PoliticsUK

Madam Speaker,

Will the Prime Minister commit to ruling out Britain adopting the euro, and if not, will she begin making preparations for a referendum to offer the British people a choice on the matter?

Madam Speaker,

Government policy on the euro has not changed. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition who seems to change his mind with the wind I do not change my policy positions so easily. The five tests remain the policy of this Government.

Madam Speaker,

I'm disappointed, but not all together surprised, to see that the first exchange between the Prime Minister and I would result in a non-answer. I hope in the future, for the sake of the British people who watch these exchanges in the hopes of being able to understand the Government's policy, that she will be more willing to answer the question that was asked.

So let's try again. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to rule out Britain joining the euro for the duration of this Parliament, why won't the Prime Minister?

Madam Speaker,

I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has finally listened and heard what the Government's policy is, that due to the euro not passing the five tests it is not appropriate for Britain to join the euro at this time and as the Chancellor detailed it is unlikely for the remainder of this Parliament. I realise that this is only the Leader of the Opposition's second term in Parliament, but I would hope that he would have attended a few sessions of Question Time during his time in this House - if he had, he would know what Government policy is and that it has not changed.

Madam Speaker,

Good, I will take that as the Prime Minister using this opportunity to rule out before the House the adoption of the euro for the duration of this Parliament. I look forward to holding her to that commitment.

I'd like to switch topics now, if you will allow me, Madam Speaker. Why does the Prime Minister need a public inquiry to tell her that the Commissioner for Public Appointments should be funded and staffed independently of the Government Ministers she oversees?

Madam Speaker,

The Inquiry that I will be announcing will take a much wider view to the issue of public appointments beyond just the commission. I know the leader of the opposition prides himself in shooting from the hip, but I approach policy and decision making from a much more concerted position. While he puts the horse so far in front of the cart you can barely see it anymore I believe that if we are truly to fix this problem it takes more than some messy legislation that had to be amended multiple times and have the Leader of the Opposition beg for help. It takes determination to see a problem through to the end.

Madam Speaker,

Yes of course, the House knows very well what the Prime Minister thinks of my "shoot from the hip," tactics, and my tendency to behave like a "cowboy." But I'd much rather be a cowboy than a curmudgeon, a politician too spiteful and set in her own ways to make the changes necessary to restore confidence in the political system.

I appreciate the Prime Minister's reply, but it was not answer to the question I asked. In voting against the legislation, the Prime Minister and her Government have voted against giving the Public Appointments Commissioner necessary authority and autonomy. Why is she opposed to an independent commissioner? And if she isn't, why did she prevent giving the Commissioner the independence they need by voting against the Opposition's legislation?

Madam Speaker,

The Leader of the Opposition clearly just doesn't like the answer that I gave him. The reason why I voted against his bill was because it was shoddy legislation that had to be amended on the fly to cover the gaping holes he left in it due his desperate attempt to score a political point. While I am sure his cowboy antics play well with a select number of Conservative Associations I must inform him that being Prime Minister requires a little bit more thought than he is used to giving things.

Madam Speaker,

If the legislation was so shoddy then why, by the Prime Minister's own admission, did she deliberately wait to call the independent inquiry she has promised until after the bill has been voted on? Either the bill was bad and the Prime Minister could have moved ahead with her own approach, or the Prime Minister knew the legislation had merit and had a significant chance of passing. I'm confident the Prime Minister believed the latter to be true.

While we're on the subject of public appointments, I'd like to ask the Prime Minister a related question. As a result of the debate on Motion 1, the House effectively voted to confirm they do not have confidence in the Member for Hartlepool's handling of the Dome Project. Why does the Prime Minister?