| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to seek your guidance on a statement that was made by the Minister for School Standards to hon. Members in a Standing Committee, and on the record of that statement. I have informed the Minister of this point of order.
On 18 November, in the Eighth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation debating the Education (Infant Class Sizes) (England) Regulations, I referred to the fact that the regulations had been laid and had come into force during the parliamentary recess, thus ensuring that there could be no debate on them before they came into force. The Minister responded by saying that I should have spoken to Baroness Blatch, as the regulations had been announced on 27 April and discussed in the other place on 5 May. Column 21 of the Official Report of that Standing Committee debate refers to those statements.
I have spoken to Baroness Blatch. She has made inquiries in another place into the matter and I gather that the Minister's statement was false. The regulations were not announced on 27 April and were not discussed in the other place on 5 May. Indeed, I understand that, as the primary legislation was still going through the House, it would not have been possible to discuss the regulations, which were in the form of secondary legislation.
The Minister's comments to the Standing Committee were obviously misleading; I can assume only that she was given incorrect information by her officials. Madam Speaker, I seek your guidance on how the record on the matter can be set straight.
Madam Speaker:
Neither I nor any occupant of the Chair in Committee can be responsible for the accuracy, or otherwise, of ministerial statements. I refer the hon. Lady to the Order Paper. Perhaps she will find ways of pursuing the matter. I am afraid that, in this instance, I cannot help her. I am not responsible for ministerial statements.
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24 November],
Madam Speaker:
We now come to the main business. I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Just after 10 o'clock, I shall ask for the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) to be moved formally. I have had to impose a 15-minute limit on speeches by Back Benchers between the hours of 7 and 9 pm.
Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham):
I beg to move, as an amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:
Mr. James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
The House will be surprised that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been entrusted with the debate. Last time he led for the Government, he got into seriously hot water for using his speech to bully the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. "Major gaffe," the newspapers reported. "Chief Secretary on the Chancellor's carpet," they said, so it is surprising that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has let him out again.
That is why we have heard so much from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury recently. This is the first Treasury event in the House for some time that has not been fronted by her. She is the Minister who steps in where her colleagues are forbidden to tread.
Mr. Maude:
I am overcome with these blandishments, but I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight).
Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs):
I thank my right hon. Friend. The Government have become control freaks to such an extent that they seem to
Mr. Maude:
The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for saving a Government Back Bencher the trouble of having to read out that prepared intervention. As he knows, of course we are not opposing £40 billion extra for health and education. We are opposing the Government's failure to implement their own pledges on welfare reform, and their reversal of the fall in welfare spending as a proportion of national income spending, putting it back on an upwards path.
Mr. Plaskitt:
The right hon. Gentleman, within seconds of starting his speech, used the word "downturn". May I draw his attention to paragraph 9 of the minutes of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee meeting of November 4 and 5, which state:
Mr. Maude:
The hon. Gentleman is off-message already, showing dangerous signs of thinking for himself. This may be shattering news to him, but the Treasury's own figures and the consensus view of outside forecasters demonstrate disbelief in the Chancellor's comments on the course of the economy. Outside forecasters are predicting a downturn. Although the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly thinks that he knows better, the Bank of England, the Confederation of British Industry and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development do not believe the Chancellor's forecast. The hon. Gentleman may believe the forecast, but that may say more about him than it does about the others.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is standing in today for the Chancellor. It is surprising that he has been allowed out on his own, but probably every other Treasury Minister is too busy harmonising. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is busy chairing the European Union code of conduct on harmonising business taxes in the European Union. The Chancellor is even busier today, at the Economic and Finance Council, harmonising other taxes. It is lovely to see the Paymaster General in the Chamber--welcome back to him. He is busy deciding how to harmonise his business past with the requirements of the Companies Acts and of the House.
Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier today, I was looking at page 421 of "Erskine May", which states:
Mr. Tony McNulty (Harrow, East):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
I have dealt with it.
Mr. Maude:
The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), in his slavish desire to ingratiate himself with his masters, gets it wrong again. I stated in the Register of Members' Interests that I may from time to time undertake such work. He will be delighted and reassured to know that I have not done so. He has therefore missed the mark once again, as we are coming to expect from him.
We support some things in the Queen's Speech. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said last Tuesday, we welcome partial privatisation of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. It will now become free to build on the valuable work that it has done previously with developing countries without being hamstrung by Treasury rules. Of course we welcome the conversion of the Secretary of State for International Development to the idea of privatisation and look forward with keen anticipation to hearing her arguing the case.
I should now like to say a word about the financial services and markets Bill. Let me reassure the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) that I am on the boards of two companies that will fall to be regulated under that measure. Those interests are fully disclosed in the Register of Members' Interests. There is, therefore, a serious danger of my knowing something about the subject.
The financial services industry is a British world-beating success story. Having it properly regulated so that the confidence of investors that their interests are adequately protected is not outweighed by the costs and burdens of the regulatory system is crucial, but the Government's handling of the Bill has been lamentable. They rushed clumsily into their plans last May, renaming the Securities and Investments Board and nearly precipitating the resignation of the Governor of the Bank of England. Having created turmoil, they then took 14 months to produce a draft Bill, which is quite simply a mess and has been widely criticised. It gives sweeping and ill-defined powers to the Financial Services Authority and probably breaches the European convention on human rights. It threatens huge extra compliance costs for firms, leading to more expense for savers and weakening the competitive position of the City in international markets.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:--
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.--[Mr. Ashton.]
3.33 pm
"But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no proposals to save jobs or help businesses, but instead continues the policies that are pushing Britain's economy into a sharper downturn than is forecast for any other major EU economy; call on the Government instead to pursue policies of maintaining Britain's competitiveness by reversing its proposals which increase costs on business and to return to the policies conducted by the previous Government which left a golden economic legacy of low inflation, steady and sustainable growth and falling unemployment; and also urge the Government to make a clear statement of its position on the question of European tax harmonisation."
The second Session of any Government should be a period of maximum purposeful activity. The Government have had the chance to play themselves in, to prepare major plans and to act in a genuinely long-term way. Instead, they have squandered the opportunity to make real and needed changes and to make genuine improvements to health and education; most reprehensibly of all, they have missed the chance to mitigate the effects of the economic downturn that Britain now faces, a downturn that was triggered by the Government's blunders and will be prolonged and deepened by their refusal to recognise their mistakes.
"why he is opposing the extra £40 billion for our public services"
that the Government have guaranteed?
"the tone of some public comment had moved from predicting a slowdown through a downturn . . . That was extreme"?
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied to have joined the extremists?
"In debate a Member is required to declare 'any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he may have had, may have or may be expecting to have'."
1 Dec 1998 : Column 679
I notice, from the Register of Members' Interests, that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said that he undertakes remunerated advisory work for Morgan Stanley investment bankers. As we are debating the economy, should he not have declared that interest at the beginning of his speech?
Madam Speaker:
I cannot deal from the Chair with an interest if an hon. Member has already declared it in the Register of Members' Interests.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |