The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Author: admin

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Opening of Strabane Police Station – 7 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the opening of a new police station at Strabane, made on Wednesday 7th April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say how pleased I am to be here today and to see this remarkable station opened. It is nice to have had the opportunity of being a small part of it and I am very grateful to Tom and to Paddy Mayhew for making sure that that was possible.

    I am grateful to all of you for being here as well today at a time where I believe a lot is happening in Northern Ireland. I spend a great deal of my time, perhaps more I suspect than many of you realise, thinking and talking and wondering about the particular problems and the particular opportunities, for I do not always believe we should talk about problems, that actually exist in Northern Ireland.

    Let me just say a word or two about that that I profoundly believe. For more than 20 years now, far too long a period, the people of Northern Ireland have suffered violence. That is a very long time indeed and after so long I think there are some dangers that we need to guard against. We need to guard in particular against the danger that violence will become to be accepted as a natural way of life, we ought never to accept that. There is a danger that people will give up struggling against it, that they will lose hope in their efforts to stop it, that they will cease to believe that we can solve Northern Ireland’s problems by constitutional means.

    If people did believe that, if there were people who for a millisecond were tempted to believe that, I suspect the events of the last three weeks must have shaken that feeling. The tragedies we have seen here and the tragedies we have seen on the mainland in England I believe have shocked people into thinking afresh about the situation. Those tragedies have sunk into the national consciousness in a way that many other events perhaps sometimes do not. They fuelled a demand for an end to what most people perceive as the defenceless slaughter that you have had to endure in Northern Ireland for too long.

    Moods can be transitory. There have been times in the past when people have come together, only then to fall apart, times when they have made very determined efforts which for one reason or another have not yet then succeeded. I do not believe we should be discouraged by that. I do not believe we can afford to be the prisoner of past failures. Surely, in the light of the progress made in the talks over recent months, in the light of the events of recent weeks, surely now is the time for everyone who is concerned about Northern Ireland to think again about its future, its prospects and the way in which we secure a firm, peaceful future for all the people who live here.

    Let me set out for you what that means for the British government. It means several things. It means absolutely no reduction whatsoever in our willingness to confront terrorism. Our opposition to terrorism remains implacable and will do so for as long as terrorism exists. Bringing it to an end is our first priority in Northern Ireland and we will continue to be totally unrelenting in pursuit of those who plant bombs, who maim, who intimidate, who trade sectarian murders or who attack the security forces.

    Nor does it mean that the will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland can ever be overridden. We have given our guarantee and no-one should doubt that guarantee. Northern

    Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for so long as that remains the wish of the majority of people who live here. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that reflects the will of its people, we support that and we will continue to defend it.

    Those are not casual points, they are fundamental points of principle for the British government, they are widely supported, they do not stand in the way of progress. What they do, I believe, is to define how we move forward.

    So how do we move forward? Where does progress lie at present? I believe the way ahead is clearer than many people may imagine. Self-evidently, the people of Northern Ireland want tranquillity, they want peace, the people of the Republic of Ireland want peace, the people of Britain want peace, they are calling for it, they are demonstrating for it and no-one should doubt the depth of the feeling that exists in every part of the United Kingdom.

    We have heard some very fine words, moving words, over the past three weeks and they are very welcome. But let me say something about that. I think that people in Northern Ireland want, expect and deserve more than moving words from their political leaders. They surely want their leaders, all of us, to take action, to assume responsibility, to have the courage to show flexibility. We already have a vehicle for dialogue. Much was achieved in the talks initiated by Peter Brooke and carried forward by Paddy Mayhew. But the participants to those talks have not met since last November. I have to say to you today, that delay has been far too long. The dialogue between the constitutional parties and the British and the Irish governments must be resumed and the sooner it is resumed the better it will be.

    And when it is resumed, when people talk again, the participants must be prepared to move away from entrenched positions, there must be a greater willingness on all sides to show flexibility in return for flexibility. And in this context I have been encouraged by recent statements about Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution and I welcome, without reservation, such readiness to contemplate constitutional change in the context of an overall settlement.

    I spoke, and I spoke deliberately, over the last few minutes of the constitutional parties. There are those who stand in the way of that progress and our position on them has not changed at all. Those who use violence for political aims exclude themselves by their own actions. And if they wish to be taken into account, the choice lies entirely in their own hands. They must demonstrate, they must demonstrate to the satisfaction of people who are rightly sceptical that they have turned their backs on violence clearly, unequivocally and irrevocably. They can do that, but only they can do that, and I hope that they will.

    I have spoken also in the last few minutes of what I believe the people want. But there is I believe another vital element to peace and it is this. Steadily, without great fanfares, significant progress is being made to heal divisions in the community. Far too little acknowledgement has been given to the remarkable amount of work that has been done by many people, often unknown, often unsung, over the period of the last few years. But that work is valuable, it is changing the hearts and minds of people who live in every part of the Province and it is affecting the instincts and feelings of people who live in other parts of the United Kingdom.

    The government has played its part, it has legislated to remove discrimination for example in employment matters. It has adopted the toughest such law in Europe and I can promise you today that it will continue by all the means at its disposal to seek to develop greater trust between the two parts of the community to lay the widest possible foundation for progress at the constitutional level.

    I want the dialogue, the dialogue between the constitutional parties and the two governments, to be resumed as soon as possible. So, I know, does the Irish government. So, I believe, do the overwhelming majority of the people of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland. The Secretary of State and I will therefore be proposing an early start to further talks, involving the four parties and the two governments. When they talk we will put proposals before the participants. We must press ahead.

    There are, I believe, grounds for hope. People are repelled by violence and I believe also that they are frustrated, deeply frustrated, by political stalemate. There is an opportunity at the moment to catch the mood, to achieve a political accommodation. We must ask today for everyone involved potentially in those talks, for everyone in the community to have the courage to take the opportunity that may exist in the hope that those talks can move forward and end the political stalemate and the difficulties that people have faced in this province for so long.

    Let me just end with this thought. Every time I come here to Northern Ireland and I have the opportunity to meet people, not just the opinion-formers, but often people who express just their own personal private view when I meet them, I am struck by several things. I am struck by their optimism about the future for this part of the United Kingdom, I am struck by their courage, I am struck by the determination that they have to safeguard the things of value to themselves, to safeguard the matters of interest to themselves. Those family matters – education, health – all those things that affect families in every part of the United Kingdom, they want to sweep aside these troubles that have laid so many difficulties upon the people of Northern Ireland and have distracted so much from the opportunities that exist in Northern Ireland over the last 20 – 25 years.

    I said a moment or so ago there was an opportunity, it is an opportunity for the people, for the people to make it clear to the politicians that they want progress and an opportunity for the politicians to listen to what they are saying, perhaps to take the risks that are necessary, to have the courage to show the flexibility that is necessary to see if we can move from the past impasse that existed for so long and build on the success of the talks over the past two years or so.

    Do not under-estimate what has already been achieved, but what has already been achieved is a beginning, it is a springboard to what still can be achieved for the people of Northern Ireland and all Ireland. Those are the opportunities that lie ahead for us. If we look at those opportunities I hope we will have the courage to take them.

    Being here today, looking at this remarkable building, and I congratulate without reservation those who conceived it, those who have built it and those who work in it protecting from ordinary crime and extraordinary crime the people who live in this area.

    When one sees this one sees the changing circumstances of Northern Ireland and the opportunities that exist for the future, I would simply say this. I am pleased to be here today, I am proud to be here today and I look forward to coming back again at some stage in the future when I talk to you just about the domestic problems that you face and no longer have to talk to you about that dark shadow of terrorism that has hung over this province for so long. When I come back on that occasion that will be an especially sweet visit and I hope it will not be too long delayed. Thank you for your hospitality today.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Manchester Chamber of Commerce – 2 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, held on 2nd April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you for your warm welcome. I am delighted to be here. 250 years ago Daniel Defoe called Manchester “the greatest village in the country”.

    Today it is a great city of Europe. That is not politician’s wholesale civility. This is the city of English commerce. This is Brindley and Crompton country: where faster transport met an eightfold increase in yarn and cloth production. Together that sparked the Industrial Revolution and sold shirts to the world!

    But why is it a great city? Because leading not following, Manchester has changed with the times. We all face a similar challenge. “The times, they are a’ changing”. In our interests we must lead that change and fast.

    The captive market is an inscription on a headstone. And the lordly assumption that it is a privilege to buy from the British has passed into history. Japan and the countries of the Pacific rim are giant manufacturing powers. China is set to become a huge industrial power. That’s the competition; so let’s not flinch, let’s not run. Our job is to beat the competition.

    So we must not make the mistake of falling for the alternative to complacency, the British gift for graceful despair. We can compete brilliantly and we are now well placed to win in the world’s market place. Step back a moment from the painful necessities of the last two years and consider the position today. Listen, please, to the scores Britain chalks up and you don’t hear enough about:

    – we have inflation below 2%, better than most of the European Community and most of the G7;

    – we have a highly competitive exchange rate;

    – interest rates are the lowest in the European Community and the lowest for 15 years

    We have not seen that combination for nearly 40 years. I believe industry and commerce have recognised that reality better than many others:

    – manufacturing output is up, so is investment;

    – productivity is rising fast;

    – you have kept wage costs competitive – doing better than Germany or Japan, better than any time for a generation.

    As the Chancellor said earlier this week, Britain is set for two years or solid growth, growth that is the fastest in the European Community big league. We have every reason to be confident about our economic prospects.

    We said low inflation would bring recovery. We brought inflation down. Recovery is now following as we said it would. Yesterday’s news that unemployment has fallen, fallen for the second month running is very welcome news. Welcome that it has fallen in every region. Welcome for the 50,000 people that Britain has put back to work this year. More businesses are beginning to take people on again and job vacancies are rising. All that can only add to confidence.

    The recovery will benefit every bit of Manchester’s increasingly broad-based economy. A diversified and successful base that is represented here so well tonight. Your region’s service sector is vital to the nation as a whole – and, as an employer, your financial and business services alone provide work for nearly a quarter of a million people. More, now that Mercury is bringing an extra 500 jobs.

    And Manchester is the student capital of Britain, leading the way in the sciences and technologies we will need for tomorrow. Three universities, a world-renowned business school, UMIST, you name it.

    That’s not just an investment for the future. Education is a key part of the service economy of today. A service economy that is also showing its paces abroad.

    The North West Chambers show that service exports have sharply improved over the last quarter. I applaud that. If the recovery is to last and prosperity to grow, we have to win and continue to win right across the market place. Vital though services are to our prosperity, we cannot depend on them alone. We need a vibrant, thriving manufacturing base.

    So, Mr President, I want to say a few words about the importance of manufacturing and just a bit about our export success.

    The British have managed a fanfare without trumpets. We are exporting more now than at any time in our history. But in the export market we operate like Jeeves – we just shimmer silently! We export discreetly. We don’t tell anyone; it might give offence. But I think we should.

    We British export £400 per person per year more than the Japanese: £1,800 for every man, woman and child, compared with £1,400 for the Japanese. What are we to do with the Gordon Glooms who always say British industry is crumbling? Listen, in financial services, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, the water industry, power generation, areas of food processing, the drinks industry, garments, aerospace and defence equipment, the oil and gas industry, mining equipment, biotechnology and international construction, we lead the pack.

    British companies account for ten out of the top European twenty companies by profitability and eleven out of the top twenty by size. And though the trade gap is still too wide, we are seriously engaging with the competition. We export televisions to Germany, lace to Brussels, cosmetics to the French, cars to Japan, and with a brass neck which would have delighted Richard Arkwright, we sell pizzas to Italy! The balance of trade in the motor industry will be revolutionised over the next few years; in partnership, of course, rightly in partnership, joining and beating!

    What about the future? Well, I’m a fairly tolerant soul. But I’ll tell you one thing I don’t like. I don’t like to see British manufacturers retreating from the field. I don’t like to see imports monopolising markets. I don’t like to hear defeatists say that radios or kitchen equipment just can’t be made in Britain. Some people said Britain couldn’t stay in computers. Yet today, more than one in every ten PCs made around the world is actually manufactured in this country. We sell £400 million worth of computers a year to the USA; and our software businesses are recognised everywhere. Britain’s car industry has turned retreat into triumph.

    Other industries can do the same. And retailers can help them – by looking for good British products and offering them to consumers. Not in rejection of good imported products – but in proper competition with them. Defeatism is most damaging when buyers and retailers won’t even look for a good British source of supply. Now British industry is becoming ever more competitive, there is every good business reason to seek out the home talent.

    And why is it so many people have such a low view of manufacturing? I think part of this comes from the outdated image of manufacturing as an employer of large numbers of unskilled people, in sprawling plants, doing heavy manual work: – the ancient, mythical world of the Cloggit and Thump brass hammer works! That’s not a low view of manufacturing, it’s a low understanding. Reality, manufacturing reality is more like the British Aerospace works I saw today; or the factory just 30 miles from Manchester I saw the last time I was here, a factory spinning optical fibres. Modern, expanding, sharp, the biggest producer outside American and selling to the world. These are great symbols but we want more than symbols. We want fast-breeder replication – more, more, more!

    The Need for Competitiveness

    Improving competitiveness is the key to expanding our manufacturing base. We know that when we’ve manufactured we can sell. As recovery picks up we must make sure there are more and more British goods for customers to buy of the quality and price they want to buy.

    There is one other danger waiting. Time and again since the war exports have gone up in recession but when the recovery came companies abandoned the export drive for the warm, debilitating huddle of the home market. Well that must not happen this time. We’re determined to build on our export success. That is why, in the Autumn Statement and the Budget, the Chancellor increased export credit and cut its cost to business. You keep exporting. We’ll keep supporting.

    Success requires continuous effort, continuous improvement. We cannot let up. Manchester knows something about this. The fourth generation mill-owners who bought shooting estates, lived in Surrey and wouldn’t replace old machinery, the soft and selfish gentlemen-manufacturers, very nearly destroyed Lancashire. Let us remember them in order not to be like them. Chance not decay must be our creed.

    Let me make it clear. I believe that the Government has a duty to work with industry to help industry meet the challenge. Not Whitehall picking winners, the winners picking themselves and Government helping them heart and soul.

    Everything we do has to be supportive of you. We want less of a tax burden on the profits that you need for investment. That’s why we’re pressing down on public expenditure.

    It is why we have to give priority within that spending to infrastructure projects which spell business. Manchester’s own Metrolink is a very real example. So is the Channel tunnel rail link, so is the Forth crossing in Edinburgh.

    It’s why we were reforming education. That’s what tests in schools are about: to find out what the children know and what they don’t. Because we need to know what they don’t know so we can teach them what they should know. They deserve the best, they need the test. You need the best, working for you.

    That’s why we’re doing more than ever before for good vocational training. To give our youngsters the best possible start in the best possible jobs. A recipe for the best possible success for Britain.

    It’s why science is a Cabinet job and why we are overhauling what we do on science and innovation to ensure Britain’s effort and brainpower backs industrial success.

    It’s why in the Budget we’re given extra help to Britain’s exporters, why we’ve cut businesses’ rate burden and cut ACT to boost business cash flow by £2 billion.

    And when we have winners we support them everywhere. I did it recently in India and in the Gulf. British firms had done the work. Government helped unlock the contracts. £5 billion worth of orders and 20,000 jobs safeguarded for years to come. I saw the fruits of the partnership earlier today when I met the Gulf Tornado builders at BAe, Warton. I and my colleagues will give that backing. So must all our Embassies throughout the world. Graceful manners and an elegant understanding are surprisingly well suited to the indispensable arts of trade. Pour them out the gins and tonics by all means, but then sell them both bottles.

    Winning back lost markets is the only long term policy for British industry – for the whole economy. And manufacturing is the soldier in the front line of that struggle.

    Making a Success of Europe

    Mr President, over recent months there has been a tiny frisson of controversy over our European policy. Let me set out my position clearly.

    Commercial success starts on our own doorstep. And our doorstep is Europe.

    When Europe walks, it walks in shoes exported from Manchester. The new rail terminal at Charles de Gaulle is work done in Bolton.

    The cocktail chatter is that the Government is too obsessed ith Maastricht, when we should be concentrating on jobs. In what world are such people living? Jobs and sales are what being in the heart of Europe is about. What made possible the vast expansion in small and medium sized businesses and new jobs in the 1980s? Where did they find their main export markets? In Europe, overwhelmingly. An example: a Leyland company went into Europe a few years back with one Chesterfield in the back of an estate car. In the single market it now does a million pounds of business.

    Have your reservations, by all means. No-one says Europe is perfect. But that story tells why we are there. Since we joined, our exports to it have grown nearly 50 per cent faster than those of our old EFTA partners. That is almost £20 billion last year, 20 exports billions worth of jobs. No wonder the Scandinavians and the Austrians wish to join the Community. What an irony that a nation which sought trade when Tuscan merchants bought raw wool in the Cotswold in 1370 should contemplate holding back from the richest free trade market of them all.

    The Chambers of Commerce understand the importance of Europe to Britain’s trading strategy and of the Maastricht process to that strategy. The President of your Association, Christopher Stewart-Smith – who is here this evening – wrote to me recent specifically to support what we are doing. Let me quote:

    “Those who suggest we have gone far enough with the single European Act are making a mistake that British business cannot afford. Businesses do not want to see the clock turned back, nor would they welcome the reintroduction of new non tariff barriers. Britain needs the commitment to subsidiarity to avoid unnecessary interference in domestic issues”.

    That, Christopher, is it – between the eyes! That is the message business should give to doubters about our commitment to Europe. Maastricht opens the way to the sort of Community we want. Taking that essential step away from centralisation, we gain the benefits of the single market without the drawbacks. At the end of the inky labyrinth of Treaty sub-clauses is a trading Europe. First and last and especially here in Manchester, that is what we want, a trading Europe.

    Yesterday, in the House of Commons, we finished the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill. Let us now finish the Bill and get on with the job of building prosperity for Britain in Europe.

    One Stop Shops

    Let me say a word about the Chambers of Commerce movement. It is already helping its members win markets. But I think it can do more. I would welcome a bigger billing for the Chambers. It can only help for businessmen to swap ideas and learn from each other. I would like Government to develop the same relationship with the Chambers as with the CBI. The One Stop Shop Initiative is a tangible sign. And naturally, Manchester has won the bid to be one of the pilots.

    Manchester’s Olympic Opportunity

    Here in Manchester this evening one other issue commands me like a referee’s whistle – the city’s bid for the Olympics.

    Manchester’s bid goes beyond pleasing discus-fanciers. Building the Olympic facilities and hosting the games should generate £4 billion of new spending in the region and make 11,000 jobs. But better yet, it will be a shop window beyond dreams. The world would see what North West England has to offer. Manchester is already 8th in the European league of Best Cities in which to locate a business. But it can move up. I know, and everyone here knows, that Manchester has ambitions to be top of the league.

    So the Government is shouting (and finessing) for Manchester’s bid. We have put up £75 million for the bid and for the initial construction programme. That starts with the Olympic Arena and the National Cycling centre. We are providing some £40 million funding towards the regeneration of East Manchester this year. And we are backing Manchester’s bid by enduring that all the necessary facilities can be built. A state of the art Olympics for the start of the new millennium: where better than here in Britain, in Manchester?

    I am honoured to play my part. Together with Craig Reedie of the BOA and Bob Scott – who has done wonderful things for Manchester – I pressed the city’s case to the President of the IOC just a couple of weeks ago. No-one can be sure what will lie in the minds of the IOC when they vote to decide the location. Because of what has already been done, Manchester is one of the three hot favourites. Beijing and Sydney will make their pitch, but nothing that can be done for Manchester will be left undone.

    This bid and the great works that accompany it, are just one sign that Manchester has kept all its flair. Much of the rest of the world may still be going into recession. We are coming out of recession. And we have the edge: low inflation, rising competitiveness. We need the Manchester touch for the great things which are pending.

    It was Manchester which took raw cotton from Smyrna, sold it to the fast-bobbin men in Oldham, and the power-loom men in Preston. Then it sold cheap cotton cloth to the world. Manchester knows what must be done. So does the Government. United, we can do it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 April 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Environment

    Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister in how many instances papers for Cabinet and for ministerial committees have included a note of significant costs or benefits to the environment, during the course of the past year.

    The Prime Minister : “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”, published in May 1992, states that memoranda circulated to Cabinet or a ministerial committee should, where appropriate, cover any significant costs or benefits to the environment–paragraph 1.2. I do not propose to give details of papers considered by Cabinet or Cabinet Committees.

     

    Nuclear Proliferation

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what matters in regard to the control of nuclear proliferation were discussed at his meeting with the President of Turkmenistan on 29 March.

    The Prime Minister : During our discussions President Niyazov confirmed to me that all nuclear weapons had been withdrawn from Turkmenistan, in accordance with an agreement between Turkemenistan and Russia.

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed (a) the prospects of Pakistan joining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and (b) the risks of nuclear proliferation in Asia during his meeting with his Pakistani counterpart on 29 March.

    The Prime Minister : Nawaz Sharif and I discussed these matters briefly. The Pakistan Government are well aware of our views.

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 29 March, Official Report, column 46, if he will set out the reasons underlying the assessment of the indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty as being in the interests of all signatories.

    The Prime Minister : The prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is vital to the security of the whole world. We believe that the non-proliferation treaty represents the best available means of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and that therefore it is in the interests of all states parties to secure the indefinite extension of the treaty in 1995.

     

    Question Time

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy when announcing his engagements to Parliament in Question Time to give details of the persons he has met and plans to meet and the meetings he has attended and plans to attend that day.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Public Appointments

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister how many of the appointments made by him as listed in “Public Bodies 1992” came within the categories set out in paragraphs 49 and 50 of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”.

    The Prime Minister : Paragraphs 49 and 50 of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” cannot concern such appointments as they cover the need for Ministers to consult me on appointments which they make.

     

    Egypt

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister what levels of United Kingdom aid Egypt will receive during 1993-94; what account, in allocating this aid, is taken of the Egyptian Government’s human rights record; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Current commitments for 1993-94 are some £5.3 million. We are working with the Egyptian Government to develop new projects in support of economic reform, the environment and education. Human rights and good government are factors which the Government take into account in determining their aid policy.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 April 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Regional Government

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards regional government for England.

    The Prime Minister : We see no case for setting up regional authorities in England. Our aim is to simplify and streamline local government, not to impose an additional layer of bureaucracy on local taxpayers.

     

    Liverpool

    Mr. Parry : To ask the Prime Minister how many times he has visited Liverpool since he became Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : I have visited the north-west on a number of occasions since becoming Prime Minister.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

    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.

     

    European Court

    Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 March, Official Report, column 283, what was the average length of time that elapsed between the European Court of Justice finding that Her Majesty’s Government were in breach of its obligations under EC directives and the necessary steps being taken to rectify matters; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 31 March 1993] : Four cases were referred to in my previous reply in which the United Kingdom was held by the European Court of Justice to be in breach of EC directives. Three of these cases required legislative action to give full effect to the judgment of the Court ; this took between six and 14 months to complete. In the fourth case, concerning a breach of directive 80/788–drinking water– when judgment was delivered on 25 November 1992 the UK had already complied on two of the points on which it was found to be in breach. Action on the remaining two points is in hand.

     

    Prime Minister’s Office

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister

    (1) if he will give figures for (a) the number of staff and (b) the cost of the Prime Minister’s office for each year since 1979;

    (2) why the cost and size of the Prime Minister’s office are not separately identified in Cm 2218 the “Government’s Expenditure Plans, 1993-94 to 1995- 96”; and if he will provide figures for its cost and size.

    The Prime Minister : It has not been the general practice to identify the cost of Ministers’ offices separately in departmental reports. The cost and size of my office are freely available in the form of parliamentary answers. The information for each year since 1979-80 is as follows :

    |Staff<1> |Cost<2><3>

    ——————————————–

    1979-80 |68 |1,409

    1980-81 |68 |1,745

    1981-82 |70 |2,415

    1982-83 |64 |2,700

    1983-84 |66 |3,026

    1984-85 |67 |3,787

    1985-86 |66 |4,406

    1986-87 |66 |4,963

    1987-88 |67 |5,418

    1988-89 |67 |6,554

    1989-90 |68 |7,669

    1990-91 |71 |8,226

    1991-92 |73 |8,664

    1992-93 |95 |<4>9,136

    <1> The staffing levels relate to the beginning of each financial year. For the years 1979 to 1989 the figures relate to the number of actual staff employed in No.10. From 1990 onwards the figures are on the basis of staff in post (ie expressed in terms of full time equivalents). It should be noted that the increase in staff numbers from 1 April 1992 is due to the transfer of office service support grades, already working in No. 10, to the No. 10 complement from the Cabinet Office establishment officer’s group.

    <2> The monetary figures represent the cost of 10 Downing Street and Chequers borne on the Votes of the Cabinet Office (OPSS) and its predecessors. Over the period, the following changes have occurred to the basis of the costs:

    in 1981-82 the Ministry of Defence introduced charges for the use of its aircraft;

    in 1983-84 the then Property Services Agency introduced charges for buildings and services;

    in 1984-85 charges were introduced for the Government Car Service and the Service Personnel at Chequers; and

    in 1986-87 the cost of office services was included for the first time.

    <3> Costs are shown in the year in which the expenditure was made. Because of billing delays this is not always in financial year in which the goods or services were provided.

    <4> Estimate.

  • PMQT – 1 April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

     

    Q1. Mr. Mudie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

    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. Mudie : Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Home Affairs Select Committee on its decision to inquire into party political funding? Will he also join the Opposition in urging full co- operation and disclosure–that disclosure to cover items such as the £17 million secretly paid to the Conservatives to cover the cost of the previous election?

    The Prime Minister : Of course the Conservative party will submit a memorandum as requested and will of course be available to submit oral evidence. We have always said that we are consistently opposed to state aid for political parties. If the hon. Gentleman is being so sanctimonious, I hope that he might consider whether his party is truly in favour of state aid or not.

     

    Q2. Mr. Sykes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

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

    Mr. Sykes : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to express his condemnation of the proposed rail strike tomorrow–

    The Prime Minister rose– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Sykes : — and does he agree that the state monopoly should be broken up as soon as possible? Has he noticed, by the way, how many Labour Members have scurried off to their constituencies before their union paymasters go on strike tomorrow?

    The Prime Minister : There is no doubt that it was worth waiting for the rest of my hon. Friend’s question. I entirely agree that the strike is deplorable. What is equally deplorable is the deafening silence from the Opposition who know very well that, when it comes to strikes, they are on strike in terms of condemning them. They are still the strikers’ friends.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister will, I hope, be aware of the deep disquiet in the country about the events in Srebrenica. Does he agree that it is vital that the United Nations is enabled to resume its humanitarian relief convoys as a matter of urgency? Will the Government make it crystal clear to the Serbs that their barbaric disregard for humanity is simply not tolerable?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on both points. We are appalled by the plight of Srebrenica. It is terrible, and we believe that the Serbs must co-operate with the United Nations humanitarian effort. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, British aid workers and British troops have been instrumental in providing more aid in Bosnia than any other country. That is a proud record, and we wish to see it continue. I align myself entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments about Srebrenica.

    Mr. Smith : May I associate the Opposition with the tribute that the Prime Minister paid to British aid workers and British troops, who are performing an invaluable role in assisting the humanitarian effort? But does the Prime Minister accept that if there is to be a lessening of the sickening events involving innocent women and children which, sadly, we have been witnessing on our television screens, sanctions must be applied more comprehensively and effectively against Serbia, and that the international community simply must insist that humanitarian convoys be accompanied by military escorts?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly support the idea that there should be much stricter enforcement of sanctions ; we would be perfectly prepared to contemplate the widening of sanctions as well as the stricter enforcement of existing sanctions. That matter is under discussion between our allies and ourselves at the moment.

    Mr. Fry : As we enter the era of the council tax, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Conservative-controlled Wellingborough borough council, which is to levy an average tax of £177–by far the lowest in the country? Is that not a wonderful achievement, considering that services have not been cut, and is it not the clearest possible signal to the electorate of this country to vote Conservative in this year’s local government elections?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that there is widespread understanding around the country that the council tax is the fairest method that we have yet had of dealing with local government finance. Not only that, but those people who are fortunate enough to have a Conservative council will find that, band for band, they will pay less council tax than those whose council is Labour controlled.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister not realise that being appalled by Srebrenica is not good enough? Being appalled by Srebrenica will not save a single life. The question is what the Prime Minister and the British Government intend to do about Srebrenica. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that town and its 60,000 Muslim inhabitants are designated by the Vance-Owen plan as part of the Muslim territory. Will he therefore recommend to other western powers that we protect Srebrenica from being annihilated by the Serbs–or is this to be yet another example of our standing by the side, wringing our hands and saying that nothing can be done until it is too late for anything to be done?

    The Prime Minister : I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will weigh carefully what he says on that matter, because I think that what he has said will be deeply offensive to the 2,300 troops that we have in Bosnia, to their families and to the many other people who are concerned about their safety there. They are doing a magnificent job ; in many ways we have led the assistance being given to all parts of Bosnia over recent months. We strongly welcome the Security Council resolution enforcing the no-fly zone. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will have more to say about that after Question Time.

    Mr. Page : May I make my right hon. Friend aware that the trustees of the Maxwell pension fund will meet later this month to discuss the common investment fund, which now stands at about £180 million? I urge him to contact those trustees and beg them to have a distribution or a partial distribution of that fund so that, in conjunction with the Cuckney fund, the pensioners can be paid while the missing millions are traced and a long-term solution is put in place.

    The Prime Minister : I certainly join my hon. Friend in urging the trustees and the liquidator of the common investment fund to restore advance payments as soon as possible. I understand the difficulties, and I hope that the trustees will be able to respond.

     

    War Crimes (Yugoslavia)

    Q3. Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the leaders of other member states of the Security Council of the United Nations to discuss the implementation of UN resolution 808 ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The United Nations Secretary-General is due to produce a report by the end of April on the most effective and rapid means of establishing an ad hoc tribunal. United Nations member states have been invited to contribute views on an informal basis. Several states, including the United Kingdom, have so contributed.

    Dr. Godman : This is the first time since Nuremberg and Tokyo that an international war crimes tribunal has been set up. Unlike Nuremberg and Tokyo, however, is it not likely that the implementation of United Nations resolution 808 will turn out to be an exercise in futility? Has not the United States State Department already labelled those murderous leaders, Milosevic and Karadzic, as potential war criminals? Are they to be granted immunity from war crimes proceedings? Who will apprehend the criminals? Will British soldiers be involved? Will British police officers and lawyers be involved? It is surely a charade.

    The Prime Minister : I do not believe that it will be an exercise in futility. There are complex matters of international law to be determined, which are still under discussion within the United Nations, but it is intended, where possible, to ensure that people who commit war crimes face a tribunal and are punished satisfactorily and suitably.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Hendry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

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

    Mr. Hendry : My right hon. Friend will be aware of the opposition of the police, my constituents and myself to the proposed all-night rave scheduled to take place in my constituency at the end of May. Does he agree that such events have less to do with entertainment than with organised crime and pushing illegal and dangerous drugs? Does he agree that the High Peak, as one of the most popular national parks in the world, is a wholly unsuitable venue for such an event? May I assure him that he has the support of the Conservative side of the House for the Government’s proposal to give the police more power to tackle these people? Will he ensure that the measures are brought forward as soon as possible?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend touches on a point which will concern many parents. The statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary yesterday shows beyond doubt that the Government are determined to crack down on those who ignore the rights and property of law -abiding citizens. It is wholly unacceptable behaviour. That is why we are giving the police tougher powers to deal with it.

    Mr. Simpson : Is the Prime Minister aware of the report recently highlighted in the Nottingham Evening Post, which illustrated that claims for severe hardship payments had increased in the east midlands by over 750 per cent. in the last three years, leaving large numbers of young people with no jobs, no cash and no hope? Will he explain how he has failed to deliver jobs to those young people and when will he restore entitlement to benefit payments to them?

    The Prime Minister : I should mention to the hon. Gentleman that payments from the social fund could not have been made until we introduced the legislation to do so. No such comparable payments existed. As for jobs, it is interesting to note that for the first time in several weeks–in fact, since the unemployment figures fell last time–an Opposition Member has mentioned unemployment. We continue to take measures which will seek to increase jobs for all sectors of the community.

     

    Q5. Mr. Kynoch : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

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

    Mr. Kynoch : I welcome the support given to small businesses in the recent Budget. Is my right hon. Friend aware that my area of Scotland has benefited significantly from the oil and gas industry, and in particular from oil exploration in the North Sea? Is he further aware that the changes in petroleum revenue tax have provoked enormous support from my constituents? Will he ensure that the transition to what many oil companies regard as a better low tax regime is smooth and does not cause undue disturbance and disruption in the industry in the meantime?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend will know, many people have welcomed the changes in taxes, not least because of the big encouragement to development that is clearly evident in the new structure. That development will create future jobs, a matter which every hon. Member is concerned about. I take the figures from memory, but I seem to recall that in the year 1991-92 the previous petroleum revenue tax system actually cost the taxpayer £200 million net.

    Mr. William Ross : Has the Prime Minister noticed that the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic said that the idea that the Republic was a haven for terrorists is a fallacy? Does he understand that my constituents were surprised about that until they realised that today is the first day of April?

    The Prime Minister : I know that the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about the matter, but I must say to him that he should not confuse the actions of a minority with the views and instincts of the majority of people. I do not believe that the majority of people in the Republic of Ireland support the activities of the IRA, and I believe that their response to recent events is a clear illustration that that is the case. I hope and believe that the vast majority of people in the Republic of Ireland will join the hon. Gentleman and every other hon. Member in the House in condemning the IRA and all its murderous activities.

     

    Q6. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

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

    Mr. Amess : As we approach the first anniversary of the re-election of my right hon. Friend’s Government, does the Prime Minister recall that only four weeks after that event a Conservative council was elected in Basildon? What conclusions does my right hon. Friend draw from the fact that, under the council tax, Conservative Basildon will, for the first time, not be capped while nearby socialist-controlled Harlow district council will be?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend has made a profession of making Basildon world famous and is doing it remarkably well. As it is also the anniversary of my hon. Friend’s re-election, I offer him my congratulations on that. When he won, we knew that we had won, and it was an especially sweet victory.

    It is no coincidence that a Conservative council produces a lower council tax charge than a Labour council. That is what we would expect. That is what we see in Conservative councils up and down the country at all levels of the council tax.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 31 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Public Appointments

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the report of the review of public appointments.

    The Prime Minister : I will arrange for a copy of the latest report of the review of public appointments (1989) to be placed in the Library of the House.

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will now publish the report of the Central Policy Review Staff in 1973 on the system of public appointments.

    The Prime Minister : I do not know of such a report. The hon. Member may have in mind an inter-departmental working party of officials in 1974 which studied certain aspects of appointments in the public sector. Their advice recommended the establishment of the public appointments unit. I will arrange for a copy of the working party’s report to be placed in the Library of the House.

     

    Non-departmental Public Bodies

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those non- departmental public bodies which (a) have been abolished since 1979 and (b) have been established since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : A full list of non-departmental public bodies in existence for each year since 1979 is available in the following publications : “Report on Non-Departmental Public Bodies” (Pliatzky Report, Cmnd 7797, January 1980), “Non-Departmental Public Bodies : Facts and Figures 1980”, “Non-Departmental Public Bodies : Facts and Figures 1981”, and “Public Bodies” published annually from 1982. Copies of these publications are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

    For each year since 1986, a press notice has listed separately public bodies which have been created and abolished. Copies are being sent to the hon. Member, and to the Libraries of both Houses. Such summary data for the years 1979 to 1985 do not exist, and could be reconstructed only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Coal Industry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on 25 March, Official Report, column 1223, if he will set out a detailed itemised breakdown of the annual expenditure of £18 billion invested in the British coal industry since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : Grant aid made available to the coal industry since 1979 is set out in the table :

    Grants<1> to British Coal and payments under the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme<2>

    Financial year |Deficit & Deficiency Grants |Operating Grants |Social & Restructuring Grants |Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme |Total

    |£ million |£ million |£ million |£ million |£ million

    ————————————————————————————————————————————-

    1979-80 |159 |30 |62 |15 |266

    1980-81 |149 |26 |79 |15 |269

    1981-82 |428 |27 |120 |48 |623

    1982-83 |374 |12 |134 |80 |600

    1983-84 |875 |- |270 |190 |1,335

    1984-85 |2,225 |- |189 |200 |2,614

    1985-86 |50 |- |513 |563 |1,126

    1986-87 |288 |- |594 |610 |1,492

    1987-88 |200 |- |477 |295 |972

    1988-89 |0 |- |297 |168 |465

    1989-90 |6,153 |- |1,090 |126 |7,369

    1990-91 |0 |- |141 |93 |234

    1991-92 |0 |- |457 |61 |518

    1992-93<3> |0 |- |622 |43 |665

    |——- |——- |——- |——- |——-

    Total |10,901 |95 |5,045 |2,507 |18,548

    <1> Grants to British Coal are at outturn prices, on an accruals basis, taken from British Coal’s Annual Report and Accounts.

    <2> Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme. Figures exclude administration costs.

    <3> 1992-93 figures provisional.

     

    Nuclear Tests

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 March, Official Report, column 467, if it is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy that a cessation of United Kingdom underground nuclear tests is dependent on the negotiations of a comprehensive test ban treaty.

    The Prime Minister : Our policy has always been to keep our testing programme to the minimum necessary to maintain the safety and credibility of our deterrent. In the absence of a comprehensive test ban, whether we continued to test would naturally depend on our needs at the time, and whether they could be met by means other than testing. We believe any restraints on testing should be negotiated and verifiable.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect on the United Kingdom of legal and other restrictions applying to states to prevent their conducting nuclear tests.

    The Prime Minister : The effect would depend on the scope and nature of such restrictions. If backed by effective verification and inspection mechanisms they could play a useful part in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime. In our approach to these issues we shall be seeking an outcome which ensures this objective is achieved, but which enables us to maintain the safety and credibility of our deterrent.

     

    Council Tax (Care Homes)

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what consultation there has been between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health on the imposition of council tax on charitable residential care accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The two Departments have discussed a number of representations which have argued that residential care homes should be exempted from the council tax. Care homes will receive a number of reliefs, which will together mean that their council tax bills will be small. These bills represent a reasonable contribution to the cost of the local authority services from which care homes and their residents benefit.

     

    Security Service

    Mr. Hayes : To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Security Service Act 1989 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : A copy of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s third annual report, for 1992, has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 4(6) of the Security Service Act 1989. The confidential appendix to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 4(7) of the 1989 Act. I am grateful to the commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants and in providing assistance to the tribunal as provided in the Act. I note that he is satisfied that the Secretaries of State have properly exercised their powers under the Act and that the arrangements in force for ensuring that the service discloses information only in accordance with the provisions of the 1989 Act are working satisfactorily.

     

    Interception of Communications

    Mr. Hayes : To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : A copy of the right hon. Sir Thomas Bingham’s first report, covering 1992, has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(7) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The confidential appendix to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(8) of the 1985 Act. I am grateful to the commissioner for his report. I note in particular his observations that the Secretaries of State take great care to satisfy themselves that the warrants are necessary for the purposes stated in the Act, and that the system for the issue of warrants is working as intended by Parliament.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 30 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Mr. Ghazanfer Ali

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 March, Official Report , column 34 , what information he has received about the outcome of court proceedings in Pakistan concerning Mr. Ghazanfer Ali.

    The Prime Minister : The two murder charges facing Mr. Ghanzanfer Ali were heard on 13 and 14 March. Both cases were adjourned until 8 and 12 April. We shall continue to watch developments.

     

    World Forestry Organisation

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what representation he has had from Professor Ingvar Carlsson, former Prime Minister of Sweden, on the establishment of a world forestry organisation; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : None. Ambassador Ola Ullsten announced at the recent global forestry conference in Indonesia an initiative to establish a world commission on forestry and sustainable development. The Ministers concerned know of the initiative and expect to receive more information about it shortly.

     

    Equal Opportunities

    Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to recruit women, members of ethnic minorities and disabled people respectively in top grades of employment at the Cabinet Office.

    The Prime Minister : Recruits to the senior grades, as to any grade in the civil service, are selected on merit on the basis of fair and open competition, unless one of the exceptions permitted under the Civil Service Order in Council 1991 applies. Various steps have been taken by the civil service commissioners to aid recruitment from all sectors of the community, including : extending links with institutions of higher education; equal opportunities training for all those involved in selection; using validated section procedures.

    The Cabinet office, which has signed up domestically to Opportunity 2000, is working towards achieving the civil service-wide benchmark of increasing the proportion of women in the top three grades to 15 per cent. or more by the year 2000. The Department continually seeks to encourage the employment of people from the ethnic minorities and those with disabilities.

    Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister when the Cabinet Office last conducted surveys of (a) ethnic origins and (b) the number women among its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : A survey of the ethnic origins of all non-industrial civil servants was completed in 1988. The Cabinet Office introduced a computerised personnel database in 1991. All staff were given the opportunity to update their own entries, which include sections on ethnic origins. All new staff are given the opportunity to complete an ethnic monitoring questionnaire. There are no firm plans to conduct further surveys. The sex of employees is identified in staff records.

  • PMQT – 30 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

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

    Mr. Pawsey : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the British people are becoming increasingly fed up with the unlawful activities– [Interruption.] –with the unlawful activities of French farmers and French fishermen? Does he further agree with me that their actions are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom, its people and our trade?

    The Prime Minister : I think that it is true that the recent action by French farmers and fishermen is totally unacceptable. I am sure that the whole House will have seen that the French ambassador made clear yesterday beyond doubt his condemnation of their activity in the clearest possible terms. I very much welcome that. My hon. Friend may also know that the French authorities have undertaken to provide safe passage for any consignments of which we notify them. We are pursuing the recent fisheries- related incidents actively with the French authorities and we look to them to restore order, to bring the perpetrators to book and to guarantee unfettered access.

    Mr. John Smith : I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate the British film industry on its further success in winning five Oscars last night. Does the Prime Minister not agree that our film industry could be even more successful if it received the same backing and support from Government as do its competitors in other countries?

    The Prime Minister : The success of the British film industry in the private sector owes a great deal to the fact that it is in the private sector, and to the individual skills of writers, actors and directors.

    Mr. Smith : Does not the Prime Minister understand that the number of films made in Britain has plummeted from 50 to 12, and that the minimal help offered to the industry in last year’s budget does not in any way make up for the abolition of capital allowances, the Eady levy or the malign effect of the Broadcasting Act 1990? Does the Prime Minister not understand that if real encouragement were given to the industry, we could increase jobs and overseas earnings?

    The Prime Minister : Once again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman equates real encouragement with the spending in subsidy of taxpayers’ money without giving any indication of whether there would be corresponding reductions elsewhere–an increase in borrowing and perhaps higher interest rates or higher taxation. When he asks for more expenditure, he owes it to the public to say from where the money is coming.

    Mr. Smith : But does the Prime Minister not understand that we have in this country a fabulous pool of talent in our film industry– [Interruption.] This is a serious subject.

    Madam Speaker : Order. These interruptions are a total waste of the time of the House. In addition, they are an abuse of the House. The House will now come to order.

    Mr. Smith : It is remarkable that Conservative Members find it a matter of humour when we are talking about jobs, British films and overseas earnings. Does the Prime Minister not understand that a modest investment in our industry would give us a huge return in employment and vital overseas earnings?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on one point, which is that our arts generally–I include the film industry in that–are among the best, if not the best, in the world. That has repeatedly been shown to be the case. I hope that, in the light of that, he and his hon. Friends will support the National Lottery Etc. Bill, which provides greater support for the arts than ever before.

    Mr. Coe : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the dramatic reduction, announced only a couple of days ago, in the number of cot deaths in this country, of about 60 per cent. in the first nine months of this year? Does he agree that that is testimony to sensitively targeted health education, “The Health of the Nation” strategy and the Anne Diamond campaign?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend has put his finger on the key reasons for that. It is a very remarkable achievement and I am delighted about it, as everybody else will be. I wholeheartedly congratulate both Anne Diamond and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the measures they have taken.

     

    Q2. Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

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

    Mr. Kirkwood : Now that the Prime Minister is himself a year and a day closer to collecting his old age pension, he may be interested to know that the Post Office is at the moment considering plans which could remove entitlement by pensioners to collect their pension payments by way of DSS giro over post office counters. Is he aware that post offices derive 30 or 40 per cent. of their total income from those transactions and that any alternative method of payment–perhaps by way of banks or building societies–could eventually lead to a charge being made for the payment of that service? Will the Prime Minister summon the Ministers involved in those discussions, irrespective of what other damage or problems may flow from the privatisation of the Post Office, and make it clear to them and the House that the payment of pensions by means of automated credit transfer will not be made compulsory?

    The Prime Minister : I am well aware of the sensitivity of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and it is one of many matters that will need to be considered in the future.

    Mr. Harris : The whole House will have welcomed my right hon. Friend’s remarks regarding the dispute with France. Will he go further and make it perfectly clear to his opposite number, the French Prime Minister, that the Royal Navy will not stand idly by if there is any attempt to repeat the disgraceful incidents of the weekend by French fishermen?

    The Prime Minister : As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), we have made perfectly clear to the French ambassador our very strong condemnation of recent incidents. He has made it equally clear that such action is not acceptable to the French Government, and we have made it clear to the French Government that we look to them to deal with those incidents.

     

    Q3. Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

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

    Mr. Byers : As council tax demands are being sent out, will the Prime Minister explain to the House why, under the system of financing local authorities, his constituency of Huntingdon, according to the Government, suffers greater poverty than Blyth Valley? Is he aware that, even under that unfair system of local government finance, the average council tax in Labour authorities will be £14 less than in Conservative authorities? Does the Prime Minister agree that the message to council tax payers is clear : Labour councils cost you less and serve you better?

    The Prime Minister : I award the hon. Gentleman the prize for the cheekiest question this year. Let me tell him that the 10 highest taxes in band C are Harlow–Labour ; Newcastle–Labour ; Greenwich–Labour ; Manchester–Labour ; Haringey–Labour ; Liverpool– Labour ; Hendon–Labour ; North Tyneside–Labour ; Salford–Labour ; and Derwentshire–Labour, all at band C. The lowest are Wellingborough– Conservative ; Westminster–Conservative ; Isle of Scilly–Independent ; City of London–Independent ; Hambleton–Conservative ; Hinckley and Bosworth–Conservative ; Huntingdonshire–Conservative ; Basingstoke–Conservative ; South Cambs– Independent, and Fareham–Conservative.

    Mr. Trotter : Is my right hon. Friend aware that Tyneside is very grateful to him for his decision to go ahead with the order for the helicopter carrier, the largest and most important ship to be ordered for the Royal Navy in years, which will give Swan Hunter the chance to win four years’ work? Will he visit the yard while the ship is being built, as we are confident that our team will win the order?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly must not pre-judge the outcome of the tender, but I agree with my hon. Friend that confirmation of the helicopter carrier in the defence programme is very good news indeed for the British shipbuilding industry. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has argued long and hard for this particular vessel to be in the programme. I am sure that there will be very keen competition for the order. I assure my hon. Friend that I will follow its progress with the same interest that he will.

     

    Q4. Mr. Sheerman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

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

    Mr. Sheerman : Is the Prime Minister aware of the remark made by one of his Ministers in another place who said–

    Hon. Members : Reading.

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not quote.

    Mr. Sheerman : She said that although she is responsible for 804 public appointments, she cannot remember knowingly appointing a Labour supporter. Given the sad state in which this country finds itself, is it not time that the Prime Minister started appointing people on the basis of competence and ability– [Interruption.] –on the basis of competence and ability, rather than according to the corrupt political patronage for which his Conservative Government are notorious?

    The Prime Minister : We most certainly do appoint on competence, and there are people of all political persuasions who hold public appointments and have been appointed throughout the period of this Government since 1979. My hon. Friend whom the hon. Gentleman quotes used the word “knowingly” to indicate the fact that the political persuasion is not relevant to the competence and the appointment.

     

    Hartley

    Q5. Mr. Dunn : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Hartley.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency last Friday.

    Mr. Dunn : Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Hartley are fully behind the Government’s plans to reform the National Union of Students and that they are interested in knowing his views on the role of trade unions in our modern political society?

    The Prime Minister : Trade unions do have an important and mature role in our society. Their role ought to be to look after the interests of their members–not to align themselves particularly with a political party, not to throw votes behind the leadership of that party, not to provide the finance for that party, and not to sponsor every Front-Bench Member of the Opposition.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

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

    Dr. Wright : Does the Prime Minister recall that he told the House some time ago that a referendum on the Maastricht treaty would be unnecessary as the country had decided that matter in the general election? Does he accept that that was a foolish statement–that, whatever was decided in the general election, it was not the Maastricht treaty? Does he understand that it is both foolish and dangerous to tell people that they have decided something when they have had no part in the decision?

    The Prime Minister : The strict answer to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question is no. The hon. Gentleman knows very well why I think that it is right that this House should decide the fate of the Maastricht treaty in all its aspects. That is the basis of parliamentary democracy, and, as I understand it, it is the position of his own Front Bench.

    Q7. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

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

    Mr. Townsend : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the support, in all quarters of the House, for the United Kingdom’s early return to UNESCO, which has been greatly reformed in recent years? Bearing in mind the fact that President Clinton is about to take the United States back into that organisation, would it not be prudent for my right hon. Friend to secure this country’s return beforehand?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends made me well aware of the strength of their feelings on this matter when they came to see me recently. As I indicated to them, we are keeping the matter under review, and no final decisions have been taken. I will certainly bear my hon. Friend’s concern in mind when we make our decisions.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 29 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Political Parties (Funding)

    Mr. Ronnie Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to introduce new laws relating to the organisation or funding of political parties; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) if he will consider legislation to require political parties to make public their financial supporters.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to introduce any such legislation.

     

    Bill of Rights

    Mr. Ronnie Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will consider the introduction of a Bill of Rights or a written constitution during the lifetime of this Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Environment

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the speeches he has made on the environment since April 1992; and what commitments he has made to additional investment in the environment.

    The Prime Minister : The Government consider that environmental concerns should be reflected across the whole spectrum of policy. The environment has accordingly figured frequently in the speeches which my colleagues and I have made. The environment was central in my speech to the Earth summit at Rio in June 1992, as it was when I spoke in Birmingham last week at the global technology partnership conference.

    The Chancellor’s autumn statement included figures for public investment in the environment, but investment by private enterprises and individuals is even more important. Accurate figures are hard to derive, but we estimate that about 2.5 per cent. of our gross domestic product is spent directly on environmental purposes.

     

    Equal Opportunities

    Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister how many and what percentage of officers in each grade from 1 to 7 and overall in the Cabinet Office are (a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled people.

    The Prime Minister : The figures for women employed in the Cabinet Office, including its executive agencies, are as follows :

    Grades (and equivalents) |Women |Total |Percentage women

    ————————————————————————————-

    1 |0 |5 |0

    2 |2 |8 |25

    3 |1 |25 |4

    4 |0 |3 |0

    5 |16 |41 |39

    6 |19 |45 |42

    7 |63 |264 |24

    |——- |——- |——-

    Overall |1,330 |2,634 |50

    The ethnic monitoring programme was carried out on a voluntary basis and did not extend to the Cabinet Office’s agencies. Of those who responded, 62 people (2.3 per cent. of the total) chose to register as non-white. One of these is at grade 7 level.

    The Cabinet Office’s figures on staff with disabilities include only those who have chosen to register as disabled. Twenty-eight people (1 per cent. of the total) are so registered. None is at grade 7 level or above. The Cabinet Office employs other staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register. The Cabinet Office is an equal opportunities employer, and emphasises this fact in its advertisements.

     

    Full Employment

    Mr. Soley : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 2 March, Official Report, column 138, what percentage of unemployment is consistent with his aim to seek full employment.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 8 March 1993 at column 392.

     

    South Africa

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister when he was informed of the testing of nuclear devices by South Africa in the Kalahari.

    The Prime Minister : We have no evidence that South Africa has conducted nuclear tests. We have noted President de Klerk’s statement that South Africa never carried out a clandestine nuclear test.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister when he was informed of the existence of South Africa’s nuclear bombs.

    The Prime Minister : I was informed that South Africa had built six nuclear devices by President de Klerk’s statement on 24 March.

     

    Nuclear Weapons

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 March, Official Report, column 467, what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards the resumption of negotiations towards a comprehensive test ban treaty during 1993.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 22 March at column 467.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the possible contribution of the comprehensive test ban treaty towards the outcome of the non-proliferation treaty extension conference.

    The Prime Minister : We believe the indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty is in the interests of all signatories. The case for its extension is strong regardless of progress towards a comprehensive test ban, and we believe it is wrong to see NPT extension as dependent on achieving a comprehensive test ban.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 26 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Public Appointments

    Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that more posts on public bodies are advertised; and if he will make it his policy to secure that the post of chairperson of each public body is advertised.

    The Prime Minister : Responsibility for deciding how to fill the 40,000 ministerial appointments to public bodies rests with the individual Ministers and Departments concerned. Central guidance encourages the use of advertisement where appropriate, but it would not be cost-effective for all the 3,500 people chairing public bodies.

     

    Security

    Mr. Milburn : To ask the Prime Minister when he will reply to the letter of 3 February from the hon. Member for Darlington on security matters.

    The Prime Minister : My office can find no trace of any such letter.

     

    Pit Closures

    Mr. Rowlands : To ask the Prime Minister whether he will list the membership of the ministerial and Cabinet committees which have considered the future of the coal industry and the pit closures.

    The Prime Minister : The terms of reference of all ministerial committees of the Cabinet were given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on 19 May 1992 at columns 110-18 and my subsequent reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) on 1 February 1993 at columns 46-47. I do not propose to give details of the topics discussed by individual committees or their procedures.