| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Taylor: I shall deal with all the points raised by the shadow Leader of the House. I, too, regret that it is not possible at this stage in the Parliament, because our business is only starting, to give more advance warning of what will happen. We shall, however, start to do so in future weeks, as the pattern of business becomes clearer.
I share the concern expressed by the shadow Leader of the House that departmental Select Committees should be established as soon as possible. Some discussions have already taken place, and we can build on those. This week, we have been able to establish a couple of Committees that are dealing with more urgent matters. I agree that establishing the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges is a priority, and I hope that we shall be able to do so before long.
As for the Government's agenda at Amsterdam, a range of documents will have to be considered on Monday, partly because the previous Government were reluctant to discuss some of the issues in the House. Monday's debate
will be opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The shadow Leader of the House asked whether the Prime Minister would be willing to make a statement after Amsterdam. I can confirm that that is the situation, and that a statement will be made to the House.
The proposals on works councils that are currently being discussed are ones that have not found favour. My right hon. Friends have made it clear that they will want to consider very carefully any proposals on that matter.
On the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment--[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
The House knows my views on electronic devices.
Mrs. Taylor:
Madam Speaker, the House shares those views.
In his comments at this week's conference, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said that there should be consultations on those issues. There will be wide consultation, which I hope will be generally welcomed.
The shadow Leader of the House suggested that the Deputy Prime Minister had had secret discussions. If the discussions were so secret, I am not sure how he knows so much about them. It is not a matter of abandoning any system of value for money within local authorities. Questions have already been answered in the House about CCT, and the Government have made it clear that we want local authorities, and everyone else, to ensure that best value for money on all contracts is obtained.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said that he will conduct a defence review, which is what the Government said they would do before and during the general election.
Statements have already been made on Hong Kong, making it clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the changeover. I think that the Prince of Wales will also attend. The question of anyone else attending remains open, and final decisions have not yet been made.
The shadow Leader of the House was not correct in his interpretation of Sir Michael Bett's opinion on political advisers. Sir Michael Bett said that, at this stage, he was not concerned about what has happened, and I think that hon. Members have tried to take his comments out of context. There is no reason to have any debate on that issue. We shall, of course, follow normal practice on publication of names and salaries.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is answering a parliamentary question on the primary purpose rule. That is in general the procedure that has been adopted with other changes in the immigration rules.
On the question about positive vetting, my understanding is that very few special or political advisers have any need to be positively vetted, as they do not see material that comes into that category. The only person who does come into that category is Jonathan Powell, the Prime Minister's chief of staff. He has been positively vetted in the past and that is being renewed.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
On the delicate matter of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, will my
Mrs. Taylor:
The difficulty is in having proper consultations. People who are interested in that Committee might be interested in other Committees as well, so we have to consider the matter carefully. It is in the interests of every Member of this House--past and, I hope, present--that the report that causes my hon. Friend concern is published as soon as possible. That will be a decision for the new Committee.
Sir Peter Emery (East Devon):
Has not almost every Labour Minister said frequently from the Dispatch Box that there is a need for open government to be practised by the new Government? Does the right hon. Lady agree with that? If so, will she now do two things? The first is to publish a list of all the review bodies and consultative bodies mentioned in every ministerial speech from the Dispatch Box, so that we can keep up to speed on that matter.
Secondly--following on from what my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House said--as political advisers to Secretaries of State are likely to see documents that would usually require positive vetting, will the right hon. Lady list all the political advisers and those who have or have not been positively vetted and publish their salaries?
Mrs. Taylor:
On the last point, I made the position clear to the shadow Leader of the House. There is not a whole raft of people required to undergo positive vetting. Were they required to do so, that would be carried out. However, as far as I have been able to determine, only one person falls into that category.
With regard to a list of review bodies, Ministers are responsible for any that they establish and I do not propose to keep a central list.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich):
My right hon. Friend will be aware that, despite Conservative protestations, the Conservative Government intended to sack more than 300 Customs and Excise officers. In the fight against drugs, it is absolutely essential that we retain the highest level of care. Having just returned from Colombia, I know the enormous reputation of British customs for its superb work. Can my right hon. Friend find time in the coming week to make that clear to the House?
Mrs. Taylor:
I am not sure about the coming week, but I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work that Customs and Excise officers do, especially on the difficult issue of drugs. They have performed extremely hard and difficult work to good effect, although there are still many problems to be tackled. I shall bring my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, as I know that she is also concerned to ensure that Customs and Excise officers are there in the numbers required and able to do the job for which they are appointed.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury):
Given that the Government announced this week, by way of a written
Mrs. Taylor:
I am not sure that there will be a debate before the House rises for the summer, but there will be defence debates in the normal course of events and I think it inconceivable that there will not be one during the next few months.
Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North):
May I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the concerns of many in Staffordshire about the reduction in the number of continuing care beds for the mentally frail and elderly? Does my right hon. Friend intend that there will be an early opportunity to debate the issue in the House? There is a genuine concern among elderly people about the closure of beds.
Mrs. Taylor:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is taking a hard look at mental health services in hospitals and in the community. We must ensure that those services are provided in the best interests of the patient and of the community. I am sure that my hon. Friend's comments will be taken into account.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham):
Will the right hon. Lady consider having an urgent debate on responsibilities and ministerial manpower in the Department for Education and Employment? Whereas there used to be three Ministers responsible for school matters, there now appear to be only two. That is causing problems. Already, colleagues have received a letter discouraging too many delegations to Ministers. The situation has resulted in a delay in the decision on the age of transfer in my local education authority in Buckinghamshire, causing great anxiety to parents, pupils, teachers and the local education authority. I believe that the explanation for the delay is inadequate ministerial manpower.
Mrs. Taylor:
It is unusual for Conservatives to request more Ministers in a Department. I hope that the difficulties that the hon. Lady suggests do not exist--that has not been my experience. I should have thought that the activities of the Ministers in that Department, including this week's announcement about summer literacy schools, show that they are very much on top of their job.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |