| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Scottish Grand Committee
33. Mr. Rowe: To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the estimated annual cost to public funds of sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee. [6724]
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Separate estimates for the additional indirect costs of the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee are not kept independently. A manual check of the records for the financial year 1996-97 for the 13 meetings that were held of the Scottish Grand Committee furth of the Palace of Westminster totalled £108,000, an approximate cost of just under £10,000 per meeting.
Mr. Rowe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he believe that the cost of the proposed Scottish Parliament will be very much greater? Would he envisage the Scottish Office team of Ministers, which is paid for out of United Kingdom funds, being cut pro rata? Does he think that that would be a good idea?
Mr. Kirkwood: I can confidently give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the House of Commons Commission has no immediate territorial ambitions to invest in real estate in Edinburgh; we have enough difficulty dealing with estimates to cover the costs of the administration and works budget. These are matters for Ministers of the Crown. The hon. Gentleman is entitled
to make his political point in his own way, but I suspect that the publication of the White Paper next week will provide him with a better opportunity so to do.
Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the costs of the Scottish Grand Committee during the past Session were inflated because of the decision taken by the then Secretary of State for Scotland to take the Committee on a tour of every constituency in Scotland that had a Tory Member? As every one of them was defeated in the subsequent general election, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has never been such a waste of public money at any time by any Government?
Mr. Kirkwood: The House of Commons Commissioners are simply servants of the House; we will the means while the House wills the ends. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of a motion of 30 June, which will restrict the number of meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee during the coming Session. It is true that some of us believe that the former Secretary of State for Scotland had an eccentric predilection for compering in important but out-of-the-way parts of Scotland early on Monday mornings late in the winter.
Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to install an accounting system that will show the English taxpayer how much of the costs of these exercises he is expected to bear in indulging these Scottish nonsenses?
Mr. Kirkwood: Perhaps I may advert to the fact that Standing Order No. 117 contains powers for a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is being left out and treated less well than Scotland, which has access to a Scottish Grand Committee, the Leader of the House might table a motion to constitute such a Committee and the hon. Gentleman could have the same benefits as members of the Scottish Grand Committee.
Committee on Standards and Privileges
34. Mr. Winnick: To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to review the responsibilities of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. [6725]
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I have no such plans, but I will, of course, consider any views that hon. Members might wish to put to me.
Mr. Winnick: On a relatively minor matter--I would not describe it as anything else--is the Leader of the House aware that I sent a note to the Clerk regarding dress? It would be odd for us to wear the dress of our predecessors of centuries ago, so is not it about time that we brought the Chamber into line and perhaps--without in any way wishing to be offensive to anybody--remove wigs and the rest of it?
Mrs. Taylor: That could be considered by the Modernisation Committee, although not by the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to draw this matter to your attention. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a statement on Radio Ulster's "Talkback" programme yesterday, which conflicts with specific assurances given to the House on 30 June--I refer specifically to columns 62 and 63 of the Official Report.
Has the Secretary of State indicated to you, Madam Speaker, whether she intends to come to the House to explain why assurances given here on 30 June were either inaccurate or misleading? Furthermore, has she indicated any intention to come to the House to inform hon. Members why policy relating to Government contact with Sinn Fein-IRA, as defined by the Prime Minister after the murder of two RUC officers in Lurgan on 16 June, has been substantially changed, and why contacts are again taking place? If she has not, would you consider it incumbent upon her to do so?
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not clear from what the hon. Gentleman just said that either the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was wrong when she made her statement to the House, or there has been a change of policy since she made her statement? In those circumstances, should she not come to the House to make a personal statement to explain a possible error, or explain why there has been a change of policy?
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you not aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has in fact made a statement explaining the situation; that she is seeking to clarify the Government's position with regard to the talks process; and that all right-thinking people in this country would welcome any steps that are being taken to try to get Sinn Fein-IRA to enter into the peace process and give up the use of violence?
Madam Speaker:
This is not a matter for me, but I can tell the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) that I am not aware that the Secretary of State is seeking to make a statement in the House. I understand that the Secretary of State has already written to the hon. Gentleman on this matter, and that a copy of her letter is in the Library of the House.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We heard today, during Scottish questions, that the White Paper on Scottish devolution will be issued on 24 July. I know that you, as guardian of the rights of Back Benchers, will have noted that there will not be another Scottish Question Time before the summer recess.
I am sure that the whole House is concerned that the White Paper will be produced with no assurance that there will be a statement in the House--we have seen again that Ministers do not come to the House to make statements any more, and I am glad that the Leader of the House is in her place--and no absolute assurance that we shall have a
full debate. The people of Scotland will have to vote on the White Paper without their parliamentary representatives having had any chance to comment on it.
Madam Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman may seek to catch my eye on Thursday, to ask the Leader of the House whether a debate will follow the publication of the White Paper.
Mr. Hogg:
Further to that self-same point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
No. I shall take no further points of order.
Mr. Hogg:
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
I have answered that point of order. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) asked whether a debate would follow the publication of the White Paper--
Madam Speaker:
Order. I am on my feet. It is incumbent upon hon. Members to put such a question to the Leader of the House when she is answering questions about next week's business.
Mr. Hogg:
Mine is a related point of order, Madam Speaker, but it is a point of order to you.
Madam Speaker:
Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously does not understand. He has been in government for a long time. Once I have responded to a point of order, I do not take further points of order. That is why I allowed a number of points of order on the first point of order.
Mr. Hogg:
I was putting a related point of order, Madam Speaker, which goes to the possibility of a statement. It is clearly the will of the House that we should have an opportunity to explore the White Paper before the full debate. One way to address that point is for an oral statement to accompany the publication of the White Paper. That will give the Government an opportunity to develop their thinking and right hon. and hon. Members an opportunity to explore that thinking.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |