| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ayrshire (Visit)
Q12. Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to visit Ayrshire. [4968]
The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to visit Ayrshire, but I have done so many times in the past and no doubt will do so again.
Mr. Donohoe: That is a great shame because Ayrshire is such a beautiful county. My right hon. Friend does not know what he is missing. I am sure that we will be able to entice him to the wonderful Ayrshire coast--the Clyde coast--in the not-too-distant future. More seriously, if he were to come he would learn that there is a tremendously high level of drug taking in Ayrshire. Local health board estimates suggest that 30,000 people have at some point taken drugs. Knowing of his commitment before the general election to set up a task force, what progress has been made by him and by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary?
The Prime Minister: The proposal that we made during the course of the election to appoint one person--
the so-called drugs tsar--to be in charge of all aspects of our policy, will be put into effect shortly. We are concerned to move quickly on the problem, not merely because of the effects that my hon. Friend has mentioned in relation to his constituency and others, but because of the absolute, hard and overwhelming evidence of the link between drug abuse and crime. That is why we are going to introduce measures, not merely to crack down on drug abuse and those taking and peddling drugs, but to tackle some of the underlying causes of crime such as youth unemployment.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: My question relates to Ayrshire, particularly the Ayrshire coast and the coast of the south-west of Scotland. Can we expect an early statement on the problems of the munitions in Beaufort Dyke, particularly the revelations about radioactive waste being dumped there?
The Prime Minister: We have made available such evidence as exists. The reason why the subject is being discussed today at Prime Minister's questions is precisely because when it came to light that, contrary to previous Government assurances, which were made in good faith, radioactive material had been dumped, we disclosed that fact. That is why we are discussing the matter now; if further information comes to light, we shall disclose that. I repeat, because it is important that people should not become unnecessarily alarmed, that the advice that I have been given is that the dumping was of a low level and that there is no risk to human health or the environment. If any further evidence, or anything that may change or mitigate that statement, comes to light, we shall make the information available to the House.
Engagements
Q13. Mr. McAllion: At the United Nations summit on social development in 1995 it was agreed that each participating Government should draw up a national plan for the eradication of poverty. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last Tory Government subsequently ratted on that commitment, claiming that such a plan was not needed in this country? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that represents a calculated insult to the many millions of our fellow citizens who live in poverty or on the margins of poverty? Will he put that wrong right by committing this Labour Government to drawing up a national plan within an agreed time scale? [4969]
The Prime Minister: This Government certainly regard the eradication of poverty as one of their aims and objectives. That is why we want the windfall tax to reduce youth unemployment, why we believe in cutting VAT on fuel and why we are now looking into how the benefits
system, particularly the interrelationship between the tax and benefit system, can be improved so that it gives people incentives to get back to work. It is also why we are looking across a range of issues in relation to the welfare state to see how we can make the provision fairer, more effective and more modern.
Mr. Tom King: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has given the clearest impression to the House today that he does not regard the leaks that have been discussed as very serious? Is he aware that there is prima facie evidence that a number of people have made a substantial amount of money by relying on the stories or attributions that have allegedly come from members of the Government? This is a serious matter as it goes to the heart of the integrity of Government. Has he taken senior advice on this matter, which seems to many of us to be a very serious issue for his Government?
The Prime Minister: Speculation about what is in the Budget occurs every year to my certain knowledge. [Interruption.] Yes it does. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to go back, as I have done, and check last year's press cuttings from the Conservative Budget he will find that they were all over the place--they involved senior Government sources and other sources. What is happening is merely the usual round of speculation. The Conservative party is tackling this issue because it is afraid of tackling the real issues.
Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of the massive pit closure programme of the past 18 years and, particularly, the past few years, there is not a single pit left in the Derbyshire coalfields--and the same applies to many other coalfields? Will he take into account the fact that there has not been any overheating of the economy in any of those coalfield areas? When he is drawing up plans arising from the Budget or afterwards, will he bear in mind the fact that, whatever improvement takes place generally, some sort of an industrial development plan is needed for those coalfield areas, where poverty and mass unemployment still reign supreme as a result of the past 18 years?
The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says. That is why it is important--whatever the general state of economy--that we take specific and targeted measures on unemployment that take account of the fact that, for those areas that have engaged in huge industrial restructuring, there must be specific help for people there. It is also one of the reasons why we are committed to development agencies in the regions that can co-ordinate inward investment and the development of small, medium, starting-up and other businesses coming in to supplant those that have gone. That type of specific, targeted activity is a very important part of our economic and industrial policy.
Budget Statement (Advance Disclosure)
3.30 pm
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (by private notice): To ask the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons if she will move to set up a Select Committee to investigate advance disclosure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I will take no points of order until after the private notice question. I want to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say at the Dispatch Box. The House will come to order and hear exchanges. Mr. Lilley.
Madam Speaker: In that case, we will have silence for Mrs. Taylor.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): No, we do not intend to establish such a Committee. There is always speculation at the time of the Budget about its contents, as the right hon. Gentleman, a former junior Treasury Minister, should know. I have seen no evidence that details of the Budget statement have been leaked. If the complaints are that we are sticking to manifesto commitments and election pledges, then, as the Prime Minister made clear, we are happy to confirm that this is the case.
Mr. Lilley: I had rather hoped that the right hon. Lady, recognising that she acts for the whole House rather than for the Government, would take this matter more seriously--certainly more seriously than her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister--act on precedent and set up an inquiry. Does she not recognise that these are matters of the highest importance to the authority of the House and to the integrity of financial markets? That is why a previous Labour Chancellor, who himself disclosed contents of his own Budget before that Budget, was required to resign and the same has happened to other Treasury Ministers.
The right hon. Lady says that this relates to matters that were in the Labour party's manifesto. Neither of the issues disclosed before the Budget today was in the Labour party's manifesto. They are not a matter of speculation, but of disclosure of specific matters which will be in the Budget. If she says that it was a matter of which we all should be aware, why was it that, when the Treasury revealed the details of the plans to abolish in this Budget the tax relief for medical insurance for the elderly, the BBC thought that was news, Ceefax thought that was news and the journalists who phoned me thought that was news? They did not think that it was established policy and, unlike the Treasury which said that it was in the manifesto, they knew that it was not in the Labour party manifesto. It had never been declared as policy and a possible content of this Budget in the House, and I would submit to the right hon. Lady that it should not have been revealed to journalists before it was disclosed in the Budget statement in the House.
Whatever the right hon. Lady may say about that issue, she will surely agree that the second disclosure, on the front page of the Financial Times today, written by its respected political correspondent, states:
Does the right hon. Lady recall that when an official, without authorisation, leaked the contents of the Budget last year, the then shadow Chancellor--now the Chancellor--said:
"A senior member of the government said"--
about the plans to abolish dividend tax credits and take billions of pounds out of pension funds--
"the markets are bonkers . . . we are pressing ahead"
with these plans. That is a clear disclosure of a very price-sensitive matter. Will the right hon. Lady agree that it is necessary to inquire into the fact that there have been share price movements following both disclosures?
"I condemn this leak and I think nobody can condone the leak of sensitive Budget matters the day before the Budget. I am sure that a full inquiry is going to be mounted"?
Why is no inquiry to be mounted on this occasion? Why is no Select Committee to be set up, even though one was in the Hugh Dalton case? Does the right hon. Lady agree with the former Labour Prime Minister, Attlee, who said:
"The principle of the inviolability of the Budget is of the highest importance, and the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be beyond question"?
Does she agree with Hugh Dalton's reaction when he was urged not to admit that he was the Minister responsible? Does she accept that whichever Treasury Minister briefed The Times and was quoted by the Financial Times must own up and say that he did it? Finally, does she agree that there must be an inquiry to clear up these matters before we can proceed?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |