The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Author: admin

  • Mr Major’s Arrival Doorstep Interview in Naples – 8 July 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s arrival doorstep in Naples on Friday 8th July 1994.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what can this summit do for the 24 million jobless there are in the G7 countries?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think one of the themes of the summit is clearly going to be jobs and employment and I would be very surprised if the summit does not reach the same sort of conclusion that we reached at Corfu and elsewhere and that is that supply side reforms and making the cost of employment less expensive is the right way to proceed.

    QUESTION:

    Are you worried about the falling dollar and will the G7 leaders here be able to neglect that problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure that is going to be discussed here on this occasion.

    QUESTION:

    What will you be saying to President Clinton about his views on European unity and German leadership?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think what was reported about President Clinton’s views were quite different to what President Clinton said, so I am not sure that he and I will be discussing it.

    QUESTION:

    The President said this morning that the Japanese have not delivered on their promises at last year’s G7 to liberalise trade, would you agree with that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly wish to discuss the liberalisation of trade, I think that will be one of the issues that we will discuss, I think there are a variety of areas both in terms of investment and in terms of trade flows, I shall certainly want to discuss liberalisation and of course Japan has more to do.

    QUESTION:

    Do you expect to make progress here in the margins on the successor to M. Delors?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not expecting to have substantive discussions about that here, no, whether it is discussed is a matter for the Presidency of the Commission, they may well approach me, but this is a decision for all Twelve, it is not something that can be agreed with just two or three members of the Community here.

    QUESTION:

    Is Lord Archer definitely out in a Cabinet reshuffle?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will announce the Cabinet reshuffle when I am ready to do so.

    QUESTION:

    Will you be pressing here again for reform of the G7 as an institution, do you think it is time for it to be widened to accept more Asian economies?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will certainly be pressing for more reform of the summit itself, I think we have made some progress in terms of making it more informal but frankly I do not think we have gone as far as we can and I would certainly like to see it made yet more informal in the future.

    QUESTION:

    Would you be prepared to put up British money to help rid the world of the Chernobyl nuclear reactors?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have indicated in the past that we are prepared to put up a certain amount of money to do that, yes, I think it is in everyone’s interest that we deal with the problem of Chernobyl. But I do not think it is just that, we also need action to be taken by the Ukrainians as well, but that will be an important item on our agenda.

    QUESTION:

    Can you tell us how much?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not out here, no.

    QUESTION:

    Is there any progress on debt relief for the Third World?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope so, yes, I think we will get some progress on debt relief for the Third World. We pushed a long time ago firstly for Toronto Terms and then for Trinidad Terms. A lot of progress has been made, I think we can make some more. I hope when we have made progress on Trinidad Terms we may look to see whether we can go even further.

    QUESTION:

    Do you have anything at all to say about Lord Archer as one of the most devoted and hard working members of your party?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is an investigation going on, it is right that there should be an investigation going on but you would not expect me to comment on it and I am not going to.

    QUESTION:

    Do you feel for him as an old friend in the current predicament?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One always feels for an old friend but I am not going to comment on it. There is an investigation going on, that is proper, the investigation must proceed. It would be quite wrong for me to say anything beyond that.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 July 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lockerbie Bombing

    Q8. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made to co-ordinate policies and operations in relation to the Lockerbie crime involving the destruction of Pan Am 103 between the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Scottish Office, the Department of Transport, the Intelligence Services, the Attorney-General and the Crown Office; and which is the lead Department.

    The Prime Minister : The Crown Office is the lead Department on matters relating to the prosecution of those suspected of the Lockerbie bombing.

    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the lead department for international aspects.

    These Departments consult others on issues for which they are responsible, as they arise.

     

    Mr. Gordon McNally

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions since October 1991 he has met Mr. Gordon McNally.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 5 July 1994] : So far as I am aware, Mr. McNally has attended three large functions at which I was also present between October 1991 and March 1993.

     

    Rio Declaration

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement outlining the benefits which will accrue to the manufacturing, construction and retailing sectors of the United Kingdom economy through the acceptance of agenda 21 of the Rio declaration of June 1992;

    (2) what assessment Her Majesty’s Government have undertaken of the costs (a) to date and (b) by the year 2000, of complying with the Rio declaration of June 1992;

    (3) if he will make a statement summarising the information which he has about the extent to which other signatory countries to agenda 21 of the Rio declaration of June 1992, have begun to implement measures in keeping with the agenda which affect their manufacturing, construction and retailing industries.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 July 1994] : The Rio declaration and agenda 21 clearly recognise the importance of economic development to improvement of the quality of life of present and future generations. The Government are committed to the close involvement of the wealth-creating sectors in the preparation of policies to ensure that economic development is sustainable. Acceptance of the principles of agenda 21 by a large number of the United Kingdom’s trading partners will help British business to compete on a level playing field, and will create substantial new market opportunities for suppliers of cleaner process technologies and environmental goods and services. The Government seek to take account of the principles of sustainable development in all policies, together with a wide range of other factors. It is often not possible to separate out the cost attributable to abiding by the principles of sustainable development. However, we aim to consider carefully the compliance cost of all new policies.

    The United Kingdom Government have been one of the principal proponents of a system of national reporting on progress in the implementation of measures in agenda 21. Our sustainable development strategy was published this January. We shall continue to urge other countries to follow suit through our membership of the Commission on Sustainable Development. We hope that in due course the commission will be able to publish information based on national reports.

  • PMQT – 7 July 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Coastguard Service

    Q1. Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of whether the reduction in resources available to the coastguard service will prejudice safety at sea.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : The chief executive of the Coastguard Agency has confirmed that the resources available this year will enable the agency to fulfil its objectives on search and rescue and on oil and chemical spills. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has given the House an assurance that he will not allow the efficiency gain that he is seeking to prejudice safety at sea.

    Mr. Kirkwood : Does the Prime Minister accept that the most efficient way to run the coastguard service would be to provide the existing complement of professional and auxiliary personnel–who know their own coastlines, seas and weather conditions–all the equipment, training and back-up that money can buy? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he personally will refuse to sanction further efficiency savings in the coastguard service if there is any suggestion that they would prejudice safety at sea in future? After all, the Prime Minister himself may need the political equivalent of a breeches buoy before too long.

    The Prime Minister : Of course we would not do anything to prejudice safety at sea, which is self-evidently of vital importance. It is right to seek efficiency gains where it is thought that they will be available. The agency’s chief executive has joined other Department of Transport executive agencies in submitting proposals on how further efficiency gains may be made. I am sure that that is right. The greater the efficiency gain that can be made across the public service, the greater will be the saving to the taxpayer or the improvement in services elsewhere in the public service.

    Mr. Harris : I welcome my right hon. Friend’s answer and assurances, but would not it be quite wrong and unthinkable to apply to coastguard front-line services the 20 per cent. across-the-board cuts that are being considered for other aspects of the Department of Transport? That must be wrong and out of the question. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that does not happen under any circumstances?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is running two things together. There is no presumption that the coastguard service must achieve a 20 per cent. reduction. What is sought is a 20 per cent. efficiency gain. I believe that that is achievable, and the chief executive is investigating how it may be achieved. As I said to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), that will not be at the expense of the security and safety of people at sea.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

    The Prime Minister : This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Fatchett : Is the Prime Minister aware that Railtrack board members have introduced a new working practice whereby they are paid £500 additional bonus–three times the basic wage of signal staff– simply to attend Railtrack meetings? Will the Prime Minister join me in agreeing that those additional payments are obscene? Will he take this opportunity to condemn Railtrack’s board for making those additional payments?

    The Prime Minister : I will certainly make inquiries about what the hon. Gentleman has alleged, and check whether it is true. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also take the interests of the travelling public into account and condemn a strike for an 11 per cent. pay award, which far exceeds what is being paid to anyone else in the public sector. There is no justification for an award of that size at this time. I hope that negotiations will continue and that the strike will be swiftly settled.

    Mr. John Greenway : Does my right hon. Friend agree that a new offence of racial harassment–as recommended by the Select Committee on Home Affairs–together with new measures to tackle the publication of racist material, will be major steps forward in the fight against racial attacks?

    The Prime Minister : We abhor any crime in which any element of racial motivation is present. That is precisely why we have added to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill a new offence to tackle that particular mischief. I believe that that is desirable, and will achieve widespread support among all shades of opinion.

    Mrs. Beckett : On Tuesday, the Leader of the House rejected doctors’ criticisms of the Government’s health service changes; today, the health service ombudsman has published strong criticism from patients. Are they wrong, too?

    The Prime Minister : Like the right hon. Lady, I have not yet had a chance to read the whole of the ombudsman’s report. The ombudsman examines a minority of the cases referred to him, and does not comment on the generality of health service treatment. I understand that some of the reports that have been evident earlier today have been repudiated by the commissioner, but, as I said, like the right hon. Lady, I have not yet had a chance to read the full report.

    Mrs. Beckett : But the Prime Minister must know, as I do, that it reveals a record number of complaints. Does he not recognise that the ombudsman, doctors, nurses, patients and Opposition Members are all saying the same thing–that the Government’s health service changes are making matters worse? When will the Prime Minister drop them?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the whole House will have noted that the right hon. Lady did not say that she had read the report about which she claims to be speaking so authoritatively. Of course we will take the Health Service Commissioner’s report seriously : we are anxious to ensure that the health service continues to improve, and, according to the test set out by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), it is. He said that the test of the reforms was whether more patients were treated. They are–1 million more every year.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is the Prime Minister denying that the report shows a record number of complaints this year? Is he denying that? I doubt it very much. Only under the present Government would a record number of complaints be regarded as evidence of success. Does the Prime Minister recognise that the health service changes are hurting but certainly not working, and that, while he may sack the present Secretary of State for Health, he also needs to scrap the policies and start putting patients first?

    The Prime Minister : The reforms are precisely about putting patients first. That is why the number of patients treated in hospital has grown by record amounts, the quality of care has improved immeasurably and the number of patients waiting, and almost all waiting times, have fallen. That is an improvement in care. As for complaints, it was precisely with the aim of addressing the issues highlighted by the Health Service Commissioner that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State established a committee, under Professor Wilson, to carry out a thorough review of complaints procedure. That report was published for consultation in May. We anticipated concern about the matter, and have already put in hand measures to deal with it.

    Miss Emma Nicholson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that bed space is no longer the determinant of a nation’s health care policy, and that when a nation has many beds that is likely to be because epidemiology is not the advanced science that it is in the United Kingdom today?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. The proper judgment of how well the health service is performing is based, first, on the number of people who are treated and, secondly, on how satisfactorily they are treated. On both those measures, the health service continues to improve.

     

    UN Security Council

    Q3. Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed the membership, structure and functions of the Security Council of the United Nations when he last met the leaders of the other member states of the European Union; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I did not discuss those matters when I last met European leaders in Corfu.

    Dr. Godman : President Nelson Mandela said recently that Rwanda is a stern and severe rebuke to us all. That surely holds for the disgracefully inept and irresponsible Security Council. Does not the Prime Minister agree that there is an urgent need for the Council to solve the problems of financing and manning peacekeeping operations so that United Nations resolutions can more effectively and efficiently be implemented? Given the mess that the Security Council is in, financially and structurally, most UN resolutions are utterly unenforceable.

    The Prime Minister : I share the horror and revulsion felt by many people, including the hon. Gentleman, about the terrible suffering in Rwanda. That is undoubtedly the case. I do not entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s strictures about the Security Council. It is not practicable for the Security Council–it simply does not have the resources in terms of cash or money, nor is it likely to have in the short term

    Mr. Skinner : Cash or money?

    The Prime Minister : It is not Britain that is behind in its payments to the UN. The hon. Gentleman, as usual, wishes to criticise this country, with a complete absence of the facts when he does so. The Security Council has become increasingly effective over recent years, and many of the measures set down by it, many of the motions passed by it and many of the actions taken by it are far more effective than in previous years. It simply is not practicable for it to become the policeman of every part of the world.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Viggers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Viggers : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sweeping reforms that we carried out in the national health service in 1991 have inevitably led to controversy and criticism, both malevolent and constructive and positive? Is he aware that, unlike the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who leads for the Opposition, I took the trouble to read the report of the health service ombudsman? I noted in particular paragraph 1, where he summarises the rest of the report, which I have also read, and refers to the number of complaints as being “remarkably small”. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our reforms have been extremely successful, with more than 8 million people being treated in hospital this year? Will he join me in congratulating Portsmouth and South East Hampshire trust, which for the first time achieved the position whereby no one had to wait for more than a year for any operation?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to hear about that improvement in waiting lists and about the remarkably small number of complaints. I am interested to see that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) did not even get as far as the first paragraph in her studies. I share my hon. Friend’s view that we have every reason to be proud of what the national health service has achieved. The Labour party takes and deserves the credit for having established the national health service–no one would deny it that–but in the 45 years since the health service was established, the Conservative party has been predominantly in government, and that party has put in the resources to build up the health service from its early beginnings to its present excellence.

     

    Q5. Mr. Khabra : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Khabra : Does the Prime Minister think it odd that a senior adviser to the Home Office on prison policy is also in the pay of Group 4, which is bidding to win contracts for building private prisons? Furthermore, does he agree that it is odd that an interest is definitely involved?

    The Prime Minister : I understand that the chief inspector of prisons has satisfied himself that there is no impropriety in that appointment and I am happy to accept that advice.

    Mr. Duncan Smith : Does my right hon. Friend agree that most of the public are concerned about people who commit crimes while out on bail? Will he strongly urge prosecutors to take up what we have given them–the right to appeal against bail being imposed on them?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the vast majority of the public will entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There is an opportunity there to be taken. I very much hope that it will be taken.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Ewing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mrs. Ewing : Will the Prime Minister simply confirm or deny the fact that a Cabinet Committee, which he chaired this morning, decided to recommend the closure of Rosyth naval base?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady will have to wait, as far as any aspect of the defence costs study is concerned, for the Cabinet to consider the matter itself and for a statement subsequently to be made. Until that time, I have nothing to say either in confirmation or denial.

  • Mr Major’s Edinburgh Press Conference – 5 July 1994

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s press conference, held at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh on Tuesday 5th July 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] the King and Queen of Norway here today. Can we take it that perhaps the cost of State Visits [indistinct] well, it’s rumoured that the cost of State Visits in London is prohibitively expensive. Are there going to be more coming out of London perhaps to other cities around Britain, to Edinburgh, again?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I don’t think cost is a material factor. Edinburgh has marvellous facilities for a State Visit. I think it’s a very attractive idea to have State Visits or, indeed, other ceremonial occasions outside the capital.

    QUESTION:

    Can we expect to see more in the future?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I very much hope so. I think Edinburgh did a magnificent job when we had the European Summit at Holyrood House. It couldn’t have been done better and I don’t think anyone who saw today would suggest it could have been done better either. It’s been a lovely day.

    QUESTION:

    You brought the European Summit to Edinburgh, Mr Major. Do you see any further role for the capital of Scotland in terms of Scottish Government?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think you know our position on that. I don’t favour a devolved Parliament for reasons I’ve set out before. I very strongly favour the Union. I think that is very much in the interests of Scotland and I think it is very much in the interests of the United Kingdom. It’s a two-way mixture. The rest of the United Kingdom needs Scotland as part of the United Kingdom as much as I believe Scotland benefits from being part of it. So, I don’t favour anything that might put that at risk.

    QUESTION:

    Do you see the need for new policy initiatives in Scotland given your poor performance in Monklands East and in the European and Regional Elections in Scotland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Oh, I think it’s been a very difficult time, clearly, at the end of a very long and very difficult recession for people. I think that is clear. What is becoming increasingly evident as week succeeds week is the changed economic environment. That does take a time to take roots. It takes a while before people actually feel the impact and see the impact in their own lives with falling unemployment and better job prospects.

    QUESTION:

    But the poorest by-election performance by the Tories for 50 years must surely cause you more than a little concern?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you know, as well as I do, there were pretty special circumstances in the Monklands By-Election.

    QUESTION:

    What were the circumstances? There was a lot of criticism of how the campaign was run.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think, not our campaign there wasn’t, no. There may have been a lot of criticism of the way the campaign was run between the Labour Party and the Scottish Nationalist Party. think there was a great deal of criticism about that and very probably justifiably. But what I think happened was that a large number of Conservatives voted tactically in order to keep the Labour candidate.

    QUESTION:

    How significant are the changes we’re likely to see in you reshuffle? Is Mr Lang going to be staying put? Also the suggestion today, Mr Rifkind?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I see all those rumours. I read them with some interest but the first people to know about the re-shuffle will be the people concerned.

    QUESTION:

    But, how extensive is the re-shuffle likely to be?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And the first people to know how extensive it will be, will be you and your colleagues after it’s announced.

    QUESTION:

    Do you see your own position having been strengthened in recent weeks? Do still think there’s a possibility of you facing a challenge later this year, or do you think the fact that you perhaps blocked the elevation of Mr Dehaene has somehow strengthened your position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think, as you know, I’ve been unperturbed about that for a long time. I’m not concerned about that. I’ve got a series of policies I care about. I propose to pursue those policies simply because I believe them to be right. Now, that is so whether some criticise them or some don’t, so I will continue doing that.

    QUESTION:

    But aren’t you likely to face difficulties with your European partners in the coming month? There are suggestions today, for instance, that the French are thinking in terms of blocking the import of British beef.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I think that’s a mis-reporting of what’s happened. I think there’s a great deal of misunderstanding about the position of British beef. The first point I would make is that we are quite certain on the scientific and health advice that we are given that British beef is safe. Safe for the British and safe for others. If the Germans do proceed to block it unilaterally that will be an illegal act and I’ve heard today that the Commission would proceed to prosecute Germany if they decided to proceed illegally. France have not said they will do that. France have made no threat, whatsoever, to illegally block the exports of British beef. What they have said is that we have to look at the scientific evidence and that, of course, is what we’re doing here.

    QUESTION:

    The public, Mr Major, are becoming increasingly fed-up, I think it’s fair to say, with the rail strike and how it’s carrying on. How would your Government solve it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, we’re pretty fed-up with the rail strike. I’d like the rail strike to end. But, I don’t think all those people who’ve helped put us back into a secure economy by taking relatively low wage settlements over the past two years or so – millions and millions of people, who will watch this interview, have taken low wage increases in the past two years – I don’t believe they would think it right for Rail Track to concede an 11% increase to the signallers without any productivity improvements, without anything else at all. I just don’t think that is a credible way to behave.

    QUESTION:

    Today, we’ve had David Hunt talking in terms of full employment, which seems to be going further, perhaps, than Cabinet Ministers have done in, recent months. This, according to Labour, is further proof that you’re endeavouring to steal their policies. How big a battle are we going to have in the policy initiative front?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    How can we steal policies they don’t have? It’s extremely interesting to hear that. I’m not sure what the Labour Party’s policies are. They haven’t spelt any out. I’ve heard a great deal of pious platitudes but I’ve seen no concrete policies about how they would get people back to work. We have policies. We’re quite clear that deregulation, supply side reform, and holding down the costs of employment will help get people back into work and that is why, uniquely, in Western Europe, we are now seeing quite a significant drop in unemployment and other countries are seeing it rise. If you take the nearest comparative nation in size to us – France – they have the same working population that we have; they have 12 3/4% unemployment and rising; we have 9 1/4% and falling. Now, I think you have to answer why? And the answer is the policies we’re following.

    QUESTION:

    If it comes to a re-shuffle perhaps you could do worse than find a place in your team for Jack Charlton? [Laughter]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Oh, I congratulate him and the Irish team. They did very well indeed. I’m sorry they lost. They put up a very brave performance. They can be very proud of it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 July 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Stephan Adolph Kock

    Mr. Meacher : To ask the Prime Minister for what reason Stephan Adolph Kock has special branch protection ; and what other names he uses or has been known by.

    The Prime Minister : It is not in the public interest to disclose whether any person has received official protection or not. There is no ministerial responsibility for names by which Mr. Kock is known or has been known.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty’s Government have received from relatives of those killed in Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie on the need to make inquiries about the statements attributed to Youssef Chaabane, accused of murdering a Jordanian diplomat in a Beirut court; and what response Her Majesty’s Government have made.

    The Prime Minister : The Lord Advocate has received one letter from a relative of a Lockerbie victim, inquiring about the Crown Office response to the statement attributed to Chaabane. She has been told that, although it appears that what Chaabane said was very far from being a claim of responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am 103, the Crown Office will pursue any further investigation which may be necessary.

  • PMQT – 5 July 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th July 1994. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Bayley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) rose

    Hon. Members : Where is he?

    Mr. Newton : Hang on, and I will tell the House. I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Edinburgh to greet the King and Queen of Norway at the start of their state visit. Here in Westminster we await the visit of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to discuss the Police and Magistrates’ Courts Bill.

    Mr. Bayley : What help will the Government give to the victims of a £30 million theft–that is to say, Asil Nadir’s creditors, who yesterday announced that they were suing the Conservative party for the return of £400,000 given by Mr. Nadir to the Conservative party before the general election?

    Mr. Newton : I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has made it quite clear that the Conservative party will of course return the money received from Polly Peck and Unipac–if it proves to have been stolen.

    Mr. Forman : In the interests of enhancing the aesthetic and architectural attractions of central London, particularly some of our finer buildings and their surroundings, will my right hon. Friend have another look, within Whitehall and with his colleagues, at the apparent determination of Ministers to endorse the decision, suggested to them by senior civil servants, that Horse Guards parade should continue to be used, unusually, for the parking of motor cars by senior civil servants? Surely, its architectural and other beauties should be enhanced by leaving it as a public open space.

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend will be well aware of the discussions that have taken place on these matters. I shall certainly bring his observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

    Mrs. Beckett : Why does the Lord President think that the British Medical Association’s conference is saying that the Government’s health service changes have failed the nation?

    Mr. Newton : The British Medical Association’s conference is making those remarks, but it appears to be overlooking the fact that the number of patients treated in hospital has grown by record amounts, that the quality of care has improved and that the number of patients waiting more than a year has fallen by 100,000 to not much more than 60,000.

    Mrs. Beckett : But does not the Lord President understand that the remarks that he makes are recognised only by the Cabinet as a depiction of the picture of the health service and that those people at the sharp end of the national health service, including–but not only–the doctors, are talking about alienation, despair and a two-tier health service? They said yesterday :

    “treatment except in emergencies has now become a national and local lottery.”

    How can he defend that?

    Mr. Newton : I do not accept for a moment–and I do not think many of the people to whom I talk in hospitals and general practitioner practices up and down the country accept for a moment–what the right hon. Lady is saying. As for two-tierism, the Government stand four square on their 1991 agreement that common waiting lists apply to all urgent cases ; that all emergencies will be treated immediately ; and that no hospital is to offer contracts to one purchaser which will disadvantage patients of another.

    Mrs. Beckett : But the BMA is telling the Government that this is happening. Does the Lord President dispute the fact that there are three times as many managers and 12,000 fewer nurses than when all this started? I remind him again of what the BMA said yesterday : “business plans override clinical priority. Money does not follow the patient–The patient has no choice but to follow the money until it runs out.”

    The Government are destroying the principle on which the health service is based. What will it take to make them realise, acknowledge and stop that?

    Mr. Newton : The right hon. Lady’s criticisms and those she attributes to others simply do not stand up alongside the fact that, for every 100 patients treated in hospital in 1990-91–the last year before the reforms–the NHS expects to treat 121 this year. That is a 20 per cent. increase.

    Mr. Alexander : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern about the granting of legal aid on occasions to people of apparently significant means and sometimes to foreign nationals of very great means? Is not it time that the legal aid authorities looked far more closely at the applicants who come before them and said that under no circumstances should legal aid be granted to nationals of foreign countries unless there is a reciprocal arrangement in force?

    Mr. Newton : I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it would wrong for me to be drawn into commenting from the Dispatch Box on an individual case. I want to recognise the concern that he and others have expressed. He will know that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor does consider carefully, and has made a number of adjustments of, the legal aid arrangements and will certainly want to look at what my hon. Friend has said.

     

    Q2. Mr. Betts : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Betts : Is the Leader of the House aware that, among its many inefficiencies, the Child Support Agency is regularly taking up to two weeks and sometimes longer to pass the maintenance that it receives on to parents with care? Is he further aware that that not only creates problems for those people, but means that the agency accrues large sums in interest on the money that it holds? Does he believe that the money should be paid back to those people making maintenance payments or those receiving them, or does he believe that the agency should continue to make a profit out of its own inefficiencies, and that the Government should make a profit out of the misery that they have inflicted on those people because of this appalling legislation?

    Mr. Newton : This subject was rightly debated extensively in the House yesterday and the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt was here, will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security acknowledge that there is a need for improvement in the administration of the Child Support Agency and indicate that steps are being taken to bring that about. Indeed, that commitment is backed by some 700 extra staff and an increased budget to tackle just the sort of problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

     

    Q3. Mr. Sims : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Sims : Does my right hon. Friend agree that neither side in the signalmen’s dispute merits much credit for the way in which the dispute has been handled? Does he further agree that not only are his constituents and mine becoming increasingly frustrated by the weekly disruption of their business and social life but the economy is being damaged? Is not it time for all parties in the House to condemn this foolish and unnecessary strike?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Once again, I must regret the extent to which the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) felt unable to make her position clear. I am sure that my constituents and those of my hon. Friends regard a strike in support of an 11 per cent. pay rise with no productivity or restructuring as one that should be reconsidered and called off with a view to returning to sensible negotiation.

    Mr. Chisholm : Did the Leader of the House see the research from North Thames health authority last week, which showed that more money is spent on average on the patients of GP fundholders than on those of non-GP fundholders? Has he seen the report in this morning’s papers to the effect that a trust hospital in Kent has admitted operating a two-tier system with the tacit approval of the local health authority? Will he act against this blatant inequity and instruct Scottish Office Ministers to withdraw their edict that 30 per cent. of patients in Scotland should be looked after by GP fundholders by next April?

    Mr. Newton : I have already commented on the allegations of a two- tier service that were made by the right hon. Member for Derby, South. Let me make one thing absolutely clear: GP fundholders are not preferentially funded. They make contracts with trusts on the same terms as health authorities.

     

    Q4. Mr. Matthew Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Banks : My right hon. Friend will be aware of the strong support on both sides of the House, particularly given recent tragedies, for the introduction of seat belts in minibuses and coaches. Britain has been at the forefront in Europe in introducing measures to reduce road casualties, but will he assure the House that Britain will continue to be at the forefront on this issue?

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has already indicated his support for some of the moves that are being proposed in Europe, but, more comprehensively, we are reviewing the fitting of seat belts in minibuses and coaches, including the technical and cost implications. My right hon. Friend hopes to publish the report, and our conclusions, before the summer recess.

     

    Q5. Rev. Martin Smyth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Rev. Martin Smyth : Is the Lord President prepared to commend to all our people for study and action the Alzheimer’s Disease Society’s publication “Home Alone”? Does he agree that more doctors should be aware of the disease and more ready not simply to diagnose people as suffering from old age when they are suffering from Alzheimer’s disease?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that, like him, I have had many contacts with the excellent Alzheimer’s Disease Society over the years. It is important with that disease, as with others, that general practitioners are alert in identifying it and do not see it simply as a phenomenon of age. They should be able to steer people in the right direction, and part of the aim of our care in the community policy, not least the emphasis on carers as well as sufferers, is to improve our capacity to deal with such difficulties when they arise.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes : Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week a pioneering project was opened in my constituency sponsored by Shaftesbury housing, which combines housing with long-term care ? Does he agree that that represents the very best of community care in action?

    Not only does it debunk Labour’s accusations of decentralisation but, more important, it gives residents a secure environment in which they do not have to sacrifice their independence.

    Mr. Newton : At the outset, I had better acknowledge that I was not aware of the scheme in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which certainly sounds excellent. It is representative of a number of community care schemes throughout the country that are assisted by the Housing Corporation, a mixture of public and private finance and voluntary organisations. Such schemes greatly improve our capacity to care for Alzheimer’s disease sufferers and for the others whom my hon. Friend has in mind.

     

    Q6. Mr. Gerrard : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Gerrard : Does the Leader of the House agree that it is completely unacceptable for the privatised electricity companies to apply a surcharge for consumers using pre-payment meters, such as key charge? Such consumers are nearly always those who are least able to afford to pay a surcharge. What action will the Government take to stop the practice?

    Mr. Newton : In general, charging policies for electricity companies or any other private operations are for the owners and managers of the individual operations to determine. Additional costs will often be incurred in providing a facility of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has described. That factor is one which, rightly, should be taken into account.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 July 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    The Downing Street Years

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what clearance the Cabinet Secretary gave to Lady Thatcher’s book on the Downing Street Years in respect of (a) relations with Libya and the 1986 raid and (b) the Falklands War.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and noble Friend, Lady Thatcher, submitted the manuscript of “The Downing Street Years” to the Cabinet Secretary in accordance with the recommendations of the Radcliffe committee on ministerial memoirs. The Cabinet Secretary, acting at my request and on my behalf, examined the manuscript in respect of national security, the preservation of international relations and the treatment of confidential relationships. Exchanges between the Cabinet Secretary and former Ministers in respect of their memoirs are confidential.

     

    EC Rebate Mechanism

    Mr. Marlow : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those statements made by the United Kingdom heads of Government stating that the United Kingdom EC rebate mechanism could not be changed without the consent of the United Kingdom Government.

    The Prime Minister : The abatement is an integral part of the own resources decision–ORD. The ORD, including the abatement, continues in force unless or until changed or replaced. Change or replacement requires unanimity in the Council followed by adoption of the new arrangements by member states according to their respective constitutional procedures. In the case of the United Kingdom, this means the passage of an Act of Parliament. This has been made clear on many occasions.

     

    Pensions

    Mr. Churchill : To ask the Prime Minister how many representations he has received in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available calling for the unfreezing of the British state pensions of those pensioners living in countries where annual upratings are not made by the Department of Social Security; and what is the explanation for the discrimination against such pensioners.

    The Prime Minister : In the last 12 months, I have received representations from the Governments of Australia and Canada. I have also received numerous letters from pensioners overseas.

    It would cost an additional £230 million a year to uprate British pensions worldwide. In view of the continued need to contain public expenditure, we have no plans to change this long-standing policy.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 30 June 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EC President

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister;

    (1) if he will make it his policy not to agree to any change in the procedure for choosing a President of the European Commission which would directly or indirectly remove or restrict the requirement for consensus;

    (2) if he will make it his policy not to agree to the appointment as a member of the European Commission any person who has not made it clear that he is opposed to any further transfer of power from Whitehall and Westminster to Brussels and Strasbourg;

    (3) if he will make it his policy not to agree to the appointment as President of the European Commission of a person with known federalist views;

    (4) if he will make it his policy not to agree to the appointment as a member of the European Commission of any person who has advocated the transfer of responsibility for monetary and exchange rate policy to the EC and its institutions.

    The Prime Minister : I shall continue to insist that the President and other members of the Commission are appointed by common accord of the Governments of the member states, as the treaty requires. I shall consider candidates for the Presidency of the Commission on their merits.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

    The Prime Minister : This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what response Her Majesty’s Government have given to lawyers of the two Libyan suspects of the bombing of Pan Am 103 who have made representations to Her Majesty’s Government regarding the statement of Youssef Chaabane in a Beirut court that he planted the bomb.

    The Prime Minister : We have received no such representations.

     

    Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill

    Mr. Berry : To ask the Prime Minister when the Government decided to oppose the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill at Report stage.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 14 June 1994] : The Government made clear their doubts about the Bill as a whole at Second Reading and on other occasions, but we had also indicated that we would see what, if any, parts were appropriate to take further. In the event, debates during Committee confirmed our doubts, and the Government explained the reasons why they were unable to support the Bill at Report stage on 6 May.

  • PMQT – 30 June 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Enright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Enright : Given the 16 per cent. increase in productivity since the last pay settlement achieved by the signalling staff, how does the Prime Minister justify spending £500 million and cramming money into the pockets of already wealthy bankers and PR men, when a mere 1 per cent. of that would give those signalling men a living family wage?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that the signalling men are demanding an 11 per cent. pay rise with no productivity or restructuring. That is self-evidently not a reasonable claim in present circumstances. I very much regret the fact that they rejected the Railtrack offer, and that therefore there has been continued suffering for rail travellers.

    What we should like to know clearly–yes or no–is whether the Opposition believe that these strikes should continue.

    Mr. Michael Brown : Does the Prime Minister recall the speech that he made at the Conservative party conference in 1992, when he asked who had ever heard of a cricketer, Len Hutton, turning out to play for the county of Humberside? Is he aware that on the table of the Secretary of State for the Environment is a recommendation to the Local Government Commission, supported by just about every Labour and Conservative Member representing Humberside, and every Labour and Conservative councillor in the area, welcoming the report? Will he urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to get rid of the county of Humberside and to implement the recommendations as soon as possible?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard that plea. I think that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who would like the return of traditional areas and areas of local government that people will recognise and understand as having historical interest.

    Mrs. Beckett : How can the Prime Minister justify a reported pay increase of £800 a week for the chief executive of National Power, at a time when the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that the gap between the best paid and the lowest paid in Britain today is wider than it has been for 100 years?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady yet again tends to concentrate on every occasion on the politics of envy and redistribution instead of the politics of growth and job creation. When she learns that there is more to prosperity than envy and redistribution, she may be in a position to lecture others.

    Mrs. Beckett : I am sure that the whole country will note that the Prime Minister failed to condemn either the pay increase or the widening pay gap. But surely he is aware that Government figures show that every ordinary British family, including the lowest paid of all, are paying more taxes now than they were when the Government came to power–with the sole exception of the kind of people who award themselves pay increases of £800 a week. How can that be right?

    The Prime Minister : Of course, average real incomes are substantially up for people at all levels of income, as the right hon. Lady should know. But since the right hon. Lady returns yet again to tax, perhaps she would care to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) who said recently :

    “We”

    that is the Labour party

    “cannot put trust and tax on top of the agenda and then duck the economic issues.”

    That is what the right hon. Lady does.

    Mrs. Beckett : What are certainly up for every ordinary British family are the taxes that they pay under this Government. As a result of the Government’s economic failure, Britain today is a country of low wages, low skills, high crime and higher taxes. Whatever happened to the Prime Minister’s promise to build a nation at ease with itself?

    The Prime Minister : It is actually a nation of low inflation, increasing growth and falling crime. The right hon. Lady has been promising to set out her position on a number of issues and today she certainly has. She has published her own policy document and it enlightens a great deal. If any hon. Member would like to know more about it, I invite them

    Hon. Members : Answer.

    Madam Speaker : Order. It is right that an answer should be given, but to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) who has every right to question the Executive about its policy.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady has invited anybody who wishes to know more about her programme to phone her campaign hotline and ask for Kevin or Ian who will explain her policies.

    Mr. Rowe : Will my right hon. Friend give a clear and categorical assurance to the House that he will not allow himself to be discouraged from his pursuit of a classless society by the growing probability that both the leading opposition parties will be led by public schoolboys?

    The Prime Minister : The essence of the society that I wish to create lies in the fact that it does not matter whether they are or not.

     

    Q2. Mr. Keith Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hill : Does the Prime Minister remember those happy Labour days of 1969 when he came to live in my Streatham constituency at the charming Primrose court when the unemployment rate in Streatham stood at one in 50? Thanks to his Government’s policies it now stands at a shocking one in five. Is the Prime Minister be surprised to learn that there is no great demand in Streatham for a blue plaque to commemorate his stay at Primrose Court?

    The Prime Minister : I do not know how much the hon. Gentleman knows about Lambeth at that time in the late 1960s, but if he had checked a little more carefully he would have known that just a few months before the date that he quotes the Labour-controlled Lambeth council was swept from office, going from 57 to three in the local elections.

     

    Q3. Mr. Fabricant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Fabricant : Is not it the case that being at the heart of Europe and fighting one’s corner for Europe are not mutually exclusive and, if the Opposition say that it is, is not that both false and weak? Is not it also the case that when it comes to exercising the veto or the threat of veto, other countries have used it far more often than we have and, when it comes to abiding by European directives, in the league of large countries, Britain comes top, France comes third and Germany comes bottom? Is not Germany’s threat of the beef embargo a good example of that?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend intimated, there is a long history of vetoes by other member states–some on the Commission presidency itself. Being at the heart of Europe means fighting for the best interests of this country and of Europe. It emphatically does not mean agreeing with everything that our partners propose. Frankly, that is not the way that Europe works. It is not how our partners behave, how they expect us to behave or how we will behave. Wherever appropriate, we will stand up for the interests of this country and of Europe, and for the nature of Europe that we believe everyone across the continent wants.

     

    Q4. Mr. Clapham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Clapham : Is the Prime Minister aware that figures provided by the Department of Social Security clearly show that the number of miners who fail tests for bronchitis and emphysema is well over 90 per cent? Does he share my concern that there is a need to review the regulations, not in five years or two years but immediately? Will he tell the House that he is prepared to set in train an immediate review of the bronchitis and emphysema regulations?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Government accepted and implemented in full the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recommendation to add those diseases to the prescribed list. I am sure that was right. The recommendation was made and accepted.

    Sir Dudley Smith : Is my right hon. Friend aware that President Reagan never looked back after he fired striking air traffic controllers? In view of the wilful neglect by Labour Members to do anything to help the travelling public, will my right hon. Friend consider doing the same with the striking signalmen?

    The Prime Minister : We are currently hoping to see a settlement that would end those unnecessary strikes at the earliest date possible. At the moment, Railtrack and the Rail, Maritime and Transport union are in negotiation and I hope that they will reach agreement soon.

     

    Q5. Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Alton : Does the Prime Minister share the sense of horror felt by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House at the massacre of half a million Rwandans and the displacement of 2 million others? Is there not some personal initiative that he could take to ensure that the 5,000 troops promised by the United Nations one and a half months ago are now all deployed, refugees are evacuated and those responsible for the genocide are brought before international courts and tried for war crimes?

    The Prime Minister : Anyone who has seen the dreadful pictures from Rwanda will share the hon. Gentleman’s sense of horror and revulsion. I strongly support the proposal currently being considered by the Security Council, to establish a committee of experts to investigate allegations of war crimes in Rwanda and then take appropriate action. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the special rapporteur on Rwanda appointed by a special session of the European Commission of Human Rights is now in the country. We expect his report tomorrow and I hope that action can swiftly follow.

     

    Q6. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Arnold : My right hon. Friend will be aware of our ambition to continue on the path of cutting the basic rate of tax. Has he contrasted that with the ambition of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)?

    The Prime Minister : Our policy is entirely clear. Our overriding aim is to sustain the recovery that is now clearly evident–but when it is prudent to do so, we will certainly seek to cut tax rates again. I heard what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said about tax a day or so ago. I am delighted that he set out his position–something of a novelty, in respect of tax, for Opposition Members. I hope that all other contenders will honour their previous promises and set out what they would do about tax.

     

    Q7. Mr. Win Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Griffiths : Does the Prime Minister recall telling his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) last Monday that he regretted using the veto on Mr. Dehaene, and that it would have been avoided if the pre-conference preparations had been as thorough as they were in 1984? Was the Prime Minister suffering from selective amnesia or being economical with the truth in failing to tell the House that in 1984 his predecessor vetoed Claude Cheysson and supported Jacques Delors, who, unlike the Prime Minister, believes in giving workers legal protection from sweatshop employers?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman–perhaps by accident–is not telling the whole story. In 1984, there was a great amount of private consultation, and a number of countries–not just this one–indicated privately, not openly in the Council meeting, that they were unable to accept a particular candidate. My point was that if that sort of negotiation had taken place it would not have been necessary to apply the veto publicly, as I did. I hope that the hon. Gentleman now understands that.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 29 June 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Disability

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister when he last met representatives of organisations for, and of, disabled people to discuss the need for comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation; when he next plans to meet such representatives; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have had a number of meetings with interested parties. My right hon. Friend, the Minister for Disabled People, has also had a number of such meetings, including one with the all-party disablement group on 15 March. He keeps me fully informed of the issues which are discussed.

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government in relation to access by disabled people to buildings open to the public; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Baldry : I have been asked to reply.

    Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 oblige those who provide buildings which are visited by members of the public to make provision for disabled people. In addition, the Government have introduced provisions within building regulations for the benefit of such people. These provisions apply predominantly to new buildings and some extensions.