| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I fear that the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, who I see in his place, inadvertently misled the House when winding up the debate on the civil service pension scheme on Tuesday 7 May. At column 130 I said:
- "Is not the real reason the Government's wish to privatise Paymaster? Without the order, a privatised Paymaster could not tender for the contract. Without that substantial contract, Paymaster would be a far less attractive proposition for privatisation."
In his closing speech, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
The Parliamentary Secretary paid me the courtesy of writing to me to draw this to my attention, but I thought that as he was here answering questions today, he should take the opportunity to put the record straight.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. David Willetts):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I confirm that the order which the House approved last week does cover all aspects of the administration of civil service pensions. I regret that my winding-up speech did not make that point clear. As you know, Madam Speaker, I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of my letter to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) which clarifies the point.
Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams):
On a similar point of order to that of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), Madam Speaker. At last Thursday's oral questions, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was recorded as saying that an oyster farm in my constituency had been closed because of an
That is not the case, because the farm meets the requirements of the European directives, but did not comply with the gold-plating by MAFF officials. I wonder if the attention of the Editor of Hansard could be drawn to that fact.
Madam Speaker:
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also like to draw his point to the Minister's attention. It is hardly a point of order for me, but it is a matter for the Minister.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any information from the Department of Trade and Industry about a statement on the announcement by the gas regulator that some 10,000 British Gas TransCo jobs, many of them located in my constituency, may go as a result of her arbitrary new pricing decision? Frankly, the consumers and the employees of British Gas are caught between Cedric the pig and the unaccountable Clare "Spotted-dick"--
Madam Speaker:
Order. That is not a matter for me. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise that matter on an Adjournment debate, I shall be glad to consider any application he makes. All hon. Members know that if a statement is to be made by the Government, a notice appears on the annunciator screen by 1 o'clock so that we are all aware of it.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We were all grateful to you for your statement on 19 January 1995 in response to a legitimate complaint from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). In that statement, you said that
You also said that
This morning, I had a two-and-a-half-hour meeting with the staff of Salisbury tax office to try to stave off its closure by the Board of Inland Revenue. The staff told me at 12.30 today that a parliamentary question had been tabled by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). Despite my parliamentary questions and ministerial correspondence, he felt it necessary to do that. He did not inform me and I confirmed with his office as soon as I arrived in the Palace of Westminster that he had not sought to inform me. The hon. Gentleman tabled five parliamentary questions about my constituency without contacting me. If he had, I would have advised him to get in touch with the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), whose tax office is also threatened with closure.
Will you, Madam Speaker, confirm the views that you expressed in January 1995?
Madam Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman has given the House the date when I made that statement and the column reference, which is 862. That statement still stands and it is very firm. Members who table a question directly about another Member's constituency, which should not be done lightly, should in any case take care to inform the other Member in advance that they are going to do so. Such matters should be resolved between Members and should not come to the Chair of the House, especially after firm statements have been made about how we should conduct ourselves in the Chamber.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
rose--
Madam Speaker:
Is the hon. Gentleman going to apologise for his colleague?
Mr. Hughes:
I have not spoken to my colleague, but may I accept what you say and explain one point to the House and to you, Madam Speaker, which may require you to adjudicate again and we may be able to respond in the way that you have indicated? My assumption is that my colleague, who is our Treasury spokesman, will have asked questions about a tax office in--
Madam Speaker:
Order. That is not a point of order. I made it clear in 1995 that if questions are to be asked, which should not be done lightly, the Member should be informed. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was informed about the questions when he saw them on the Order Paper. That is not the way to behave. I will hear no more points of order about that matter because every Member knows how strongly I feel about it. We shall now get on with our business.
Sir James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley):
I beg to move,
The report named in our motion is an assessment of the implications of the 1995 Budget on Northern Ireland. Lest anyone should assume that I am going to plead a special case for our part of the United Kingdom or, worse still, advocate a separate tax regime for the Province, let me make it clear that my party accepts some responsibility for that Budget. During the debate on the Queen's Speech on 22 November 1995, I ventured to tender advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then reaching his firm and final decisions on the contents of his Budget. My subsequent support during the Budget debate for the Chancellor's proposals was in line with my party's consistent policy since it was forced to become a separate party in Parliament.
We are in the happy position of finding ourselves broadly in alignment with the Treasury team in reducing the national debt, reducing the public sector borrowing requirement, maintaining the Government's excellent record on low inflation and avoiding a fixed exchange rate. On that final issue, my party's policy pre-dates the debate on a common currency. Our policy is based on a firm conviction that although a common currency can work within a nation--an example was given recently by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who observed that the economies of London and Liverpool are vastly different, with the former giving assistance to the latter--a uniform currency for sovereign nations flies in the face of common sense. As a party, my colleagues and I derive reassurance from the convergence of the Government and the Opposition on most of the principles to which I have referred, and economic policies.
I have sketched in the national background to our financial structures so that we can examine the position of one part of the nation, which in this instance is the Northern Ireland component. In examining budgetary effects on Northern Ireland, we must look beyond the current year to the decade ahead. One Budget is little more than a blip; it represents a modest shift in balance which has a limited effect, in the long term, on the nation or any part thereof. That is not to say, however, that we should ignore the fact that even a tilt of a few degrees can seriously damage any one of the regions of the United Kingdom.
It is in that sense that the report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council reveals an unnoticed and probably unintentional disadvantage to the Province. The report observes that while newsworthy proposals such as duties on petrol, cigarettes and alcohol are highlighted, the distributional impact on incomes is rarely discussed.
There is an assumption that the Northern Ireland economy is a microcosm of the United Kingdom economy. The report renders a service in illustrating the fallacy of that assumption. Incomes in Northern Ireland
are lower than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. For a variety of reasons, the social security system is a more significant source of income than it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Sir George Quigley, the chairman of the economic council, has stated:
I am not advocating split-level taxation. However, given Sir George's assessment, which points to a loss to the Northern Ireland economy in total, there is a case for taking the factor into account when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury embarks on his consultations before setting out his public expenditure proposals, and especially the Northern Ireland allocation.
It might be appropriate to note the concern expressed over public expenditure plans for the next three years. Whatever Government are in power, the closing years of the century will see a tightening of resources. If the undesirable effects of that are to be avoided and if the targeting of social needs is to achieve its objectives, we must embark on a concerted drive to achieve lasting long-term expansion of the Ulster economy.
Given the inevitability of continual reduction in public finances throughout the years to come, greater use must be made of the public finance initiative. We have already seen examples of capital projects launched well in advance of the date when public finance would be available. I accept that the move from being a service provider to being a purchaser of services places the Government in a position in which they may be replacing a short-term capital commitment with a long-term revenue commitment, but I have great faith in the private sector--particularly in Northern Ireland--and I do not think that it is beyond the capacity of that sector to design measures to avoid that very trap. For the Government, the great bonus is the easing of the pressure on the public sector borrowing requirement, on which we are all broadly agreed in the House.
In a recent study, our party proposed a merging of the various agencies that deal with indigenous business. We suggested that the Industrial Development Board should be encouraged and assisted in its role of attracting inward investment. When I use the words "encouraged and assisted", I am thinking particularly of the back-up structure that has been considered by Northern Ireland Ministers during past months, in the shape of an all-party council based in both Houses of Parliament. We would strongly support such a system, which would have enormous influence abroad and would put Northern Ireland's industrial capacity in the front rank. Nearer to home, there is much scope for co-operation. Without prejudice to England and Wales, we are planning to step up links with Scotland, our nearest neighbour--so near, indeed, as to be visible across the narrow sea.
Let me interrupt my train of thought at this point, and mention another hobby horse of mine--the enterprise investment scheme that was introduced in the 1993 Budget. The object of the scheme was, and still is, to encourage small investors to support small companies. It has great potential in Northern Ireland, but there should and could be a much greater take-up. Perhaps it could be
facilitated by a degree of security for investors. I know that that kind of step may prove difficult, but it should not be impossible. If it proves difficult, perhaps more attractive tax concessions would have the desired effect--throughout the United Kingdom, that is.
"That has nothing to do with the payment of pensions to former civil servants. The proposals in the order concern entirely the administration of the scheme for current civil servants and are nothing to do with Paymaster's function of paying out benefits and pensions to retired civil servants."--[Official Report, 7 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 130-36.]
"unacceptable risk to human health."--[Official Report, 9 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 361.]
"a Member whose constituency is directly affected by an answer should be informed of the answer at the same time as the Member who has asked the question and the press."
"It would also be a useful courtesy if any Member tabling a question directly affecting another's constituency--something which should not be done lightly in any case--took care to inform that Member of the action that he or she has taken."--[Official Report, 19 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 862.]
3.38 pm
That this House takes note of the Northern Ireland Economic Council's Report No. 118, February 1996.
"Given that the changes announced in the Budget tend to favour high earners and that the level of household income is on average lower in Northern Ireland than in the United Kingdom, it is not altogether surprising that Northern Ireland households benefit less from the tax and benefit changes contained in the 1995 Budget than their United Kingdom counterparts."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |