27 Jan 1997 : Column 1
THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
OFFICIAL REPORT
IN THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND [WHICH OPENED 27 APRIL 1992]
FORTY-FIFTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
SIXTH SERIES
VOLUME 289
SIXTH VOLUME OF SESSION 1996-97
27 Jan 1997 : Column 1
House of Commons
Monday 27 January 1997
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
Deregulation
1. Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to visit the European Commission in Brussels during the current Parliament to discuss deregulation in business.[11110]
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has regular contacts with the Commission and our European partners to discuss deregulation. He is to be congratulated on the considerable progress that has been made. We will maintain pressure for regulatory reform in Europe over the coming months.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend make one of his visitations, preferably prearranged, to the European Commission to make the European Union understand that the idea mooted by the Advocate General that the acquired rights directive should not apply to service contracts would be gravely prejudicial to British interests as regards competitive tendering in local government and
27 Jan 1997 : Column 2
market testing in national government? That is an urgent matter which potentially affects the terms and conditions of employment of many thousands of people and many contractors in the United Kingdom.
The Deputy Prime Minister: All my visits are prearranged and tend to attract a great deal of attention. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am sympathetic to the idea that he has in mind. The timetable for the next few weeks may not allow for a high-profile visit to Brussels, but the Commission would undoubtedly welcome a visit and be immensely sympathetic to the message that I would deliver.
Mr. Caborn: Will the Deputy Prime Minister enlighten the House about the latest proposals from his Department's deregulation unit, which I think have been code-named sunset provisions? Can he confirm the reports that the latest idea from the unit, which was discussed in Cabinet this morning, according to the Financial Times, is to withdraw all regulations on companies after a period of five years, unless the Government take a clear decision to continue them? Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether that madcap idea has been discussed with the European Commission? According to the Financial Times this morning, the proposal was intended to appease small business. Will the Deputy Prime Minister harangue any that do not agree with him?
The Deputy Prime Minister: We all congratulate the Financial Times on reporting this morning conversations that have yet to take place. The Government have rigorously scrutinised all legislation and regulations to see how we can lighten the load on small businesses. We will continue to do that, but it is inconceivable that there would be an automatic sunset provision in all regulations introduced in the House.
Information Technology (Government Departments)
2. Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of his
27 Jan 1997 : Column 3
Department's initiatives to use information technology within Government Departments and to disseminate information to the general public.[11111]
The Paymaster General (Mr. Michael Bates): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be making a comprehensive statement after the conclusion of the period for comments on the Green Paper "Government Direct", which was published last November. There have already been a large number of responses to the Green Paper and more are expected before the closing date, which is 7 February.
Mr. Bruce: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his answer and on his promotion to the Government Front Bench. The Government are helping to move out the information super-highways presaged by the Green Paper. Will we in South Dorset have one of the computerised terminals that would allow my constituents to find information about government and communicate directly with the Government?
Mr. Bates: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome to me to this position. The terminals have proved extremely popular throughout the country and many pilots have been available, but there is none yet in South Dorset. My hon. Friend's championing of interest in information technology and openness of government may lead us to consider that location shortly.
Mr. Derek Foster: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his elevated position. Despite his Geordie credentials, I hope that his tenure of office will be short.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a so-called unbeatable anti-benefit fraud scheme which was pioneered in the north-east was abandoned after only a year because the criminals cracked the system? Does that not prove that the Government are ill-prepared for the information revolution and impotent in protecting taxpayers from fraud? How can a Prime Minister who cannot lead his own party rise to meet the challenges of the information society and how can a Government who cannot see beyond the end of the week lead the nation into the millennium?
Mr. Bates:
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his barbed welcome. It gives me an opportunity to thank the Leader of the Opposition for removing the right hon. Gentleman from his position as Opposition Chief Whip, thereby ensuring that my last year in the Whips Office was easier than it might otherwise have been.
We have taken many new initiatives to try to clamp down on benefit fraud--and it is notable that the Opposition have opposed every one.
3. Mr. Viggers:
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his role in the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy in respect of the replacement for the royal yacht.[11112]
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman):
My right hon. Friend chairs the Ministerial Committee on the Co-ordination and
27 Jan 1997 : Column 4
Mr. Viggers:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that last week's statement about a replacement royal yacht has been widely welcomed? Does he agree also that, ideally, Britannia should become the centrepiece of the millennium project in Portsmouth harbour, spanning Gosport and Portsmouth? I am sure that that idea would prove very popular.
As to plans for a new yacht, does my right hon. Friend share my distaste for the Opposition's tactics? They had every opportunity to express their grudging and negative attitude during the past two years when the project was under discussion.
Mr. Freeman:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us that the royal naval ship to replace Britannia should be commissioned in 2002, which is the golden jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen. I hope that the new ship will play an important role in those celebrations.
As to the Opposition's attitude, we have witnessed their small-mindedness and their misunderstanding not only of the role of Her Majesty but of the promotion of the best interests of the United Kingdom economy abroad.
Mr. Cunliffe:
How can the Minister reconcile in any shape or form public expenditure cuts--which have forced many authorities, such as that in my area, to sack home helps and teachers and make all kinds of cuts to public services--with the proposed expenditure on a new royal yacht? Is that not indefensible, as most people consider the vessel to be a kind of floating palace which is used mainly by the privileged? The idea is totally unacceptable to the majority of British people and certainly to many of my colleagues.
Mr. Freeman:
I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the function of the royal yacht. It is in no sense an irrelevant "floating palace": its primary role is to make a very positive statement abroad about the importance of this country and to promote trade with the rest of the world. Her Majesty the Queen will use the royal yacht on certain occasions, but it is not for her exclusive use. I am very glad that Her Majesty is pleased with the decision.
As regards the proportionality of the decision, it does not represent additional, unplanned public expenditure, as the money for the Ministry of Defence will come from the reserve.
Sir Sydney Chapman:
In welcoming the Government's recent announcement and disagreeing with the uncharacteristically unfair comments by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), for whom I have great regard, I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that a replacement for Britannia is justified on commercial and trade grounds alone. In answer to those who say that the money might come from the national lottery rather than the taxpayer, will he confirm that everyone who buys a ticket in the national lottery immediately pays 12p to the Treasury? Therefore, if we were to hypothecate, we could say that a fraction of the lottery money will pay for the new royal yacht.
Mr. Freeman:
It will take the next five years to design and build the new royal yacht. She will be commissioned
27 Jan 1997 : Column 5
Mr. Beith:
Will the Minister confirm that it has been the Government's practice to consult the Opposition parties beforehand on every announcement affecting or concerning the royal family, so as not to embroil the royal family in any political controversy? Will he explain the thinking behind the refusal to accept any element of business support for the project? Surely we have passed through the days when it was fashionable to disparage those in trade. Are the Government not acting rather like one of the Minister's former hon. Friends towards one of his right hon. Friends, who referred to him as the sort of person who had to buy his own furniture?
Mr. Freeman:
On consultation with the Opposition parties, this is not a constitutional matter. It is a right and proper decision for the Government in commissioning a royal naval ship. I hope that the House will appreciate that business sponsorship of a royal naval ship, which occasionally will be used by Her Majesty the Queen, is not appropriate.
Mr. Jessel:
Will my right hon. Friend confirm my arithmetic that £60 million, when divided among the United Kingdom's population of 58 million, works out at about £1 per head, or about 20p per head per year over five years? Is it not unbelievably small-minded of Opposition Members to carp about such a small sum that can do such a great deal to generate employment and exports?
Mr. Freeman:
I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will very much agree with my hon. Friend. The Opposition do not understand the importance of promoting the best interests of the United Kingdom throughout the world.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |