The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Author: admin

  • Mr Major’s Parliamentary Answer on Hong Kong – 25 October 1989

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary Answer on Hong Kong, held on 25th October 1989.

    FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH SECRETARY:

    Mr. Morley To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major I hope to visit Hong Kong early in the new year. Precise dates have not yet been determined.

    Mr. Morley Is the Foreign Secretary somewhat relieved that after the Commonwealth conference’s unanimous agreement to a statement on the position in Hong Kong, no member of the Commonwealth repudiated the statement one hour after making it? As the Foreign Secretary moves more towards the idea of compulsory repatriation, and there is much talk of economic migrants as against refugees, how does the right hon. Gentleman intend to determine between economic migrants and genuine refugees in the case of Hong Kong?

    Mr. Major First, on a point of information, the hon. Gentleman may care to know that no communiqué was repudiated – [Interruption] – by the Government. The communiqué was accepted in its entirety and without demur. However, there were four areas in the communiqué on which I expressly declined to agree with my Commonwealth colleagues and the subsequent press statement set out the British position on those areas. In the case of Hong Kong, the international community has accepted for some time that all those screened out as non-refugees should, in due course, be returned to Vietnam. Ultimately, that is the only possible solution.

    Sir Peter Blaker May I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on his appointment, but on securing the statement in the communiqué by the Commonwealth Heads of Government to which he has just referred, relating to the return to Vietnam of those boat people who are determined not to be genuine refugees? How far have my right hon. Friend’s talks about monitoring such returns proceeded with the Government of Vietnam?

    Mr. Major Those talks are continuing. I hope that they will be concluded before too long, but, as yet, they are not wholly finished. We are concerned to ensure that when Vietnamese refugees and non-refugees return to Vietnam they are treated properly and fairly and we shall seek to ensure that monitoring arrangements are made to safeguard them.

    Mr. Heffer On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

    Mr. Speaker Does the point of order arise out of the question?

    Mr. Heffer This is a very important matter, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members cannot properly hear what is being said. I do not know whether it has anything to do with the new television cameras, but we cannot hear the questions being put to the Minister, or the replies. Hon. Members sitting over here certainly cannot hear. Will you look into this matter, so that we can at least hear what is being said?

    Mr. Speaker Perhaps I should ask hon. Members to speak up. I had some difficulty in hearing the last question – [Interruption]. Order. I shall have the microphones looked into.

    Mr. Foulkes I do not think that my hon. Friend’s complaint will apply to me. Will the Secretary of State consider giving some assistance to the Government of Vietnam to help with the refugee settlement programme? Will he also do what he can to ensure proper safeguards and monitoring for the return of refugees? Does he understand that although Opposition Members support encouragement and persuasion to return for those not accepted as refugees, we shall strongly oppose forced repatriation? Will he now rule out force as part of his orderly return programme?

    Mr. Major I shall take the hon. Gentleman’s final point first. It is becoming increasingly clear that voluntary repatriation cannot provide the comprehensive solution that is necessary. We are seeking to counsel and persuade the Vietnamese boat people to return to Vietnam. We are receiving the full support of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in doing so. I invite the hon. Gentleman to recognise that the problem in Hong Kong is now acute. It is getting worse and cannot be borne much longer. It will soon be necessary to tackle the thorny question of involuntary repatriation. I shall do that as and when it is necessary. I shall most certainly be seeking safeguards for those people who return, because I regard that as a most important matter.

    Mr. Lester Will my right hon. Friend agree, before he approves any agreement with the Vietnamese Government, to consider the concerns of many colleagues in the House about the prospect of 33,000 Vietnamese non-refugees being forcibly returned to Vietnam? Will he also undertake to consider our views that any aid should be directed to their resettlement – difficult enough in many communities in Vietnam – and that the United Nations or the European Community should examine much more carefully the rehabilitation of the whole of Vietnam’s infrastructure and development, now that it has changed its policy to one of development and a market economy? Unless we do that, many of us will be deeply worried about reluctant or compulsory repatriation, given that people will be returned to the abject poverty from which they have come.

    Mr. Major Vietnam stands a better chance of getting what it wants from the international community if and when it fulfils its international obligations – that point must be understood. The key element is an unequivocal and public commitment by Vietnam to taking back all non-refugees in safety and dignity, and we shall seek that.

    I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns; I wish there were an easy alternative, but neither he nor anyone else has yet found one. The whole international community made it perfectly clear at Geneva and elsewhere that it was not prepared to take non-refugees. It is therefore not reasonable to accept that they will have to stay in Hong Kong for ever and I cannot, will not and do not accept that – [Interruption].

    Mr. Speaker Order. May I say to those who are asking questions from a sedentary position that that does not help us to hear?

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Party Conference – 12 October 1989

    The text of Mr Major’s speech to the 106th Conservative Party Conference, held at the Winter Gardens in Blackpool, on 12 October 1989. The text of the speech is from the press release, 201/89, issued by Conservative Central Office on the same day.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    When I was appointed, some of the newspapers said I had never been north of Dover. So I thought I had better come to Blackpool. Just to prove them wrong.

    At that time Gerald Kaufman was in Africa. Fact finding – a new departure for him. He said I had no experience – that I was a stooge. It’s a good thing he likes me or heaven knows what he’d have said! As for him, I share the general view. He’s a real charmer!

    The Prime Minister was worried about my appointment. She thought I might be too old. Too staid. Too well known. That’s why she gave me: Lynda Chalker, William Waldegrave, Francis Maude, Tim Sainsbury and Ivon Brabazon. And she let me keep my PPS Tony Favell, to whom I owe so much.

    It’s a team with a style of their own. Unstuffy. Practical. And with their eyes on the opportunities of the future. There are tremendous demands on them: from Hong Kong to South Africa; from Lebanon to Cambodia; and from Brussels to Moscow. But they are the right team to represent Britain around the world.

    They have something else in common that Gerald Kaufman might have noticed. They have far more Government experience than Neil Kinnock and the rest of the Labour front bench put together.

    And what is more: our team are getting more experience of Government every day. And we intend to make sure that Mr Kinnock and his colleagues never get any at all.

    I am fortunate to have taken over from Geoffrey Howe. If he will permit me to say so, he is a very good friend to have. I have sought his advice often in the past – and I shall not hesitate to do so in the future.

    Throughout my lifetime the continent of Europe has been divided. There have been grim political barriers across the whole of Eastern Europe. And economic barriers throughout the West.

    Now the barriers are coming down. Three years from now those inside Western Europe will have gone. And in the East, the Iron Curtain is being torn apart before our eyes. You don’t need me to tell you this. You see it in your living room night after night. We now see:

    – a non-communist Prime Minister in Poland;

    – free elections imminent in Hungary;

    – real debate in the Soviet Parliament;

    – and thousands and thousands of East Germans fleeing from repression in the East to freedom in the West.

    Some years ago, Mr Khrushchev threatened that Socialism would bury the free market. If he were here today he would see how wrong he was. It is the free market that is burying Socialism.

    That makes it even more sad, even more ironic, that the Labour Party are repolishing their socialism just as the Soviet Union, Hungary and Poland are abandoning theirs. Too late, as usual, the Labour Party have not learned the simple underlying lesson of Eastern Europe. Socialism has failed. The more intelligent socialists know it has failed. The news is spreading throughout the world and – some day – it may even reach Walworth Road. But don’t hold your breath!

    In our party we knew that freedom could not forever be crushed. But few expected so much change so soon.

    Now we must help that change.

    We must support freedom and reward reform. That’s why this Government pressed vigorously and successfully for generous treatment of Poland and Hungary by the European Community.

    Last year Britain got the Community to secure an important trade agreement with Hungary. This year we did it with Poland. Last week, we secured a generous package of Community Aid for both those countries. Our aim is to encourage and reward real reform. That is why Britain has set up its own fund for Poland, worth £25 million over 5 years, to help them run elections, set up newspapers, form political parties, and build businesses – the very life blood of a free society. And I can tell you now that we are setting up a similar fund for Hungary as well.

    The ultimate success of the reforms in Poland and Hungary will depend on the resource and determination of the Poles and the Hungarians themselves. But we cannot allow them to fail for want of our help at this critical time in their history.

    Change in Eastern Europe is dramatic and welcome. But we must be hard-headed about it. We must not and dare not neglect our defence. Just ponder this. If the will of the West had weakened, the reformers in the East would have lost long ago. If the Kremlin tune had been a winning one, they would never have changed it. Mikhail Gorbachev and Margaret Thatcher can do business because he knows she means business.

    So beware when Labour want to make unilateral concessions. From weakness. That is not our way. We will reach negotiated agreements. From strength.

    Mr Chairman, Western Europe is changing too. Fifty years ago, Europe was full of young people with knapsacks going off to fight. Now it is full of young people with haversacks going off on holiday. That is a better Europe. A new Europe.

    Entering the European Community was a momentous decision. It opened up new opportunities which we are now beginning to take up. And it aroused great uncertainties which at last we are beginning to put aside.

    I am not someone who believes in Europe right or wrong. We must judge it on its merits. But a clear-eyed look at British national interests shows beyond doubt that we have benefited from Community membership – and we will continue to do so.

    We are now setting the European agenda, and we no longer need to fear being dragged along behind unpopular policies.

    The fight to get the Community on the move – and in the right direction – is already half won. That could not have been done without the joint achievements of the Prime Minister and my predecessor, Geoffrey Howe. And nor could it have been done without the work of our colleagues, the Conservative members in Europe. They are an important part of the right team for Europe.

    Of one thing I am sure: we in the Conservative Party make a terrible mistake if we are defensive or defeatist about our role in the Community. For it is we who have breathed new life into it. It is we who put the Community’s finances on a firm foundation; we who tackled soaring farm spending and absurd food surpluses; we who brought the Community together to speak with one voice to the wider world. It is we who have brought the 1992 drive to the top of the Community agenda.

    Let none of us forget these things. Together, British Conservatives have performed a priceless service to the Community.

    It is our show. The Community is carrying out our programme.

    We are putting the torch to a whole bonfire of petty obstacles and niggling controls. The Community has already agreed over half the measures of the 1992 programme. And as a result, people throughout the Community will be free to save wherever they want. Practise their profession wherever they wish. Buy insurance across national boundaries. And much else too.

    Excellent progress. But not enough. Now we must sure that what we have agreed for Europe is implemented throughout Europe.

    There is no backlog in this country. We keep our promises. If we agree to something, we do it. It’s Britain that has the best record for carrying out the community’s objectives. And it’s Britain that makes the fewest guest appearances in the European Court.

    It’s not what you say that matters – it’s what you do. It’s not only the principles you preach – it’s the policies you practise.

    And there is much else that must be done.

    – We need to open up financial services still further. Britain has done so completely. Other countries are dragging their feet. It’s time they did the same as us.

    – We need to open up transport. It’s time some of our partners thought of cosseting their international passengers instead of feather-bedding their national airlines! It is ludicrous that air travel costs three times as much in the Community as it costs in the USA – and that must be put right.

    – We need to cut state subsidies. They distort competition. We are cutting them. But some member states are actually increasing them! That has to stop!

    – We need to abolish exchange controls throughout the Community. We abolished them ten years ago!

    – We need to crack down on fraud and regain the trust of the tax payer.

    – And we need faster flows of people and goods across Community frontiers, without giving up the effective controls we must have against the criminal, the terrorist and the drug runner.

    Our partners in the Community have come to expect that sort of common sense from the British. And I’ll let you into a secret: they’re really rather grateful!

    In recent months we have seen much discussion of economic and monetary union. It means different things to different people.

    So far, the discussion has centred on only one set of ideas. They would involve an end to national currencies, to independent national central banks and national control over fiscal policy. All that in exchange for benefits that are unspecified and uncertain. We can’t accept those ideas, but there are other ideas to discuss and we will put them forward.

    Mr Chairman, Labour accuse us of wanting a free enterprise Europe. Well, I do. I do want a free enterprise Europe. And I’ll tell you why. Because free enterprise works and Socialism doesn’t! The Labour Party may not have noticed it, but that is why the people of Eastern Europe are shedding socialism for free markets even as we speak.

    Labour say they’ve changed their attitude towards Europe. That is true. They have. They were malevolent. Now they are simply incompetent. But they remain blinkered. They still think like that famous newspaper headline: “fog in channel. Continent cut off”.

    They still do not understand that Europe’s greatest social problem is unemployment.

    We welcome the debate over Europe’s social dimension. We say: of course there is such a dimension. But it is not the dimension set out in the Commission’s grandiose social charter. There is nothing social about a dimension which prices people out of jobs.

    I know a bit about unemployment. From personal experience. I won’t forget it. I hated it. And I rejoice at over three years of steady cuts in the dole queue here. We now have one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the European Community. So it is with total conviction that I shall argue in this country and in the community that the Conservative recipe for tackling unemployment is right, and the Socialist recipe is wrong.

    Mr Chairman, jobs must be at the very heart of a social Europe. Our partners said just that last June in Madrid. Now we must all act on it.

    Of course, our idea of a social Europe doesn’t stop at jobs. We have a wider perspective than that.

    We want a Europe where everyone has the chance to contribute towards the success of their enterprise – and reap the rewards of that success. Capital ownership should not be the province of the rich – it must become available to everyone.

    We want a Europe where people have the chance to develop their careers and their talents.

    We also want a Europe where people enjoy the highest standards of health and safety.

    But that’s not all we want!

    We want a Europe where workers have the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, creed or disability, and where they have the right to belong to a trade union if they want to and the right not to belong if they don’t want to.

    And last, but not least, we want a Europe clean and green enough to hand on to our children.

    That is the social dimension of the Community that we want to build.

    Mr Chairman, we Conservatives are realists. We know that the best way to achieve our objectives is for countries to work with their national traditions – not against them.

    We want companies and workforces to come to their own arrangements.

    Above all, we want decisions to be taken by those who have to live with them.

    It’s a very simple principle. It means that all those things that can’t best be done together at Community level should be done at local level, by each member state. The Community calls that principle ‘subsidiarity’. It deserves a better name. Because, if we Europeans stick to is, it will take power away from the centre, where it should never be left, and hand it back to the people – where it belongs!

    That principle is understood well enough in Eastern Europe. For it’s the very diversity of the West which is so attractive to the East.

    Mr Chairman, after the last World War, people said, as they always do, ‘this must never happen again’. This time there was a difference. This time they did something about it. They created Western European institutions that have become so embedded that traditional European conflict is now inconceivable. That is the gift from the statesmen of the last 40 years to the present generation – and it is a gift beyond price.

    Now the statesmen and women of today have a new challenge.

    All Europe stands on a threshold – and we Europeans now have to make a choice. We can turn our backs on the divisions of the past, and tear down the barriers that divide us. Or we can cling to the old certainties – and go on as before.

    That would be an abdication. An abdication of such scale that future generations would never forgive us.

    There are times when the pace of events and the path of policy come together. When they do, the course of history can change.

    In Europe, East and West, we are living through such a time.

    Opportunities will arise that may not recur. Some will be clear. Some will not. Some may be expected. Some not.

    We must take these opportunities. There is a feeling in the air. In East and West, and between East and West, there is a better Europe to be built. A Europe more secure. More prosperous. More free.

    In Britain, in the Community, in the wider Europe, this Party has built better than it knew.

    It has opened up choices undreamed of a few years ago.

    They are there for the taking.

    Together, let us take them!

  • Mr Major’s Comments on TUC and Labour Defence Policy – 8 September 1989

    Below is the text of the press release, 130/89, issued by Conservative Central Office on 8 September 1989 and entitled “John Major Attacks TUC’s Defence Resolution”.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    The Rt. Hon. John Major, Foreign Secretary, today criticised the TUC’s contortions over defence, they gave a taste of what’s to come at Labour’s own conference.

    Mr Major said: “The unions could have taken the opportunity of a defence debate to set out a clear and coherent commitment to Britain’s security. They didn’t. Instead, they chose to play with words to paper over the differences between multilateralists and unilateralists. The motion they adopted shows that one-sided disarmament by Britain is still very much on the cards of the TUC. It is a triumph of political cynicism over national interest”.

    The TUC gave the game away by calling for ‘multilateral involvement’ by Britain, but ‘unilateral initiatives’ as ‘speedily as possible’. Mr Major said: “There’s not much point in Britain turning up for the meeting if it’s just to agree someone else’s agenda”.

    “The fact is that we and our allies are negotiating with the Warsaw Pact a series of arms control agreements which will make the world a much safer place. If the TUC had their way, we would have nothing to negotiate with”.

    “In their re-write of history, the unions have given all the credit for progress in arms control to the Soviet Union. They are wrong to do so. It was the determination of the NATO allies to deploy cruise missiles which has led to the removal of a whole class of nuclear weapons”.

    “The TUC’s debate was a crucial test for Labour’s policy review – and it failed abysmally. They fudged the motion, just as Labour fudged the policy. Until the left comes to terms with the real world, they will be in no position to offer security to the British people”.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Labour’s Policy Review – 10 August 1989

    Below is the text of the press release, 110/89, issued by Conservative Central Office on Thursday 10 August 1989 and entitled “Labour Still Unfit to Govern – Policy Review is a Colossal Deception”. The speech was made by Mr Major at Huntingdon to party workers at 17:00 on Thursday 10 August 1989.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    Labour are no more fit to govern now than they were one year ago.

    Neither their much-touted policy review nor their European Manifesto have revealed any new understanding of how to make Britain’s voice count in the world, or how to advance Britain’s interests.

    That’s bad news not only for Britain, but for the whole international community. Because Britain now takes a leading role on a whole range of key international issues such as arms control, human rights, the nurturing of democracy, the resolution of regional conflicts, and the protection of our natural environment. In all these areas, Britain has helped to set the pace – thanks to ten years of Conservative Government. And Labour are as baffled by that success as ever.

    First of all, Labour haven’t yet grasped how much of Britain’s new political capital has been built upon economic success. Their policy review shows that they are more than ready to jeopardise that success for the sake of socialist ideology – albeit dressed up in the language of realism and efficiency. Labour would reverse the whole thrust of the Government’s economic strategy which has propelled us to the top of the growth league of major European economies. That would be folly.

    It’s high time some of the myths of Labour’s so-called new ‘realism’ were nailed once and for all.

    There’s nothing realistic about a jobs strategy which would force industry to pay a national minimum wage – and cost thousands of jobs in the process.

    There’s nothing far-sighted about subjecting industry to a whole panoply of controls, commissions and boards dusted down from the 1960s. There’s nothing pragmatic about restoring union immunities, bringing back secondary picketing, and ending the right to a pre-strike ballot – the very state of affairs that brought the country to its knees before, and would do so again.

    And there’s nothing modern about taking privatised industries back under state control – just when the rest of the world is consigning nationalisation to the dustbin.

    Under the Conservatives, we’ve seen Britain leading the world by example. We have shown how competition, incentives and privatisation can create jobs by the thousand and boost standards of living for everyone. Other countries – of every political complexion – now wish to do the same – from Turkey to Cuba, from China to Togo. They all want to learn from our experience.

    It’s the prestige we have earned which is giving Britain real clout in the world once again. Labour’s policies would turn us into an economic laughing-stock, and usher us backstage all over again. And as their disastrous policies take their toll, Labour would fall back on the usual socialist prescription: import controls, capital controls, and Fortress Britain consigned to unsplendid isolation. In no time at all, Britain would be paying the inflationary price of Labour’s Mark 2 socialism. The world would be the poorer for it. And so would Britain.

    Of course, Labour would like Britain’s voice to be heard.

    But it wouldn’t be as a key player in arms control negotiations between East and West – because they’d rather opt out altogether.

    It wouldn’t be in all the key economic fora, pressing for multilateral disarmament in trade as well as weapons.

    It wouldn’t be at the United Nations, working to bring peace in the major conflicts which blight our world.

    And it wouldn’t be heard in the Community, urging our partners to meet the 1992 deadline for a free and open People’s Europe.

    No. Labour would much rather see Britain posturing shrilly from the sidelines. But posturing is not substitute for a policy. Nowhere is that more true than in defence – the first responsibility of any Government. And it’s in defence that Labour’s policy review has most conspicuously failed the test.

    By abandoning the policy of flexible response – the strategy which has kept Europe at peace – Labour would critically undermine the unity of the NATO alliance.

    By opposing the modernisation of NATO’s short-range nuclear weapons – in spite of the fact that the Warsaw Pact have modernised 95 per cent of theirs – Labour would leave NATO with a deterrent which was neither credible nor effective.

    And by seeking the eventual removal of all short-range nuclear weapons, Labour would jeopardise the safety of our troops in West Germany.

    Most fatally of all, Labour’s policy review makes it clear that its eventual objective is the elimination of Britain’s own nuclear capability. So the abolition of the British deterrent remains unequivocally on Labour’s agenda. The question is not whether we should disarm but when.
    Labour’s policy review has barely begun to come to terms with the real world. It is a public relations exercise. It would be greeted with total dismay by our European partners, and would seriously undermine our objective of getting Europe to speak and act as one on all the most crucial international issues.

    It would be the most colossal deception of the British people.

    And it’s the most telling evidence yet that Labour are still unfit to govern.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Murder of Colonel William Higgins – 31 July 1989

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments following on the murder of Colonel William Higgins, made on 31st July 1989.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the report that a pro-Iranian group had killed Colonel William Higgins]

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I think it’s an extremely sad day if it’s true, this sort of violence begets further violence and that has been one of the problems in the Middle East for many years.

  • Mr Major’s Comments Following his Meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister – 30 July 1989

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments following his meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister, made in Paris on 30th July 1989.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    The Chinese Foreign Minister is in no doubt about our concerns, no doubt about the need to restore confidence in Hong Kong and discussions with the Joint Liaison Group will continue in September and at a later stage this year.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Hong Kong – 26 July 1989

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Hong Kong on 26th July 1989.

    Mr. Hayes To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will announce a scheme of assurances to encourage Hong Kong people to remain in the territory.

    Mr. Major The Government are continuing their urgent work on the scheme and an announcement will be made as soon as this work is completed.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Foreign Office – 25 July 1989

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the challenges of the Foreign Office after taking over as Foreign Secretary. The comments were made on 25th July 1989.

    [Mr Major was asked what were the challenges ahead at the Foreign Office?]

    There’s a great deal to be done in many areas of policy and tremendous opportunities to be taken as well in terms of East-West relationships where the field is changing very rapidly and I think the opportunities are tremendous and certainly in terms of Europe after the Single European Act, we’re in Europe, I’ll like to see us take a lead in Europe.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Small Businesses – 24 July 1989

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Small Businesses on 24th July 1989.

    Mr. David Shaw To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

    Mr. Major The Government’s economic policies are designed to maintain a vigorous economy in which business and enterprise can flourish. Over the last 12 months we have continued our commitment to this goal. Among the specific measures helpful to small businesses introduced in the last Budget were for the small companies’ lower corporation tax rate of 25 per cent. profit limit raised by 50 per cent. to £150,000 and the limit for receiving transitional relief raised to £750,000; simplification of pensions rules and substantial increases in personal pension contribution limits; improved tax reliefs designed to encourage employee participation in PRP and employee share schemes (including ESOPS); abolition of close company apportionment rules; introduction of the receipts basis of schedule E (a simpler system for the assessment of earnings). extended relief for pre-trading expenditure; VAT registration threshold raised broadly in line with inflation; CGT gifts relief retained for business assets.

    We are continually looking at ways of reducing the burdens on small businesses. In addition to the continuous review of forms, explanatory notices and leaflets with the aim of providing guidance which can be easily understood, the following changes have been achieved in the last 12 months: The completion of the computerisation of PAYE and extension throughout the country of computerisation of the tax affairs of the self-employed. From 1 July 1989 the scope of the Community carnet was extended. Development work has taken place for the introduction on 1 August 1989 of two fast lane systems which will speed up the clearance of certain EC imports. Development work is proceeding on a new computerised system for the handling of import export freight which will speed up the clearance of goods. We have also carried out thorough examinations of:

    The VAT cash accounting scheme;
    Default surcharge;
    VAT bad debt relief;
    Export data capture;
    VAT second hand schemes; and
    PAYE communications between employers and the Inland Revenue

    The results of these reviews are under consideration.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Engagements – 24 July 1989

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Engagements on 24th July 1989.

    Mr. Siliars To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his engagements when he expects to make a major speech on the economy.

    Mr. Major My right hon. Friend will be speaking on a number of occasions over the next few months, including the IMF/IBRD meetings in Washington (26–28 September), the Conservative Party conference (10–13 October) and at the Mansion house (19 October).