| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.51 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack); I, too, have no intention of dividing the House on the Bill. I agree with the main thrust of the Bill, but I should like to make a few observations.
It seems fitting that, when we have an opportunity to consider ministerial salaries, we should look also at the performance that justifies a salary higher than that of an ordinary Back Bencher. The three matters that I wish to raise are serious and, as yet, unresolved. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to shed light on them this afternoon.
In the commercial world, job performance is usually reviewed annually and improvements and an increase in responsibility are rewarded with a salary increase.
The reverse process is also not unknown. For Ministers, that process is not so transparent, even to the individual Minister, who may not receive any appraisal of his or her performance. I hope that the Minister will address directly the points I wish to raise on the performance of certain Ministers who receive salaries in respect of duties they are, or were, expected to fulfil.
First, since the general election I have tabled 60 questions to the Department of Trade and Industry and indicated that a named day response was required, in accordance with the rules of the House. Of those 60 questions, 15 were answered directly and 45--more than two thirds--were delayed by a holding answer. At 3.30 this afternoon, 17 questions were still unanswered, but four have been answered subsequently. Mine is not an isolated case; other hon. Members have had the same experience. Today's Hansard indicates that at least 12 of the questions tabled to the Department of Trade and Industry were originally given holding answers. The answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was a one-word answer, "No." What was so difficult about that that it took five more days than the target date? What hope is there for open government if the Minister, as was the case in that question, refuses point blank to list the name of colleagues in the House who have responded to a simple questionnaire?
Many of the questions that are unanswered are simple questions of fact, not complex policy issues. Madam Speaker has indicated that she has no remedy available to her. When the Ministers are receiving salaries of between £67,000 and nearly £88,000, we should not expect that level of performance. A complete failure to meet deadlines does not augur well.
The Department of Trade and Industry has not had an auspicious start with its new team. In addition to the prevarication--I hope that it is not incompetence--over written answers, there are other irregularities that have not been answered. The President of the Board of Trade receives a salary of more than £87,000 a year, but has not yet resolved the position of the Minister of State in another place, Lord Simon. Anthony Bevins, writing in The Independent on 15 July, asserts that the House of Commons was misled over the Minister's non-BP shares, which the President of the Board of Trade asserted in an answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) had been placed in a blind trust. Apparently, the legal structure of the transfer was proposed on 18 June and, subsequently, my right hon. Friend was told that they had not, after all, been placed in trust. Has the transfer at last been effected? How can the President's pronouncements be reconciled with the facts? I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give us an answer.
In addition, we are assured that the Minister is not now making decisions on any matters that may involve BP, but he is signing documents concerning gas liberalisation--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The Bill deals with the mechanism for ministerial salaries. The hon. Lady is now discussing the responsibilities of Ministers. In fact, she is
Mrs. Gillan:
I respect your pronouncements from the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to develop an argument that is directly related to the Bill, but it is taking me some time to reach the main point.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Lady will know that I give hon. Members some time to develop their argument, but after a certain stage I tell them that the development is over and that they must get to the point. The hon. Lady is now at that stage. She must deal with the specifics of the Bill.
Mrs. Gillan:
Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mrs. Ann Taylor:
Perhaps I can assist the House and the hon. Lady. I understand that the Minister to whom the hon. Lady is referring does not receive a ministerial salary.
Mrs. Gillan:
I understand--the Leader of the House will be able to confirm this--that the Minister does have a private office, a car and all the trappings that go with ministerial office.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I must tell both sides of the House that my ruling still stands. We are talking about a Bill dealing with the mechanism for salaries, not about the responsibilities of Ministers. There are other occasions for discussing such matters and perhaps the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) could use some ingenuity in finding them. She is not to raise them during the debate on this Bill.
I shall continue to develop my argument. I was seeking to make the point that, despite the fact that the Minister to whom I am alluding has waived his salary he is in receipt of the trappings of ministerial office and--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I want to help the hon. Lady. She will see that the long title says that the Bill would
Mrs. Gillan:
I am linking that with another Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry where an alteration of salary should perhaps be considered. If I can continue with my thread--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I do not like to be blunt, but I must be blunt now. No, the hon. Lady cannot continue with her thread. She must get back to the specifics of the Bill.
Mrs. Gillan:
I shall move on to discuss another Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry--the
According to a written answer from the President of the Board of Trade, on 1 July the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs withdrew from those responsibilities--a couple of days after allegedly making remarks prejudicial to the inquiry at a travel conference in Athens. I have tabled a question asking why he has withdrawn from the inquiry. According to a letter from the President of the Board of Trade to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, the Minister made some comments regarding his fixed views from which he is not prepared to resile. Because of that obvious conflict, he has had to sacrifice the knowledge he so assiduously gained from years of travelling and instead take no role in the proceedings.
If the Minister finds himself unable to perform on an important part of his brief, for which he receives a ministerial salary, why are we paying him at that level? However, if, as the President of the Board of Trade said in a written reply to me, the remarks he made in Athens were fully in line with Government policy and innocuous, why has he removed himself from the MMC inquiry? There is a discrepancy between the Minister's action and the letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and the written response by the President of the Board of Trade.
"Make provision for the alteration of salaries payable under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975."
The trappings of office have nothing to do with the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |