| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Taylor: I understand the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It has been described as the
millennium time bomb and I know that people in the public and private sectors have been looking at ways to deal with it. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in his Department have been spending a considerable amount of time on it. At the moment, it is thought that the public sector may be ahead of the private sector. I do not think that I can find time for a debate on the matter, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has heard the hon. Gentleman and that, if he wishes to raise further points, the Minister will be willing to listen.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): I welcome the right hon. Lady's hopeful suggestion that we may have a debate on Northern Ireland appropriations in two weeks. Yesterday and today, there has been concern throughout the House about the Barnett formula and the possibility of changes. Would it be possible to have a statement this week on that issue, so that the House can be clear that any review will deal not merely with numbers, but, rather, with need?
Mrs. Taylor: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that, for many years, the Barnett formula has formed the basis for many allocation decisions. Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury yesterday put that in the context of the overall spending review that the Government are conducting. He was not announcing specific plans for any change.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): May I repeat my request for an urgent debate on defence, to give the Government the opportunity to clarify the confusion over the future of the Eurofighter and Trident projects?
The Prime Minister said during the general election campaign that Eurofighter was imperative for this country's defence, we have seen Ministers trotting off to Germany, and we have been told again today that Eurofighter is safe; yet, only yesterday, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, during the statement on the spending review, whether the Government were looking at spending on Trident and Eurofighter. We were told that the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence had announced a defence review, which would take six months to complete, but that the spending review would take 12 months to complete and did not exempt Trident and Eurofighter. That confusion is serious for our defence forces and for the defence of this country.
Mrs. Taylor:
The hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of what has been said. I told him earlier that, only this week, the Secretary of State for Defence had had discussions with his German counterpart. The German Cabinet will meet on 11 July to discuss the federal budget. Apparently, the German Defence Minister is in favour of Eurofighter. There is no confusion whatever in the Government's attitude. Defence Question Time takes place on Monday and if the hon. Gentleman wants to take the matter further, he can do so.
Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam):
Can the Leader of the House make time available for a statement next week--indeed, sooner if possible--on the industrial action that is about to take place on Connex South Central
[That this House notes with concern the forthcoming industrial action amongst drivers employed by Connex South-Central; believes this will cause considerable inconvenience to members of the public, disrupt the economy and undermine the efforts being made to raise confidence in rail travel and effect a transfer from road to rail; recognises the right both of Connex to seek changes to working practices and of ASLEF to resist reductions in safety; and calls upon the two sides to renew their efforts to resolve the dispute as a matter of urgency, on ASLEF to postpone any industrial action pending these further talks taking place, and on the Government to put pressure on both sides to reach a sensible and amicable agreement]
Mrs. Taylor:
The hon. Gentleman may know that the Government's attitude is that this is a matter for the employer and employees, and not for the Government. Therefore, I do not anticipate a statement at this time. There is a real danger of inconvenience tomorrow, but he will have to recognise that it is a matter for those parties directly concerned.
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes):
May I reinforce the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow)? Is the Leader of the House aware that, today, I had 17 pages of cancellations sent through by Connex South Central? Is she also aware that I have spoken to Lew Adams, general secretary of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen--ASLEF--and to the managing director of Connex South Central, both of whom say that they are willing to sit down tomorrow and talk? However, no date has been fixed for talks, trains are being cancelled and commuters in my constituency will be greatly inconvenienced by the strike. Will she have a word with the Minister of Transport, to knock some heads together, because both sides appear willing to talk?
Mrs. Taylor:
If both sides were willing to talk constructively, we would not be facing a dispute. I recognise the problems that could be experienced if the dispute goes ahead; and, from what the hon. Gentleman is saying, the people involved might be able to find a way out.
Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire):
Madam Speaker, may I raise a point of order, of which I have given you notice? Sir Gordon Downey, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, is a much-respected servant of the House, but he is reported as having given an interview to Counsel magazine recently, in which he is quoted as saying:
Madam Speaker:
I have noted the concern expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have seen the comments made by Sir Gordon Downey and I have been in touch with him. I shall make certain that he is aware of the concerns expressed in the exchanges that have taken place on this point of order today.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your opinion on a new and highly undesirable change in the procedures of the House. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was asked 19 questions, which he was expected to answer in half an hour. During business questions last week, the shadow Leader of the House asked 21 questions and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had only a minute or two in which to answer them. The shadow Leader of the House asked 16 questions today.
We are asked to relate business questions to the business of the House next week or in future and to request statements or debates. Of the 21 questions that the shadow Leader of the House asked last week, only seven sought statements or referred to new business of the House. Of his 16 questions today, only four sought statements or debates in the House. It is totally unreasonable to expect my right hon. Friend to provide adequate and intelligent answers to all of those questions. She is dealing with the business of the House: she is not a contestant on "Mastermind".
Madam Speaker:
Obviously the hon. Gentleman brought his abacus to business questions. I cannot say that I have been counting, but I shall examine the record. I answered some 10 questions in about seven minutes in my state rooms this morning--I wish that Ministers could do as well.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek clarification arising from your reply to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). I assume that Sir Gordon Downey is in the same position as any other 4.27 pm
"There is quite a strong case for further consideration as to whether or not we would be better off with professional politicians without outside interests."
The House will recognise that such a view is highly controversial and would give rise, if proposed, to serious constitutional issues, which are matters for the House itself or for Parliament. An expression of view on the matter by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards would appear, if--I repeat, if--he has been correctly reported, to sit most uneasily with his quasi-judicial functions. Would you be kind enough to make inquiries and to inform the House of the true position and of any guidance to officers that you think may be necessary?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |