House of Commons
Tuesday 27 June 2000
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
City of Newcastle Upon Tyne Bill [Lords] (By Order)
To be read the Third time on Tuesday 4 July.
Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 4 July.
Oral Answers to Questions
SCOTLAND
The Secretary of State was asked--
Ferry Services
1. Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute): What recent discussions he has had with the European Commission about the implementation of the 1992 European regulations on maritime transport (Council Regulation 3577/92); and if he will make a statement. [126336]
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I recently met representatives of the European Commission to discuss a range of issues relating to transport, including ferry services.
Mrs. Michie: Can the Minister throw any light on why the tendering of Caledonian MacBrayne ferry routes has come up under these regulations? Why is the Commission suddenly interested? Does the Minister know who alerted the Commission? The regulations have been in place since 1992 and it appears that, when exemptions and derogations were being negotiated by France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, there was no mention of Scotland. That makes me assume that the previous Conservative Government did not send a Scottish Minister to the negotiations. I know that the Minister is concerned that we hold together the Caledonian MacBrayne services because they give a lifeline to our islands.
Mr. Wilson: I am, indeed, very concerned, as the hon. Lady fairly points out. I am certainly of the view that the best interests of the taxpayer and of the public are served by an integrated ferry operation on the west coast of
Scotland, with all the flexibility and economies of scale that offers--an operation that is committed to public service and has no other reason for existence.I cannot answer as to why the European Commission has recently escalated its interest; I can only point out to the hon. Lady that matters relating to safeguarding the services and consulting on how tendering should take place are now devolved. Certainly, everyone who supports CalMac and agrees that the company is the best answer right along the west coast should be making that case heard and well known--not least in Brussels.
Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles): Will the Minister confirm that the Government have doubled the operating subsidy to Caledonian MacBrayne? Does he agree that allowing CalMac to bid for the routes to the northern isles would give the strongest possible vote of confidence to CalMac staying in the public sector?
Mr. Wilson: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. He was, of course, a Transport Minister in the Scottish Office before devolution, when most of the increase occurred. We put a load of extra money into Caledonian MacBrayne. That is a vote of confidence. In Opposition, we long demanded for CalMac the right to bid for other routes; I am delighted that, in government, we have delivered it.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the regulations on the volume of trade and on port state control in the European Union?
Mr. Wilson: I have made no such calculations, but I shall be delighted to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Assisted Areas Map
2. Mr. David Stewart (Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber): If he will make a statement on the exclusion of Inverness, East, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey from the assisted areas map. [126337]
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): Following the publication of the proposed assisted areas map on 10 April, I received representations from my hon. Friend and others on the exclusion of the area. Revised proposals have now been submitted to the European Commission.
Mr. Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He will be well aware of the rundown of the Barmac fabrication yards, with the loss of more than 3,000 jobs that are highly skilled and well valued in the highland economy. Does he share my view that that strengthens the case for my constituency remaining within the assisted areas map, as indeed it does under the highlands and islands special transitional programme? Will he undertake to visit my constituency to add his weight to the campaign?
Dr. Reid: I am, of course, aware of the effects of the developments at Barmac; we all take them very seriously. I recognise the general strength of the arguments that have been expressed by my hon. Friend about parts of his
constituency. I assure him that, during the consultation process, we listened carefully to the views expressed on the matter. As he will be aware, the final decision is for the European Commission, but he will not be entirely disappointed with the outcome of our reception of his representations nor, hopefully, with the outcome of the review itself.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): Does the Secretary of State recognise that, by no criteria, are the interests and needs of Inverness to be compared with those of the fragile areas on the periphery of the highlands? Those areas are sparsely populated and have long lines of communication. Does he agree that, although a case can be made for Inverness, related to Barmac, it would be no triumph for highland development if moneys for assistance simply drained into the centre on the ground that what is good for Inverness is good for the highlands because it is of pan-highland benefit?
Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent and important point. The question by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) referred not only to Inverness, but to Badenoch and Strathspey. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the proposals published on 10 April gave the highlands and islands more than 70 per cent. coverage. We also need to remember that they will still benefit from the special transitional programme, which is valued at 308 million ecu--that is £192.5 million for those Conservative Members who do not like to deal with anything in European terms--and which will run for the period from 2000 to 2006.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): Does the Secretary of State accept that the impact of the job losses at Barmac has repercussions in many areas of the highlands and islands? Although we welcome, for example, the development of Cap Gemini at Forres, does he recognise that the enterprise areas of Inverness and Nairn and of Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey would welcome assisted area status? That would help them in their attempts to attract a variety of jobs into the area to ensure that we can absorb the redundancies that have taken place. Otherwise, we shall lose people from the area.
Dr. Reid: Yes. I have already said that I appreciate the effect of what has happened at Barmac. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), who is on the Scottish Executive, will meet Barmac in the very near future--tomorrow, I think. I have already referred to the highlands and I recognise the strength of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber, which applied to some extent to the area around Strathspey and Badenoch. I hope that that shows that we have listened to the representations that have been put forward.
I should stress that the European Commission has the final say. The hon. Lady will be aware that our first proposals were targeted in such a way as to get the maximum effect throughout Scotland. Those proposals were not acceptable to the European Commission, so we are going back with a new set of proposals.
Special Advisers
3. Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): How many special advisers he has appointed; and what their official duties are. [126338]
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I have two special advisers and one unpaid special adviser. They advise on the development of Government policy and its effective presentation.
Mr. Brady: When it took the Secretary of State a little while to respond, I thought that that might have been because he was trying to think of something for his advisers to do so that he could answer my question. Given that his Department is no longer a policy-making Department, what possible purpose could there be to his having three special advisers to advise him on policy?
Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that my Department contributes towards the decision-making process in Cabinet Committees. We have the not unimportant job of helping to transform the governance of the United Kingdom by establishing a relationship between the two Parliaments. If we were to judge expenses and what is paid out only on the basis of what decisions are made, it would be astonishing to find out that the Short money that goes to the Conservative party has been tripled to more than £3 million to allow it to increase its policy and presentational staffs. The House may think that that money has not been well spent, and to spend that sort of money on a group of politicians who decide nothing, influence nothing and contribute nothing raises a far bigger question than the one about my special advisers.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): The Secretary of State will be aware that his departmental budget has gone up by 7 per cent. more than inflation in the past year and that it now stands at about £14 million. He has mentioned his special advisers, but he has not specified whether they advise him or people who are unable to answer parliamentary questions. Is not the number of the Secretary of State's special advisers disproportionate to what his Department does, given the fact that all his Executive functions have been given away?
Dr. Reid: We have given the Conservative party an extra £3 million for researchers, and it cannot even add up. My Department's budget is nothing like £14 million. The budget, as the hon. Gentleman is probably being advised by his unpaid adviser, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), is about £5.8 million. That is to be compared with the budget which we are involved in negotiating with the Scottish Executive of between £16,000 million and £17,000 million.
I have two advisers and the Government have 79. We are told by the Opposition that these advisers will swamp 460,000 civil servants. Our advisers amount to 0.0001 per cent. of the entire civil service. I think that the hon. Gentleman can sleep easy in his bed at night.
Mr. Grieve: The Secretary of State's reply is entirely unsatisfactory. He has still not explained what he uses his special advisers for. His comments about Short money are peculiarly specious. Is it not the reality that his
Department has turned into the first propaganda ministry that the Government have yet put together? The only purpose of his Department is to put out knocking copy against its opponents and beef up Labour Back-Bench Members when their morale slumps.
Dr. Reid: This is all very churlish. First, my Department does not put out any party political propaganda, any more than any other civil servants under any Government put out such propaganda, as the hon. Gentleman will know.
Secondly, in the context of the presentation and development of Government policy,
- We believe that special advisers have a valuable role to play, precisely because they are free to act and advise in a way that a politically impartial civil service cannot.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |