| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
National Lottery (Regionalisation)
Mr. Ian Pearson accordingly presented a Bill to provide that equitable regard shall be had to the interests and needs of the regions of England in so far as the distribution of monies, decision taking, administration and other matters affecting the National Lottery are concerned: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 120].
Points of Order
3.42 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. No doubt you will be fully aware of the statement by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about events in the Gulf, how individuals suffering from Gulf war syndrome may have been affected, and how information may well have been withheld from him when he came to the House to make that statement.
As the House's only proper avenue has always been through Ministers who hold responsibility, and as there is a possibility that an individual may have deliberately withheld information from such a Minister, will you guide me and the House as to whether it would be possible for individuals in that Department, if they subsequently were proved to have deliberately withheld information, to be called to the Bar of the House to explain why they deliberately withheld information from the House--which would be an abuse of the House, as our only way of obtaining information is through the Minister? If they have done so, surely they have abused the privileges of the House.
Madam Speaker:
To adopt such a procedure, the matter would first have to be accepted by the House, then go to the Privileges Committee and come back before we could take such action.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We know that you are ever vigilant, and that there is no time when your ears and eyes are not fully open, but I may not have explained that the Bill to which I referred earlier is technically a private Member's Bill, in the name of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). It is of such importance, however, that, had it been implemented in the past, Nelson Mandela, for example, would not have been able to come to Britain--to say nothing of such people as Karl Marx and others. In such circumstances, could you possibly offer guidance on what techniques are available for slipping in private Members' Bills at the very last moment, on highly important and controversial subjects, on a Friday morning?
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I was one of those present the other Friday when, fortunately, myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) forced a vote on the Third Reading of the Jurisdiction
I would find it astonishing if what is technically a private Member's Bill that had lost its place in the queue suddenly found itself at the head of the queue, to the disadvantage of other private Members' Bills that are due to be debated on Friday. That would not only break many precedents, but would be very shabby practice on the part of a Government who were trying to protect what in practice is their own Bill, even though, in theory, its promoter is one of the Tory Back Benchers. I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will look very closely at this issue, and ensure that the Bill in question takes its proper place in the queue and other Bills remain undisturbed.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is absolutely right. It is my understanding of the procedures of the House that private Members' Bills have to take a strict order. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), has heard by rumour that something is about to happen, would it be appropriate and of great help to you and the House if he said where he heard that rumour? Rumour--we know what it is; you know what it is. Can you help us?
Madam Speaker:
As I said in my answer to the original point of order, I cannot deal in rumour. If hon. Members would only tell me where the rumour came from, I could probably investigate rather more.
The Jurisdiction (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred--he did not make it clear in his point of order to which Bill he was referring, and I was therefore not too sure about it--is of course, as he says, a private Member's Bill. I was in the Chair a week last Friday when the debate on it began, and I watched very carefully what happened to the Bill. It is among the remaining orders, it has been debated in the House, all procedures are being correctly followed, and it will be before us on Friday. I assure the House that no precedent is being broken. The Bill is being dealt with normally.
If Members want to deal with the Bill as they think fit, they should be here on Friday to do so. I remember distinctly that there were only two hon. Members in the House who were opposed to the Bill when I was in the Chair a couple of Fridays ago.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim):
I beg to move,
In sending the information, the Government are continuing to co-operate with the long-standing practice of sharing information on economic matters with our partners in the Community. Most of that information is already in the public domain.
Approval today would allow the Government to participate in this year's surveillance exercises in the same way as in previous years. There is no question whatever of information submitted being used to make policy recommendations with any binding effect on the United Kingdom.
Surveillance by the Commission is nothing new. Formal surveillance at Community level has been in place for more than 20 years, and we have also signed up to the independent examination of our economic performance by international bodies such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Monetary Fund and G7.
Participating in such surveillance exercises has enabled independent international bodies to proclaim the United Kingdom's economic record to a wide audience, helping to promote the Government's economic policies. For example, the Commission's recently published annual economic report noted that unemployment in the United Kingdom is much lower than the European Union average, and that our strong performance can be attributed directly to the Government's deregulatory labour market measures.
The Commission also noted that the UK recovery has been of a longer duration than that of the rest of the EU, and that it has been sustainable, with inflationary pressures subdued. The Commission cited the Government's policies as the cause of that favourable outturn, in particular applauding the UK's macro-economic policy framework and supply-side reforms.
The Commission noted that the Government's prudent monetary policies are expected to keep inflation within its desired range, and that the Government should reach their target of 2½ per cent. for underlying inflation. I should add that those are all the very words used by the Commission.
The House may also note that inflation has been below 4 per cent. for more than four years, the longest time for more than half a century; that public finances are under tight control, allowing tax to be cut in the past two Budgets, with Government borrowing on a clear downward trend; and that interest rates remain at historically low levels.
Mr. Mike O'Brien (North Warwickshire):
What does all this mean, and does it matter, especially if the Government are hostile in any event to a single currency?
Last week, the Foreign Secretary appeared to tell us on the "Today" programme that he was hostile to a single currency. Then we heard from one of our national newspapers that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) had contacted Conservative party central office to ask whether he could call that a significant change of policy, and got official blessing.
At about 11 am, the Chancellor said that the Foreign Secretary had made a slip of the tongue, and that there was no change of policy. By lunchtime, the Foreign Secretary had said that it was not a slip of the tongue; therefore, presumably it was a change of policy. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister had issued a statement saying that there had been no change of policy. Nobody seemed to know what the policy was.
The Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary were clearly at odds. The Prime Minister tried to settle that adult Punch and Judy show by organising a meeting between the two that evening. I understand that the two combatants met at about 10.30 pm and issued a press release at about 2 am the following morning, saying that the Government were hostile only to a fudged single currency. They may say that, but does anyone seriously believe it?
The following day, the former Chancellor, Lord Howe, said on the "Today" programme:
3.47 pm
That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997-98 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
The motion seeks parliamentary approval of the Government's assessment of Britain's economic and budgetary position in order to allow treaty obligations to be fulfilled in relation to the excessive deficits procedure and the broad economic guidelines. The assessment is contained in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report"--the Red Book--parts of which are relayed to the European Commission. The "Financial Statement and Budget Report" describes the Government's tax and spending plans and explains how they are related to their economic and political objectives. The front cover of the Red Book states that it forms the basis of submissions to the European Commission for the purposes of multilateral surveillance of economic policies.
"Yesterday's spat didn't do any good for the Conservative Party or the country . . . many people will feel reluctant to give continuing support to that Government."
The Daily Mail leader simply said, "What a pantomime". It was indeed a bizarre performance. The Government are confused and at times confusing; they are at odds over Europe, and it appears that certain Ministers are positioning themselves not for the general election but for the leadership election that is to follow.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |