The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Author: admin

  • PMQT – 7 May 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Immediately after Questions I shall depart the House to attend a guard of honour for the Prime Minister of Spain. I shall have further meetings later today.

    Mr. McAllion : In the past week we have heard some Scottish Tories describe Scottish devolution as an immovable force which their party ignores at its risk. Other Scottish Tories have described it as a fantasy and a dead duck and yet others have described it as a London-based plot hatched by the chairman of the Conservative party to win cheap votes in Scotland. With which of those views does the Prime Minister agree–or is this yet another important issue on which he does not know his own mind?

    The Prime Minister : Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and will remain fully so.

    Mr. Quentin Davies : Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the past 12 years this country has gained tremendous advantages through substantial reductions in income tax levels? Does he further agree that to increase income tax rates again, even for those on moderate levels of earnings, such as classroom teachers in London, would be a retrograde step and a major blow to the aspirations of millions of people and to economic output?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly would agree with my hon. Friend about that. It applies also to national insurance contributions, because what matters is the net disposable income that people have left in their pockets to spend. People will have noticed the Opposition’s plans in that regard.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity publicly to oppose a two-tier system in hospitals, such as Watford general hospital, where the patients of non budget-holding general practitioners must wait longer and take second place, regardless of their clinical need?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. There will be no reductions in existing operations in Watford. Instead, as a result of our reforms, some people will get operations faster than otherwise they would have done. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister has just confirmed the existence of a two-tier service. Does he realise that a two-tier system such as he supports is, as the British Medical Association says, “unethical”? Does he recognise that even in its existence it is a violation of the basic principle of the national health service that treatment must be determined according to clinical need, not contracts or commercial decisions? Is not it obvious from what he says and allows that although we believe in a national health service on the basis of need, the Prime Minister believes in one according to deals?

    The Prime Minister : None of that remotely follows. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my first answer. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. I shall repeat that in case he did not fully hear it first time : operations are done on the basis of clinical need. What we are seeking and attaining are a more efficient system and more efficient use of the large resources in the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman’s plans would take money away from the NHS as a result of many of his spiteful proposals. He has made it clear that he will provide no extra funding. We need no lectures on health care from him.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister not only misrepresents me, he misrepresents what is going on– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister misrepresents what is going on now. Will he take this opportunity to say that there are no cases that he will allow in which the patients of non budget-holding GPs will be allowed to take second place to the patients of budget-holding GPs who have made contractual arrangements with hospitals to gain preference for their patients?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should read what I have said twice already : that operations are done on the basis of clinical need.

    Mr. Alexander : Does my right hon. Friend recollect his past criticism of the unsatisfactory nature of the laws on Sunday trading? In the light of recent events, does he agree that it might now be appropriate to bring our laws in England and Wales into line with those of Scotland, where the commitment to the Sabbath and keeping Sunday special goes hand in hand with sensible Sunday trading laws?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend will know, a number of cases are being considered by the courts. Some may go to appeal. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is consulting interested parties to see whether a consensus can be found on Sunday trading law that would be acceptable both to them and to the House, which has repeatedly expressed a view on the matter. I believe that that is the right way ahead on a matter of conscience such as this. Experience in Scotland suggests that a suitable consensus is possible. I hope that we can find one south of the border.

     

    Q2. Ms. Ruddock : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Ms. Ruddock : Does the Prime Minister know that last year in Lewisham there were only 320 employment training places when there were 10,000 unemployed people? Can he tell me, therefore, why today, when unemployment has increased by a third, to over 14,000, the number of employment training places is to be cut by a third? What faith does he expect the British people to put in his commitment to a fairer society?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Lady will know, the United Kingdom is the only country in Europe to guarantee a training place to everyone under the age of 18 who is not already in full-time education or employment. Spending on training is £2.7 billion this year. That is two and a half times more than was spent by the previous Labour Government.

     

    Q3. Mr. Speller : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Speller : Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will fight for the interests of the small family farm in Britain at the common agricultural policy discussions that are to come and also by providing assistance for such items as expertise in marketing and help for farmers’ incomes, which have fallen to an unacceptable level?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We will defend the interests of all farmers, including small family farmers, in the forthcoming Community discussions. The House knows that, as currently framed, the Commission’s plans for CAP reform would discriminate against United Kingdom farmers, largely because our average farm size is greater than that in other member states. We have given considerable help to small farmers recently, in particular by increasing milk quotas and by means of the hill livestock compensatory allowance. We shall continue to help.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Hain : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to repudiate the views of the Conservative candidate in the Monmouth by- election who yesterday advocated the opting out of not just the Royal Gwent hospital but the Nevill Hall hospital as well?

    The Prime Minister : Opting out–that is to say, putting control in the hands of local people within the national health service–is the right way to produce better management and local choice. I note that the hon. Gentleman does not favour local choice, just as his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made clear in terms of education yesterday.

     

    Q5. Mr. Wilshire : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Wilshire : Given the Government’s desire to extend choice in education further, and given the public’s desire to see the highest possible standards of education everywhere, will my right hon. Friend find time today to look for ways to extend further choice in education?

    The Prime Minister : We are very pleased to see extended choice in education. The new grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and open enrolment have provided considerable extra choice. I hope that parents will take advantage of it. It is clear that the Opposition do not like choice. Grant-maintained schools, CTCs, the assisted places scheme, charitable status for private schools and the existing A-levels would all go and, with the Opposition’s tax plans, most of the teachers would go as well.

     

    Q6. Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : Having clearly misled Parliament last week–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. No hon. Member misleads Parliament. The hon. Member knows that and he must rephrase his question.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : Having misrepresented to Parliament last week the attitude of the British Medical Association and Britain’s doctors as to GP contracts, why did the Prime Minister seek to cover up his mistakes by doctoring Hansard? Is that not true and does not the Prime Minister owe someone an apology?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and Mr. Speaker will make a statement about that matter at 3.30 pm. In advance of that statement, let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. Like every hon. Member, he knows that it is normal practice, when a Minister uses a quote, for the precise words and their source to be provided by Hansard. In this case, the name of the correct source was put into the record, but I am entirely happy for the original words to be reinstated. The magazine from which I quoted was GP Magazine but similar sentiments to those that I quoted, endorsing the reforms, have been expressed in the British Medical Journal, published by the BMA– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us hear the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : I quote from a recent editorial in the British Medical Journal, which said :

    “The reforms may not address all the problems of the NHS, but they do improve our capacity to specify the quality of services and to price improvements.”

    The point that I was making is entirely justified. If any apology is required, it is from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).

     

    Q7. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity, over the weekend, to reflect on the damage that would be done to our representative democracy by a system of proportional representation? This system would deprive people of their solely responsible local representative to satisfy the Liberals, the statisticians and the pundits who enjoy smoke-filled rooms.

    The Prime Minister : I am not in favour of either smoke-filled rooms or proportional representation. I share my hon. Friend’s view that it leaves minority parties determining Government policy and striking bargains for their support. That is not democracy, it is horse trading, and I will have no part in it.

     

    Q9. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Paice : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on the fact that we, by reducing the top rate of tax to 40 per cent. from 83 per cent., have increased the proportion of total yield of income tax paid by the highest 10 per cent. of taxpayers from 20 to 30 per cent? Is not this because many of the most wealthy people are now staying in this country and bringing their money back, so that we get 40 per cent. of something, whereas the Opposition would get 59 per cent. of nothing?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The evidence as to the amount of tax collected with lower rates is clear for all to see. It is equally clear that, under the Labour party’s proposals, 14 out of 15 taxpayers would not be better off, as the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said a year ago. The figure is now one in eight. When the shadow Chancellor gets at the figures they change daily, and when we have finished costing Labour’s programme they will change again.

    Mr. Simon Hughes : The Prime Minister will be aware that, in relation to his policy on local government finance, only after huge public protest and widespread cuts in services did he decide that he had better review the policy inherited from his predecessor and then to ditch it. Does he agree that his policy on the opting out of hospitals was equally widely opposed and that it is now clear that it, too, will result in widespread cuts in services? For the sake of consistency of principle, will the Prime Minister carry out a wholesale review and then ditch the policy?

    The Prime Minister : No. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s views, and I do not believe that his analysis is remotely correct. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must wait and see how it turns out. He will find that he is wrong. For many years we have had to ensure that the national health service uses its resources to the most efficient extent. At last the present Government have had the courage to introduce a system that will ensure that the money is used to best effect for patients. I believe that, for the national health service, that is the right way to proceed and the one which will produce the maximum amount of good patient care. That is what we propose to do.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Spanish Prime Minister – 7 May 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Spanish Prime Minister, Mr Felipe Gonzales, held in London on Tuesday 7th May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you for being here this evening. We have had so far around an hour and a half’s discussion, very friendly, very constructive, there are many matters that we have in common that we wish particularly to deal with. We have spent the time thus far discussing mainstream European matters, the inter-governmental conference on economic and monetary union and political union have dominated the discussions we have had thus far.

    Later on this evening we will be continuing discussions when we will have a wide variety of other matters outside mainstream European matters. No doubt at that stage we will be discussing the problems of Gibraltar and also of course the Soviet Union, Iraq and many other matters as well. But this far we have concentrated on the principal matters of concern within the European Community.
    I will say no more for the moment but invite the Prime Minister to say whatever he would wish to say.

    MR GONZALES:

    [Not interpreted].

    QUESTION:

    [Not interpreted].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Could I just add to that? We did discuss cohesion in its widest aspects, that is both cohesion in the sense of the structural funds and cohesion also in the series of both inputs and outtakes from the general Community budget, so we looked at it in a very wide sense indeed.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can you tell us anything more about Mr Gorbachev’s possible attendance at the G7 summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That has not been a subject of discussion with the Prime Minister this afternoon, that is a matter that we will have to discuss with our G7 partners, but I am in no position to make any statement about that yet.

    QUESTION:

    Has Mr Gonzales given you any further support for your hard Ecu plan?

    PRIME MINISTER:
    We have discussed economic and monetary union at some length and there are very considerable similarities between the British position and the Spanish position on how to move ahead from where we are now. The British have proposed the Hard Ecu as you know and the Spanish have put forward their own proposal which is similar and which would involve hardening the basket Ecu. So we have neither of us given specific support to the other’s proposal but we are very close together on the principles of how we must go ahead on economic and monetary union.

    QUESTION:

    [Not interpreted].

    MR GONZALES:

    [Not interpreted].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I agree.

    QUESTION:

    What reassurances can you give Gibraltarians that nothing will be done against their wishes on sovereignty or on the airport?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I could only echo what the Prime Minister said a moment or so ago, I think it would not be prudent for either of us to make comments on Gibraltar, either comments we have traditionally made or comments that may follow our discussions until we have had those discussions. That was the position the Prime Minister took a moment ago. I believe it was the correct one and I must answer in the same way.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 3 May 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Civil Defence

    Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Prime Minister what procedures he has established for co-ordination between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and agencies of the United States Government regarding the levels of attack preparedness and the length of warning times applicable to future civil defence provision in the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : Procedures governing co-ordination on warning times and related matters involve many Government Departments and there are a number of arrangements to which the United Kingdom and the United States of America are party–the most important being those established with our NATO partners. All 16 NATO nations are currently discussing revisions to our mutual defence arrangements in the light of the substantial changes that have occurred in Europe.

    As for the United Kingdom specifically, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making an announcement about changes in our arrangements, including the planning assumptions that will underlie civil defence planning, in the summer.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Local Election Results – 3 May 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the previous night’s local election results, made on Friday 3rd May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    [Mr Major was asked about local election results]

    It is disappointing but bearable I think. The Liberals clearly did extremely well, they did better than we expected and I congratulate them on that. The silver lining is there is no evidence either in the ballot box or in the opinion polls that we saw last night that show that the Labour Party can win an election, indeed the evidence is quite strongly to the contrary. Here we are bumping along at the bottom of a recession, not yet coming out of it, and after all the difficulties that there have been in recent months and a recession, there is no lead for the Labour Party at all and at this stage in the Parliament if they were to win a General Election they should have had I would have thought quite a commanding lead. So that is a very substantial silver lining.

  • PMQT – 2 May 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Sayeed : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

    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. Sayeed : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the local elections today should be about which party most efficiently delivers quality services at the lowest cost?

    The Prime Minister : They certainly should be and I hope that in the eyes of the electors they are. If they turn out to be so, I believe that the cost of each Labour councillor, which is very substantial, will be noticed by the electorate, who will vote accordingly.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister agree with the British Medical Association’s judgment that there is a crisis for patients and for doctors in the national health service and that, in its words,

    “The Prime Minister is unaware of what is happening throughout the country.”?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I had a seminar with many leading figures in the health industry at Chequers on Saturday morning. It is an odd question from the right hon. Gentleman, who admitted over the weekend that there would be no more money for health under a Labour Government. The point which I believe that the BMA should consider is that it is improbable, with £30 billion going into the health service, that each and every one of those pounds is being used to best effect. The purpose of our reforms is to ensure that that money is used to best effect on patient care so that the patient may get the best possible value for the contribution that he makes to the health service.

    Mr. Kinnock : With that response the Prime Minister not only proves his desperation in misrepresenting me, but proves the BMA’s case that he really does not know what is going on in the country. The secretary of the BMA, Dr. Ian Field, reports that, because of the Prime Minister’s so-called NHS reforms, hospital clerks are having to take life-and-death decisions about which patients should be admitted and which should be turned away. If the Prime Minister does not think that that is evidence of crisis, just what does he think would constitute a crisis?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps the gentleman to whom the Leader of the Opposition has referred should have examined more carefully what is happening in many other parts of the country, quite apart from the general increase in NHS funding. For example, he might look at many of the trusts. In the case of North Western, no cuts are planned, and new staff posts are being created. The same applies to Mersey, West Midlands, Trent, East Anglia, Yorkshire and many other areas. It would be a great help to the national health service if people were to look at its achievements and its improvements, rather than carp, criticise and pick out difficulties that have always existed and, in an organisation of such size, may always exist.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister can be sure that the consultants and other doctors in the BMA are well aware of the qualities of the national health service. Indeed, they work in it continually and they support it continually. When they say that there is a crisis for patients and doctors in the NHS as a result of the Prime Minister’s reforms, does not he think that he owes it to them, first, to meet them very soon and, secondly, to stop opting out and adding to the crisis?

    The Prime Minister : As I have said to the BMA in my letter, I will be prepared later this year to meet it to discuss the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to quote the BMA, let him recall that the association opposed many past improvements in the health service. It opposed the very establishment of the service, in which case it was wrong ; it opposed the drugs list, in which case it was wrong ; and, only last year, it opposed the GP contracts, yet, in GP Magazine * (* See Mr. Speaker’s statement on 7 May at column 625.), it now says :

    “Suddenly, targets don’t seem so bad after all Most GPs will find themselves significantly better off than they were last year.”

    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should examine that more carefully.

    Mr. Cash : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the draft treaty that the Luxembourg presidency has made available to only a very limited number of people–and certainly not to Members of this House–in the European Community? Does my right hon. Friend know that that draft treaty contains provisions that would result in a severe diminution in the powers of this House? Will he give us an assurance that, although we want to co-operate in Europe–we are pro-European–the proposals in this paper, which combine a reduction in the powers of the Westminster Parliament with an increase in the powers of the European Community, are unacceptable in their present form?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, I have on a number of occasions made clear our position in both intergovernmental conferences. The document to which he refers is, as he has said, a draft treaty prepared by the Luxemburgers. It has not been agreed by us–indeed, it has not yet even been discussed by us–and we have put forward our own particular proposals for both intergovernmental conferences.

     

    Q2. Mr. Watson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Watson : The Government’s proposed replacement for the poll tax promises 100 per cent. rebates for those on low incomes. Why will not the Prime Minister give an assurance today that the same principle will be applied to the nearly 6 million people who will remain liable to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax for at least another three years?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, when the 20 per cent. arrangement was introduced, income support was also introduced to compensate, to ensure that people had the resources to meet those charges. That remains the position.

    Mr. Jopling : Will the Prime Minister find time today to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that all advertisements are decent, legal and truthful–especially advertisements put in the press by trade unions on behalf of the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : That would certainly be an improvement, if it happened. I join my right hon. Friend in condemning the advertisements to which he refers, with their phoney pictures and fake statistics. How similar that is to so much of what we hear at present from Opposition Members.

     

    Q3. Mr. Douglas : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Douglas : Does the Prime Minister accept that we are extremely interested in his addiction to seminars if he comes to Scotland we shall arrange one, at which he can explain to the people of Scotland why he is proposing to introduce a tax that is theoretically less onerous and less regressive than the poll tax, while at the same time allowing a rebate of 100 per cent. How can he explain the persistence of the 20 per cent. rule for the poll tax, and how does he view the difficulties of Scottish local authorities, because he knows that the poll tax is uncollectable?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep. I answered that question two minutes ago.

    Mr. Burns : During his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the latest diktat from COHSE, which orders its members to campaign for the Labour party during the local elections? In the light of that diktat, does he agree that nothing that the union says about the health service should be believed, because it is not objective and is politically biased?

    The Prime Minister : Given its past activities, I should be surprised if COHSE did not operate in that fashion, and that applies to NUPE as well. But, as the Leader of the Opposition gets so many of his policies from them, that is no surprise to any of us.

     

    Q4. Mr. Dunnachie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Dunnachie : Does the Prime Minister agree with the chairman of the Conservative party, who has declared that all voters are jerks, or does he agree with the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who has said that they are all morons? Or does he agree with the majority of the British people, who say that senior Cabinet Ministers are a disgrace to the country?

    The Prime Minister : As none of those comments was made in the way in which the hon. Gentleman suggests, there is nothing to withdraw.

    Mr. John Townend : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still a Government priority for British business men and farmers, after the completion of the single market in 1992, to be able to compete on a level playing field with their Community competitors? If so, will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and advise him not to impose on the pig industry financial burdens that our competitors on the Continent need not bear–especially the competition from Denmark and Holland?

    The Prime Minister : It is certainly our intention to see a level market, not only in agriculture but in all matters of European trade. All my right hon. Friends are aware of that and act accordingly.

     

    Q5. Mr. Sillars : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Sillars : May I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to a statement made recently by the housing convenor of the city of Glasgow? According to that statement, given the present level of capital consents it will take 300 years to cure the damp problems experienced by the people of that city. That was said seriously, not facetiously.

    Is the Prime Minister aware that the present level of damp in Glasgow poses a serious risk to the health of children in particular. Will he deliver to the citizens of Glasgow the same respite as his Government gave to the rich people who bought shares in privatised English companies? Will he wipe off the capital debt of the city of Glasgow and give the people there an opportunity to enjoy decent housing in a much shorter time than 300 years?

    The Prime Minister : I think that we would all like everyone in the country to have increasing access to decent housing. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in the past 10 years–across the country as a whole–there have been 2 million more homes, which is equivalent in practice to a city twice the size of Birmingham. He will understand the extent of the improvements that have been made. As for the position in Glasgow, the way in which individual authorities use their housing receipts, their capital receipts and their revenue sums is a matter for them and they must determine what priorities they must meet.

     

    Q6. Mr. Speller : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Speller : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the horrific accident on the north Devon link road at 3 o’clock this morning when a van bound from South Molton was in collision with a minibus carrying several Icelandic tourists, three of whom are dead and six of whom are desperately injured? Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as the tourist season begins, we need adequate police resources to ensure that there is safety on the roads, which is best ensured by a police presence?

    The Prime Minister : I was sorry to hear of that dreadful accident and I am sure that the House will join me in expressing sympathy to the families of those involved. As my hon. Friend will know, the Road Traffic Bill currently before Parliament will strengthen road traffic law and penalties. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will spend well over £6 million in 1991-92 on direct road safety campaigns in an effort to minimise the terrible accidents that we so frequently see, to an example of which my hon. Friend has referred.

     

    Q7. Mr. McAvoy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. McAvoy : The Prime Minister keeps making pious declarations about his personal commitment to the national health service, but is he aware that in my constituency Greater Glasgow health board has privatised care of the elderly? In other NHS hospitals there are to be en-suite toilets and bathrooms, but in that privatised hospital in my constituency there are to be communal toilets and bathrooms. When my frail and elderly constituents are being herded like cattle to use those communal facilities, will this personally committed Prime Minister feel any personal sense of shame?

    The Prime Minister : Anticipating what the hon. Gentleman might touch upon, I looked at Greater Glasgow health board’s record. It has, as the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention, awarded 58 contracts under competitive tendering arrangements and the resultant savings of £32.7 million will go directly into patient care. It has also entered into a contract with a number of people to provide more beds for care of the elderly. Greater Glasgow health board has a good record which the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention.

    Mr. Gerald Bowden : When my right hon. Friend comes to consider the route for the Channel tunnel rail link, will he look seriously at the alternatives to British Rail’s proposal? Will he take the opportunity to meet the professional partners of Bechtel and Ove Arup to discuss with them the benefits of their route at first hand?

    The Prime Minister : We will certainly look carefully at all alternatives. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will do that with great care.

     

    Q8. Mr. Andrew Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Given that the Secretary of State for Scotland opposed test drilling for nuclear dumps in his constituency and the Secretary of State for Energy, who is in charge of Nirex, opposed similar test drilling in his constituency, how can the Prime Minister justify permission being given for such test drilling in Dounreay, against massive democratic opposition locally and throughout Scotland? Is that a case of double standards?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, the decision at this stage is only to test the boreholes for repositories for nuclear waste. If a borehole turned out to be satisfactory, there would need to be a further detailed planning application before any waste could be deposited.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 May 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    VAT

    Mr. O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister if he will put in hand an assessment of the comparative loss of revenue in the sale of home safety equipment free of value added tax and the costs of the treatment of victims of accidents in the home; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister : An official estimate of the value added tax accruing on the sale of home safety equipment is not available. The costs of treatment for all accidents in the home are about £300 million per year. The United Kingdom is not permitted under the EC sixth VAT directive to introduce any new zero rates.

    Olympic Games

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what specific steps he and the Government will be taking in support of the Manchester Olympic Committee’s bid to stage the Olympic Games; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister : The Government wish Manchester every success in its attempt to bring the 2000 Olympics to Britain. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport is ready to discuss with those concerned how best the Government can help to promote the bid.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Opening of Smith New Court – 1 May 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made at the opening of Smith New Court in London on Wednesday 1st May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The last time I came to the City was in fact the day I became Prime Minister. I am not entirely sure how you are going to beat that and I hope on this occasion at least you won’t try. I am very grateful to you Sir Michael for the invitation to join you today. It is always a splendid thing to be able to declare open magnificent new offices like these. And also to congratulate a successful British enterprise. Because of its importance both domestically and internationally it is especially welcome to be able to do so in the City.

    I am particularly pleased to be opening these new offices for a special reason. I believe they do symbolise the continuing growth and global interests of the City of London. In the last twelve years or so, in my judgement, no one can deny that the City has thrived. It has been a success story. It has secured London its prime international position. That is the position that everyone in this room and beyond it in the City must keep.

    The achievements of London and the City are formidable and some-times I think we overlook them and push them to one side. They deserve a far greater importance than many people will sometimes give them.

    – London has built up the largest foreign exchange market in the world.

    – It is second only to Tokyo as an international banking centre.

    – It was the birthplace of the Eurodollar. The Eurobond market could have settled anywhere, but although the world’s bankers and brokers looked everywhere around the world, in the end they chose London. London is now the base also for three quarters of the trading in Eurodollar bonds.

    – London has long been a world centre for insurance and for fund management, a role it is of course happy to share with the Scottish financial centres. It remains, well perhaps not quite happy, but it will jolly well have to be happy because the Scottish financial centres are extremely good too!

    – It remains by far the largest centre in the world for international equity trading.

    – More foreign companies choose to be listed in London than anywhere else in the world.

    – In 1990 the turnover on the London Stock Exchange was the third highest in the world behind only Tokyo and New York. Of that turnover almost half was in overseas stocks. A far higher share than any other mainstream stock exchange.

    That is a very remarkable record and one that London can be proud of. London’s markets are growing day by day, all the time. In only a few years we have become a leading centre for futures and options and that will be reinforced When LIFFE merges with the London Traded Options Market.

    I think we may occasionally ask ourselves why is it? Why is it that London has been so successful? I believe that answer is clear cut and simple. It is the skill and innovation available in the City that has made London so pre-eminent. I think there is a second reason too, that I hope you will forgive me if I mention.

    That is that Government policy on many occasions has been vital to that progress. From the abolition of exchange controls in 1979 right the way through to the other changes in the 1980’s and the corporation tax reductions in the latest budget, Government policies have clearly contributed to the success that we have seen in the City. By de-regulating and by privatising and by reducing the burden of taxation, Government has created the freedom which has allowed the financial sector to flourish. At the end of the day it is the enterprise of the City, your enterprise, that has actually grasped that freedom and turned it into the success that London has been over the last decade.

    There are I believe two recent developments which will have a particularly vital role in strengthening London’s position and long term prospects.

    Firstly, our decision to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism last November was in my judgement a matter of enormous importance to our future prosperity and our efforts to stay competitive in Europe and beyond Europe. Second, and in consequence of that, we are achieving real success in the battle against inflation. Already the headline retail price index figure is down by nearly 3 per cent since last October. The April figure to be released later this month will show a further dramatic fall from the present level and inflation will then go on falling throughout this year and into next year.

    There is an important message there for the future. The initial impact of a financial deregulation, which caused the surge in lending and distorted the statistics we need for economic management, has now worked its way through. We have put in place measures to improve those statistics. But most important of all we are now members of the Exchange Rate Mechanism with all the anti-inflationary discipline that that entails. With those barriers against inflation, we are now better equipped than ever before to prevent a recurrence of inflationary trends and I regard that as being of immense importance.

    Looking to the future, London is well placed to benefit from new challenges. Not least the challenge immediately in front of us, indeed in many ways here and now, of the European single market. There is no way whatsoever that we can rest on past achievements, unless of course we wish to stagnate. In a world of highly competitive, highly mobile markets, even the achievements that outlined a moment or so ago in no way guarantee our future. Competition has become more intense in the last few years and yet despite this I am confident London will be able to compete, to build on its role as Europe’s financial centre of the future.

    We are looking forward in Europe both to the single market in finance and to the global market that is developing around us so very rapidly.

    – We already have in SEAQ the cornerstone of a pan-European market in shares. It is a market created not by and for Government but by and for the users and suppliers of capital.

    – London’s stock market has created European share indices. London will soon be trading futures on those indices, opening up a pan-European market in derivatives. All remarkable moves forward in London.

    – London too is already the centre of the cross border market in bonds. We were, after all, trading Eurobonds decades before the 1992 programme was ever thought of. We will be able to dedicate this expertise to the increasing integration of domestic bond markets.

    – We can look forward to growing business links with Eastern Europe as those countries join the commonwealth of market economies. The opportunities that exist at present and will be there throughout the 90’s and beyond are very substantial indeed.

    London in my view is more than just a financial centre for the European community. The Eurobond market should remind us that financial services are now truly international. The Eurobond market is a global capital market. Banking and insurance of course have long been global. Securities and other sectors are now clearly going in the same way. We cannot, and we should not, try to draw arbitrary lines around one country or even a group of countries, even those as important and influential as the European Community.

    There are now well over 500 foreign banks in and around the Square Mile. They are most welcome. Of course I am gratified to read of the success of British companies, but it is the cosmopolitan nature of the city that I believe is its true glory. The City and Government collectively issue an invitation to the world: come to London and compete here in London against the best there is in the world. Many have accepted our invitation. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, a very welcome addition which arrived only last month, is the latest to do so. I hope that many more will follow.

    The Government has been working hard to develop links with New York, Chicago, Tokyo, links to change regulatory systems and facilitate cross border business. Now Michael, I of course am only too well aware that there is still too little understanding of what the financial services sector really does. The enormous contribution that the City makes to the economy. That contribution is, and I use this term literally, immense.

    It is easy enough to quote the bald figures showing the net contribution of financial and other services to the balance of payments – between £6 billion and £9 billion in recent years. All the main sectors make a positive contribution.

    One perhaps in another way could quote the contribution of the financial sector to our national income: together with other related services it provides one job in every eight and an even larger share of GDP. Beyond that there is a deeper sense in which the role of financial services needs to be understood: as a support system to the rest of the economy. To manufacturers, retailers and to ordinary people in their daily lives.

    Imagine for a moment and I invite you to stretch your imagination. Imagine for a moment a world without banks. I saw in some sectors a shudder of apprehension at the thought. But imagine a world without banks. All your money stuffed in a mattress. A world without fund management or pensions. It would have to be, you can see, a very large mattress indeed. A world without insurance as well. So it had better be a very well guarded mattress indeed.

    Imagine then a world without securities. No one would be able to raise funds for investment, except by traipsing round the world begging from each and every wealth-owner. Without commodity markets we would still be at the mercy of the harvest and acts of God. Without shipbroking we would never know whether our goods would ever reach us. A modern economy needs a healthy financial services sector. Of course the City and industry don’t always see eye to eye. It would be odd if they did. But neither side should ever question their inter-dependence.

    There are perhaps as many reasons for London’s success as there are firms that have settled here. There are London’s long standing virtues: an enterprising tradition, an international outlook, a concentration of expertise in all the main areas of financial activity. There is a willingness to innovate and take up new challenges. In addition to that there is the very tangible gains of having the international language of business, English, and a tradition of probity based essentially on English Law.

    All those are important. The City offers a host of contemporary advantages as well. Freedom from exchange and capital controls. Sympathetic tax treatment of new financial products. A firm but flexible system of supervision. And a Government committed to de-regulation and liberalisation. As an example of this perhaps I may mention Britain’s lead in developing an advanced telecommunications system on which so much of modern business depends. Now I could continue upon that theme, though you will be familiar with many of the matters I would raise.

    London can boast the world’s largest urban regeneration project. Four new international air terminals in the last four years. New railway connections to the heart of the City are now being planned. All of those collectively, and indeed individually, help to give London the edge over other financial centres. The City combines a tradition of service and enterprise with the very best of modern technology and professionalism. These impressive new offices, formally being opened today, demonstrate Smith New Court’s determination to equip itself with nothing but the best.

    In recent years the City has undergone a revolution. A time of change in which talented people have seized opportunities, worked to compete and taken the lead in financial innovation. In financial services Britain continues to lead the world. Not through the imposition of Government plans, nor by sheltering behind protective national barriers or clinging to outdated practices; but by tapping our own enterprise in the City and by challenging the rest of the world to meet it.

    That is a very remarkable achievement. Those people who think the glories of the City lie in the past should look at what has actually been achieved in the period of even just the last decade to see how inaccurate that would be. This pattern of innovation, of change and raising and changing one’s mind to move ever ahead with the new technologies and new ideas that come before one: that must be the way ahead in the 1990’s. It was, it is and will be in my judgement the only way ahead for us in the 1990’s.

    That is the spirit of the Britain that we need to create if we are to compete successfully in an ever more competitive world. Michael I am delighted to have had your invitation to join you here today. For this simple reason. This building symbolises that attitude. I am delighted to be here today, to be part of this occasion and to formally declare it open.

    MICHAEL HARKS – CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF SMITH NEW COURT

    Smith New Court is part of what has become to be called The Securities Industry. It is an important industry for Britain and one of the few industries where we have a legitimate claim to be a world leader. This, I suggest Prime Minister, is acknowledged by your presence and your speech here today. On behalf of us all, thank you.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 30 April 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prisoners (Visits)

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate policy on the allocation of prisoners so that persons convicted in either England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland may serve their sentences at a convenient establishment for regular visits from their families.
    The Prime Minister : The allocation of prisoners in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the respective prison authorities. Nearness to home is one of the factors which is taken into account, along with other matters, in deciding a prisoner’s allocation. There is provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1961 for the transfer of prisoners between United Kingdom jurisdictions.

    Engagements

    Mr. Soames : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 30 April.
    The Prime Minister : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Advertising

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Prime Minister’s office on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979-80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990-91 and budgets for 1991-92.
    The Prime Minister : My office has incurred no expenditure on advertising or promotional material, and there are no plans for any such expenditure in 1991-92.
    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Cabinet Office on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979-80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990-91 and budgets for 1991-92.
    The Prime Minister : The Cabinet Office has not incurred and does not expect to incur any expenditure on promotional advertising on television, radio or in newspapers in the years 1979-92.

    Information on other promotional material is not available for the years 1979 to 1987. Expenditure on such material from 1987-88 was :

    |£
    ———————-
    1987-88 |19,306
    1988-89 |9,500
    1989-90 |14,833
    The estimate for
    1990-91 is £1,000.

    The Cabinet Office does not expect to incur any expenditure on other promotional material in 1991-92.

    Matrix Churchill

    Mr. Terry Davis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will name the Government Department to which a Crown servant calling himself Balson and visiting the offices of Matrix Churchill in Coventry at 11.15 am on 24 April 1989, 3.51 pm on 11 September 1989, 3.10 pm on 27 October 1989, 9.35 am on 1 December 1989, 9.35 am on 26 March 1990, 9.35 am on 20 April 1990 and 1.17 pm on 26 April 1990 was attached between 1 April 1989 and 30 April 1990; what was his grade; and what were his official responsibilities.
    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and industry.

    Arms Trade

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister which proposals he has to allow international advance warning of arms’ build-up by a particular country.
    The Prime Minister [holding reply 29 April 1991] : On 8 April I proposed the establishment of a United Nations register of arms sales to enable the international community to monitor and control any excessive build-up of arms by a particular country. The proposal was endorsed by our European partners. We are now pursuing it in discussions with the other permanent members of the Security Council and the United Nations secretariat.

  • PMQT – 30 April 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Kirkwood : Does the Prime Minister recall that when he was a parliamentary candidate in 1983 he gave a commitment, on the questionnaire he returned to the World Development Movement, that he would want to see British aid increased, over a period of five years, to the official United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of the country’s national wealth? Will he confirm that the level of official aid is now running at well under half that target figure, at a time when 27 million people on the continent of Africa face the prospect of imminent starvation? Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his credibility as Prime Minister is at stake? If he does not find the money to meet the commitment that he made in 1983, his credibility will be severely dented.

    The Prime Minister : The important point is that our aid programme is both effective and growing. Where necessary, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen in the case of the Kurds, we provide extra and well-targeted aid. For example, we have now provided more than £60 million to aid the Kurds, and the amount is rising each week. We still accept the principle of the 0.7 per cent. aid target, and like other donors, we shall move to it as and when economic circumstances permit.

    Mr. Dunn : Can the Prime Minister give a guarantee that the advanced level examination will be maintained, and not diluted or weakened in any way whatsoever?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will shortly announce comprehensive proposals for 16 to 19-year-olds. I agree with the point that my hon. Friend has made so clearly–that the Opposition’s proposals for slimmed-down A-levels are likely to mean more certificates, but certificates of less value.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reject the view of his Secretary of State for Health, who says that cuts in the numbers of doctors and nurses and cuts in patient care in opted-out hospitals are nothing to do with him?

    The Prime Minister : There are two things that I hope that the right hon. Gentleman knows about the health service–first, the vast increases that there have been in the numbers of doctors, nurses and other people in the service and, secondly, that the purpose of the reforms is to make sure that the management of the service becomes as efficient as its medical delivery.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister tell us where he thinks responsibility lies? The managers of the the Guy’s and Lewisham opted-out hospitals have said that there will be

    “substantial and inevitable reductions in direct patient care.” How can the Prime Minister justify turning his back on the consequences of his own policies? Does not he think that he has a moral obligation to ensure that the loss of vital patient care services at Guy’s and Lewisham is not repeated anywhere else? Will he ensure that opting out is stopped right away?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman were really concerned about matters like hospital doctors, he might perhaps have looked at their pay record and have seen a real terms increase of 37 per cent. under this Government and nothing remotely like that increase under the Labour Government, for doctors’ pay fell under the Labour Government.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is not it clear from the Prime Minister’s answers that when it comes to the national health service and patient care, he, like his predecessor, could not care less?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should know that I am personally committed to the national health service, and that I want the management of the service to be as efficient as the medical care in the service. Unless and until it is, we shall not deliver the level or amount of patient care that we need.

    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : If my right hon. Friend has read the latest Labour party document–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Even if he has, would the hon. and learned Gentleman please ask a question relating to the Prime Minister’s responsibility?

    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : To the extent that it is readable, will my hon. Friend endorse the fact that the poorest in the country will be poorer and the part of–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman please ask a question relating to the Prime Minister’s responsibility? He may not ask the Prime Minister directly about the Opposition’s policy.

    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : Will my right hon. Friend, as a matter of his responsibility, having read that document, ensure that a Labour Government never return, so that the poor do not get poorer? The part of the country that would get poorest would be Scotland.

    The Prime Minister : In answer to my hon. and learned Friend’s direct question ; willingly I will make sure that a Labour Government are never returned to power. I think that Labour’s policies will be of some assistance in that, for the electorate know that it has no fresh policies and no fresh ideas and that many of its policies, like renationalisation of British Telecom, it fails to put in its policy documents.

     

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

    The Prime Minister : I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Archer : Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to recognise in some way that today is the anniversary of the completion in 1821 of the first iron steamship, all the components of which were completed in one factory in the industrial black country, launching an industry which over the years offered employment to millions? Since over the past 12 months the numbers employed in manufacturing industry have fallen by 178,000, does the Prime Minister wish to remember our industrial history, or does he agree with his Secretary of State for Education and Science that history is unnecessary and perhaps better forgotten– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. We are taking a long time over this history lesson.

    Mr. Archer : –or does he find it hard to make up his mind?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman, apart from misquoting my right hon. and learned Friend, has picked an odd day to raise that point because, as the Confederation of British Industry business agenda brochure shows, manufacturing output has just risen to new record heights, and in the last quarter of 1990 it stood 50 per cent. higher than in the first quarter of 1981.

     

    Q3. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support for his personal vision of a first-class education for everyone? To that end, will not the promised pay review body for teachers bring better professional status for them without the strikes that have so damaged education? Does not that mean a better deal for teachers all round, for children and in the end for the prosperity of the country?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that it does. I believe that the introduction of a pay review body for teachers will be warmly welcomed. The House will have noticed that at the end of a six-hour debate yesterday, no one was clear whether the Opposition were for or against the pay review body, because the National Union of Teachers had not yet told them.

     

    Q4. Mr. Ernie Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. Ross : Can the Prime Minister confirm that when Peter Griffiths was given the job of running the opted-out Guy’s Hospital, the salary for that post was doubled to £90,000 a year, and both he and his wife were given cars? What possible justification for this scandalous misuse of public money can there be when much-needed doctors and nurses at the same hospital are facing the sack?

    The Prime Minister : Peter Griffiths has the job of ensuring the adequate and proper delivery of services and he is committed to achieving that. What has so frequently damaged services in the national health service is that whenever there has been a move towards natural and necessary rationalisation, the Opposition have turned it into a political football.

     

    Q5. Mr. Colvin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. Colvin : If one man’s pay rise is another man’s job loss, how many jobs does my right hon. Friend think are being lost in Britain this year as a result of the astronomic pay rises which Britain’s top business men awarded themselves last year? Is it not the duty of leaders to give a lead on pay restraint?

    The Prime Minister : Pay must always reflect both performance and responsibility. In many countries, pay already includes a large performance element and I thoroughly welcome that. In the difficult months that we have recently seen many top managers have held or cut their pay, and that is an excellent example.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that many in our country will feel pride at the role that he and Britain have played in relieving the suffering of the Kurds? However, many will have felt dismay at the complacent answer which he has just given on the African famine. Does he not realise the scale of that disaster, in which not 1 million but more than 20 million lives are now at risk? Will he assure the House and the nation that he will apply the same determination to making sure that we play our part in relieving that towering tragedy that he applied to assisting the Kurds?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first remark. As to his latter remarks, I would remind him that this country has committed something over £4 billion to Africa in the past decade and that we invariably play a significant part in dealing with the tragedies that occasionally occur, not only in Africa but elsewhere. Even as the right hon. Gentleman asks his question, we are examining what assistance might be given to Bangladesh in the aftermath of the cyclone.

     

    Q6. Mr. Viggers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. Viggers : In the difficult international climate for business expansion and employment, is it not clear that the countries that will benefit first from a renewal of confidence will be those with flexible work practices? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst that could happen would be for us to adopt the statutory pay and training schemes advocated by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The greatest danger, of course, would be to adopt the Labour party’s minimum wage plans which, were the right hon. Gentleman to implement them, would inflict not the 750,000 to 1 million job losses that we thought they would but between 1 million and 2 million job losses.

     

    Q7. Mr. John Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. Evans : Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to read early -day motion 747, which has been signed by 148 Members who are worried about the proposed takeover of the Tootal Group plc by Coats Viyella plc and the impact on jobs in the textile industry? Is he aware that 540 workers at the Tootal Slimma works in St. Helens fear that they will face the sack if that unnecessary bid succeeds? Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to change his mind and refer this unnecessary bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

    The Prime Minister : That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are in no position to talk about unemployment while they hold to their minimum wage proposals.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 29 April 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    St. John Ambulance Brigade

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make facilities available to staff in his office to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

    The Prime Minister : Arrangements exist for officials to contribute by deduction from pay to charities of their choice. The decision by members of my office about which charitable appeals to support must be a matter for them.

     

    Drink Driving

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he, with his colleagues responsible for transport in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, will consider consultations on ways to let the public know whether a driver killed in a road crash had consumed alcohol.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply he received from my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) on 22 April 1991 at columns 350-51.

     

    Management Consultants

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Prime Minister’s office to management consultants in 1979-80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990-91 and budget for 1991-92.

    The Prime Minister : There has been no expenditure by my office on fees to management consultants since 1979-80, and none is planned for 1991-92.

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Cabinet Office to management consultants in 1979-80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990-91 and budget for 1991-92.

    The Prime Minister : The expenditure by the Cabinet Office, including from its creation on 1 October 1987, the Office of the Minister of the Civil Service, on management and computer consultancies, including certain consultancies relating to the civil service as a whole, in the financial years from 1983-84 is as follows :

    Year |£

    ————————

    1983-84 |152,000

    1984-85 |423,818

    1985-86 |329,334

    1986-87 |505,092

    1987-88 |417,778

    The figures for each year since then, which exclude the cost of computer consultants, are as follows :

    Year |£

    ———————————

    1988-89 |70,608

    1989-90 |51,500

    1990-91 |<1>182,000

    1991-92 |<2>242,735

    <1>Estimate.

    <2>Budget.

    Note:

    The figures for 1990-91 and 1991-92 reflect increases in management consultancies undertaken by the Cabinet Office for the civil service generally.

     

    Press and Public Relations

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure by the Cabinet Office on press and public relations in 1979-80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990-91 and budget for 1991-92.

    The Prime Minister : Expenditure on press and public relations by the Cabinet Office was :

    |£

    ————————

    1984-85 |247,495

    1985-86 |232,980

    1986-87 |224,813

    1987-88 |215,925

    1988-89 |201,837

    1989-90 |205,650

    The latest estimate for 1990-91 is £165,088 and the budget for 1991-92 is £213,323.

    Similar information is not available for the years prior to 1984-85.

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure by the Prime Minister’s office on press and public relations in 1979-80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990-91 and budget for 1991-92.

    The Prime Minister : Expenditure by my office on press and public relations was not recorded separately before 1987-88. The total expenditure for each year since then and the budget for 1991-92 are as follows :

    |£

    ———————————

    1987-88 |377,987

    1988-89 |419,326

    1989-90 |427,802

    1990-91 |<1>553,010

    1991-92 |<2>554,748

    <1> Estimate.

    <2> Budget.

    Note: The figures for 1990-91 and 1991-92 include notional superannuation costs which are excluded from the figures for earlier years.

     

    Departmental Staff

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give for each year from 1979-80, including 1991-92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in the Cabinet Office; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

    The Prime Minister : The number of staff, by grade, employed on 1 April in each of the years from 1982 in the statistical divisions of the Cabinet Office, differentiated between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts, were :

    Staff in post, with in brackets,

    where different, total complement

    Grade |Members of |Members of |Total

    |Statistician |Administration

    |Group |and other

    ———————————————————————————————-

    1982 |51.0 |153.0 |204.0 |(209.0)

    1983 |50.0 |159.5 |209.5 |(208.5)

    1984 |47.0 |146.0 |193.0 |(193.0)

    1985 |50.5 |136.5 |187.0 |(186.0)

    1986 |52.0 |148.5 |200.5 |(198.5)

    1987

    1a |1 |- |1

    3 |3 |- |3

    5 |9 |1 |10 |(9)

    7 |24 |6 |30 |(31)

    Senior Executive Officer |- |8 |8 |(7)

    Higher Executive Officer |- |23 |23 |(22.5)

    Executive Officer |- |34 |34 |(35.5)

    Administrative Officer |- |24 |24

    Personal Secretary |- |13 |13 |(12.5)

    Senior Assistant and Assistant

    Statistician |9 |- |9 |(11)

    Cadet Statistician |7 |- |7

    Chief Draughtsman |- |1 |1

    Senior Draughtsman |- |1 |1

    Higher Draughtsman |- |2 |2

    Draughtsman |- |6 |6 |(7)

    Information Officer |- |1 |1

    |——- |——- |——- |——-

    |53 |120 |173 |(175.5)

    1988

    1A |1 |- |1

    3 |3 |- |3

    5 |9 |1 |10 |(9)

    7 |25 |4 |29 |(31)

    Senior Executive Officer |- |8 |8

    Higher Executive Officer |- |20 |20 |(21)

    Executive Officer |- |31 |31 |(37)

    Administrative Officer |- |21 |21 |(24)

    Senior Personal Secretary |- |1 |1

    Personal Secretary |- |11 |11 |(11.5)

    Senior Assistant and Assistant Statistician |9 |- |9 |(10)

    Cadet Statistician |6 |- |6 |(7)

    Chief Draughtsman |- |1 |1

    Senior Draughtsman |- |1 |1

    Higher Draughtsman |- |2 |2

    Draughtsman |- |5 |5 |(7)

    Information Officer |- |1 |1

    |——– |——- |——- |——-

    |53 |107 |160 |(175.5)

    1989

    1A |1 |- |1

    3 |3 |- |3

    5 |9 |1 |10 |(9)

    7 |25 |4 |29 |(31.5)

    Senior Executive Officer |- |7 |7 |(5.5)

    Higher Executive Officer |- |18 |18 |(21)

    Executive Officer |- |35 |35 |(36)

    Administrative Officer |- |25 |25 |(24.5)

    Senior Personal Secretary |- |2 |2

    Personal Secretary |- |11 |11 |(10.5)

    Senior Assistant and Assistant Statistician |8 |- |8 |(11)

    Cadet Statistician |3 |- |3 |(1.5)

    Chief Draughtsman |- |1 |1

    Senior Draughtsman |- |1 |1

    Higher Draughtsman |- |2 |2 |(1)

    Draughtsman |- |4 |4 |(7)

    Information Officer |- |1 |1

    |——- |——- |——- |——-

    |49 |112 |161 |(167.5)

    <1>Includes all other non statistician group staff.

    Figures for the years prior to 1982 are no longer available, and information on the numbers of staff by grade is not readily available for the years 1982 to 1986 and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

    Since July 1989, when the Central Statistical Office became a separate department, the Cabinet Office has had no statistical divisions.

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give for each year from 1979-80, including 1991-92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in the Prime Minister’s office; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

    The Prime Minister : During the period in question, there has been no statistical division within my office. There are no statisticians in post or on the staff complement, and there are no plans to create any such posts.

     

    Iraqi Refugees

    Mrs. Clwyd : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to increase the financial year 1991-92 budget of the Overseas Development Administration to cover the costs of emergency relief for Iraqi refugees.

    The Prime Minister : Additions to the overseas aid programme totalling up to £30 million have been agreed to fund the Government’s further efforts to relieve the suffering of Iraqi refugees. Within this total, up to £20 million will be provided to continue the airbridge operation, to provide urgently needed supplies, and to finance the immediately foreseeable costs falling to the aid budget of the United Kingdom’s participation in Operation Haven inside Iraq. The balance of £10 million represents the Government’s contribution to the Kurdish refugee appeal announced on Thursday 25 April. These additions will enable the ODA to maintain its planned development activities, and to continue to provide substantial humanitarian assistance to help relieve famine in Africa.

     

    North Sea

    Mr. David Porter : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up a high-level task force combining all the Departments of state concerned, all industries involved and all interested parties to bring forward proposals to secure continued viability of all uses and the well-being of the North sea, once gas and oil structures are decommissioned; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Departments maintain regular contact with a wide range of organisations with an interest in many aspects of the North sea. I see no advantage in establishing an additional forum. Consideration of an abandonment programme by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy under the provisions of the Petroleum Act 1987 will take account of consultations with organisations concerned with other uses of the sea including fishing, and with environmental interests. The abandonment of offshore installations will be performed in such a way as to cause no significant adverse effects upon navigation or the marine environment, in accordance with our international obligations.

     

    Opposition Parties (Access to Civil Service)

    Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider allowing opposition parties equal access to civil servants and publicity budgets to enable them to prepare and publicise their own policies.

    The Prime Minister : No. By long-standing convention, civil service time and Government publicity budgets are not used for party political purposes.

    Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the civil service trade unions regarding the effectiveness of the rules set out in the Armstrong memorandum of December 1987 on the propriety of publishing party political material using civil servants’ time.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Arms Trade

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has for an international register of arms sales.

    The Prime Minister : At the special European Council in Luxembourg on 8 April, I proposed a register of arms sales at the United Nations to monitor the scale of arms build-up in any one country. We are taking every opportunity to urge others to support the idea of such a register. Our ambassador at the United Nations is also taking this forward in New York.

     

    First Division Association

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister how many of the demands of the First Division Association code of civil service ethics have been incorporated into official regulations.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s position is set out in the note by the former head of the home civil service on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants in relation to Ministers, issued in December 1987, subject to the further points contained in the Government’s responses to the fifth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee for the 1989-90 Session.

     

    Iraqi Arms Disposal

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has put to the United Nations for a commission to monitor Iraqi arms disposal.

    The Prime Minister : United Nations Security Council resolution 687 requires the Secretary-General to establish a special commission to oversee the elimination of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. We hope that the special commission will start work as soon as possible, and we shall co-operate with it fully.

     

    Members’ Letters

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 April, Official Report, columns 293-94, to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), whether he will make it his aim to provide responses to Members’ letters to Ministers which are as full and as helpful as possible, on a time scale similar to that for a response to a parliamentary question.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) on 12 February at column 393. I have nothing further to add.

     

    South Africa

    Mr. Robert Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister whether he raised with Mr. de Klerk at their meeting on 22 April the failure of the South African Government to release all political prisoners by the target date of 28 February 1991, as agreed in the Pretoria minute of 6 August 1990.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 26 April 1991] : No, not least because the target date of 30 April has not yet been reached.