been designated. Will the Minister tell his department to inform the Countryside Agency to inform the mapping authority that it must withdraw its horns and go back to designating open country and leaving land that is totally unsuitable under the Act?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are exceptions to the designation of open countryside, but the noble Earl will recall, from long hours of discussion, that the Act includes two processes: one is the mapping of open countryside and the other is the exceptions to the mapping. It may well be that land has been mistakenly designated—no doubt comments on the draft maps will make that clear—but, within open countryside, parks, gardens and in-bye land may be designated, some of which may subsequently be exempted under the provision to which the noble Earl refers. Parkland and gardens are exempted, but we are only at the first stage of a two-stage process.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in a Sunday newspaper that reveals an extraordinary case of an internationally known botanical garden that has been classified as open countryside, which it manifestly is not? Will he urge the Countryside Agency to consider the maps with extreme care and to take into account objections to them? If the Countryside Agency turns a deaf ear to such complaints, will it be possible to proceed to judicial review?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is wrong to start talking about judicial review when we are at an early stage of a process on which we spent much time during the passage of the Act. The draft maps are for comment. Exceptions are then made to areas designated as open country or common land. That process will continue as set out in the time-scale announced by the Countryside Agency. Most of the problems with the two regional maps produced so far and subsequent maps should be resolved during that process. The issue of judicial review therefore does not arise.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will recall our discussion during the passage of the Act about the need for adequate resources to be given to the local authorities in the areas in which much open land will fall to provide access—stiles, information points and so on. What assessment is his department carrying out in order to recommend to the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions what extra resources will be needed?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page