Author: admin

Below is the text from Baroness Thatcher’s book “The Downing Street Years” regarding the appointment of John Major as a junior Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security, ISBN 0002550490, page 422.

---

MARGARET THATCHER:

I also made quite a large number of changes in the ranks of junior ministers. Two future Cabinet ministers came into the Government – Michael Howard at the DTI and John Major who moved from the Whips’ Office to the DHSS. John Major was certainly not known to be on the right of the Party during his first days as an MP. When as a whip he came to the annual whips’ lunch at Downing Street with the other whips he disagreed with me about the importance of getting taxation down. He argued that there was no evidence that people would rather pay lower taxes than have better social services. I did not treat him or his argument kindly and some people, I later heard, thought that he had ruined his chances of promotion. But in fact I enjoy an argument and when the whips’ office suggested he become a junior minister I gave him the job which I myself had done first, dealing with the complex area of pensions and national insurance. If that did not alert him to the realities of social security and the dependency culture, nothing would.

Below is the text from John Major’s book “The Autobiography” regarding his appointment as a junior Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security, ISBN 0006530745, page 86.

---

JOHN MAJOR:

In the late summer of 1985 I was at home at Finings watching the death throes of the England-Australia Test at The Oval on television. I had hoped to be at the march, but the probability of a reshuffle, and whispers that I would be promoted, kept me by the phone. England’s pace bowler Richard Ellison was mopping up the Australians as I awaited events. Norma was out, and James and Elizabeth were at school, so I was alone. And I had a dilemma.

I was horrified that I might be offered the job of Minister of Sport. I loved sport and politics, but they were separate parts of my life, and I had no wish to mix them. This was the first of two occasions in my career when I was to wonder whether or not to accept a promotion. I paced the room, and decided that I wanted a job in the mainstream of politics, or no job at all. If the Prime Minister offered me Sport I should say no, and ask to stay in the Whips’ Office. I marshalled my arguments, knowing that she would not welcome such a response.

The telephone rang. It was Number 10. The Prime Minister wished to speak to me later – would I be around? ‘Yes’ I said. And waited. And paced. England won the Test match. I continued to wait.

Finally the phone rang again. It was the Prime Minister. ‘I’d like you to leave the Whips’ Office and go to Social Security,’ she said. ‘It’s where I started. It’s a good place to be. Norman Fowler will be your Secretary of State – get in touch with him straight away. Good luck.’ And that was it. I breathed a sigh of relief. I was a minister, and with a mainstream brief.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments during the debate on the Newspaper Industry, held in the House of Commons on 26th March 1985.

---

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley) I am grateful to all my hon. Friends who have come to listen to this important debate. They should join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on raising it. This is not the first time that he has raised the issue; he has drawn the House’s attention on several occasions to something that probably matters to more people each day than almost any other issue that can be discussed here. People rely on the newspapers for their information. They rely on them for buying and selling goods. Many rely on the newspapers for their employment. We should remember, as my hon. Friend said, that more people might be able to rely on the industry for their employment if conditions were such that people could enter it as publishers. Therefore, there would he more titles, and more competition. Some newspapers would go out of business. I see no reason why it is any purpose of Parliament to protect every title that presently exists. We want to make sure that there can be free and fair competition within the industry.

The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O’Neill) made one or two unwarranted attacks on my hon. Friend, and I suspect that he led his hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) into similar behaviour. Given that it is the time when the final editions of the national press are being put to bed, it may be a sign that more of us should be put to bed. Perhaps we can conduct the rest of the debate in a more open and friendly way.

I had not realised that it was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who had suggested to my hon. Friend that he should raise this matter on the Consolidated Fund. I shall not be buying a drink for my right hon. Friend for some time.

I do not intend to give a direct answer to the point made on what may be connivance between workers, employers and possibly even trade unions when people apparently work under certain names so that their income tax is not deducted and their national insurance is not paid. My suspicion is that the situation has changed over the past two years, but I shall make sure that the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North are passed on to colleagues in Government. He will receive a reply spelling out the situation, which could also go to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Clackmannan.

The hon. Member for Clackmannan managed to put a more acceptable face on the NGA than almost anyone else could have done. I had my suspicions, and they were only confirmed when I looked up the hon. Gentleman in The Times guide. I see that he is really a member of the General and Municipal Workers Union, and the white collar section at that. I recommend to the NGA that it at least doubles the contribution that it makes to him for his advice and the way in which he puts across its case.

I should like to refer to the most significant points that underlie the debate and which ––

Mr. O’Neill Before the Minister goes further, to save myself any extra, if not undue, embarrassment, I should like to say that under the sponsorship arrangement, with which I am sure he is well acquainted, any moneys from unions that sponsor hon. Members go to the local Labour party, not to the individuals concerned. There is a certain nicety there, which should be made clear for those who take an interest in these matters but are not always as well informed as I am sure the Minister is.

Mr. Bottomley I do not see any reason why I should be more precise in my remarks than the hon. Gentleman was when he referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East. The honours, perhaps, are even.

I am sure that the House will return to these issues on a number of occasions. I do not want to launch into what might be seen as a reasonably standard attack on the unions. I certainly do not think that the Fleet street chapels are under the control of the national executive or the national union. Most people realise that they are independent, autonomous groups of people no more tied to Socialism than I am. Many of them live in my constituency, and when I am canvassing they tell me with pride that they have contracted out of the political levy and they often say that they are rather keen on earning a good deal of money.

Mr. Evans What has that to do with the future of the industry?

Mr. Bottomley I thought that we were talking about the people in the industry. The underlying issue is whether the trade unions are doing what their members want. In most cases, they are doing that. The questions whether there is a framework within which they can negotiate and whether there is a reasonable balance of power between employers and employees will also be covered in the next debate.

In the newspaper industry, there is a common acceptance of the priorities for the industry, but different interests in moving towards that. It is a matter of reconciling different union interests and trying to get a better developed common interest between employers and those working in the industry. We must always remember that those who will decide the future of the industry are not those working in it but the customers. It is the response that the industry gives to the demands of its customers that will determine the number of jobs, the pattern of production, the people involved and the industrial agreements that will best meet the needs of the customers.

It is sad, but true, that industrial relations practices in Fleet street, especially in the printing industry, can be among the worst in this country. When things go well, they are probably among the best. The difficulty is that today’s newspapers are of interest today, but not tomorrow. If production is lost employers find themselves in a great deal of difficulty and feel that the bargaining strength is not balanced. I do not believe that Government should step in and try to make special industrial relations arrangements for the newspaper industry. However, we recognise that on occasions resistance to bully-boy tactics in the industry has not been as effective as it might have been. Government legislation –or Parliament’s legislation –

Mr. Evans Government legislation.

Mr. Bottomley Legislation is passed by a majority in the House. It is no better and no worse than motions passed by a majority in a union conference, or even the Labour party conference.

Mr. John Major (Huntingdon) It is better when passed by the House, especially when the Conservative party is in Government.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary contribution as a Government Whip to the Ordnance Factories Debate, made on 21st May 1984.

---

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee) We are drawing to the close of many hours of debate on the Bill from Second Reading, through 24 Committee sessions and Report stage to Third Reading. From the Opposition we have had – it was amply demonstrated tonight by the speeches of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)  – the usual mix of sarcasm and exaggeration. On Second Reading the right hon. Member for Llanelli made a ludicrous and disgraceful attack on private defence companies. He did not do so tonight, but he made equally dismissive comments about our overseas military sales – the £2.5 billion worth of goods that we sell overseas, the 150,000 jobs that are involved in defence exports, and the 40 per cent. of ROF products that are sold overseas.

By contrast, the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) were models of balance, and I appreciate their support. The line of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) has been consistent, and she has maintained the family tradition of independence.

Security was mentioned repeatedly this evening, as it was many times in Committee. Security is continually kept under review, and we acknowledge the comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). Significant improvements in security arrangements are being made, but I cannot go into precise details at this stage. On Report the House had a full debate on our new proposals for security arrangements at ROF sites. To reiterate our position, we have taken powers in the Bill to enable Ministry of Defence police to remain at ROF sites for as long as we consider it necessary. Parallel to that, the ROFs will set up a company guard force to take on the responsibility of guarding ROF sites where that is considered appropriate. Our eventual aim is to replace Ministry of Defence police with company guard personnel. That will, of course, depend upon an assessment of the threat at various sites.

Several detailed questions were asked about the organisation and training of the new company guard force. It is far too early to give full answers to those questions. The Ministry of Defence will liaise closely with the ROFs on recruiting and training such a guard force, with the aim of creating a reliable and efficient organisation.

Much has been made of the fact that Ministry of Defence police have access to arms. The new company guard force will not be armed, but security arrangements must be cleared with local police authorities and contingency plans will be made for civil police support, where necessary, on each site. As the House knows, the civil police can draw arms should the position so warrant it. Contingency plans will include the possible need to call upon armed police. As the new company guard force is built up during the coming months, liaison arrangements with existing MOD police guards will be worked out. I emphasise that MOD policemen will remain subject to the ultimate control of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Foreign control has also been mentioned repeatedly during our debates. We have always made clear our intention that the new ROF companies should not come under foreign control. The best way to ensure that objective would be to have appropriate articles of association for the company once it ceases to be under Government control. Accordingly, we have drawn up drafts, which were made available to the Standing Committee which examined the Bill.

The draft articles require the company to maintain a register of shares held by people who are not British citizens. They limit the number of these shares to 15 per cent. of the issued share capital of the company and provide for a special share to be held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Even after he has disposed of the bulk of his shareholding, it will give him the power of veto over any attempt to change the articles in question. It will also enable him to veto the share of any substantial part of the business which is more than 15 per cent. of the value of the business, or produces more than 15 per cent. of the profits. It will be open for consideration at the time whether the Secretary of State should exercise that power in the case of a projected sale to a British interest, but he would certainly do so to prevent a sale to a foreign interest.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked about the relationship between ROFs and International Military Services Ltd. Of the total IMS budget for 1984, ROF products account for approximately half the turnover, but less than 25 per cent. of the profits before tax. Most of that relates to the performance on contracts which were signed several years ago. On the new business budgeted for signature in 1984, ROF products represent only 25 per cent. of the contract value.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) asked about houses. My hon. Friend asked about farm tenancies. The rights of tenants will not be diminished and tenants whose houses are transferred to the company will enjoy all legal safeguards. The same applies to farm tenants. House properties that lie inside the ROFs’ perimeters will be transferred to the company together with the houses that fall within the safeguarded areas at the explosives ROFs. Those unaffected by safeguarding will remain with the MOD, except where the company requires the house or land on which they stand. The details of that arrangement are being worked out, together with what consideration should be paid for the properties where they represent an asset to the company.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked about the valuation of the assets. As we made clear in Committee, it will not be possible to value every item of property and each right or liability which is to be transferred initially before vesting day. The precise identity of many of the assets cannot be ascertained until vesting day; for example, a large proportion of them in terms of value will consist of work in progress. Work is carried on in respect of such assets for the benefit of the trading fund until vesting day, and after vesting day for the benefit of the new company. It will therefore be necessary to make an inventory of these assets at vesting day, and only then can their precise value be ascertained. The same is true of some liabilities, such as payments due to suppliers.

During our proceedings right hon. and hon. Members have repeatedly and rightly referred to the long and distinguished history of the ROFs, the quality of their products and the loyalty, integrity and dedication of the work force at all levels. That must not prevent us from reviewing their structure and role in our evolving defence procurement strategy. The ROFs served our nation nobly in the past. Our proposals will ensure a strengthened organisation. It will consist of a holding company with four subsidiaries, considerably enhanced managerial, research and marketing resources, greater flexibility in recruitment and salary levels and, assuming privatisation by flotation of the whole, will give employees a real opportunity for the first time to invest and participate in the company.

The ROFs have a bright future, but they cannot be above criticism or change. The Government would be failing in their duty if, in the search for greater competition and efficiency in defence spending, they preserved the sheltered position relative to other defence contractors which the ROFs have historically enjoyed.

I am confident that the royal ordnance factories will respond to the challenge and opportunities, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. McNamara rose –

Mr. Speaker Order.

Mr. McNamara Why, Mr. Speaker, will you now not give –

Mr. Speaker Order. I think that the Minister has sat down.

Mr. John Major (Huntingdon) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House proceeded to a Division –

Mr. McNamara (seated and covered) On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I humbly request information as to why hon. Members were not called to speak in the debate when there was still a minute of the allotted time to go?

Mr. Speaker The hon. Member had already spoken and therefore had exhausted his right to speak again. The Minister had sat down.

Mr. McNamara Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker Order. If an hon. Member who had not spoken had risen to intervene, of course I should have called him.

Mr. McNamara If I had asked the leave of the House –

Mr. Speaker Order. The hon. Member did not ask the leave of the House.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Land Drainage, published on 17th January 1983.

---

Mr. Major Asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the membership and terms of reference of the committee reviewing land drainage, the organisations and persons who have submitted evidence to it and the date by which the committee is expected to report.

Mr. Peter Walker The review which I announced on 29 July 1982 covers all aspects of the administration and financing of land drainage and coast protection. It is being undertaken by a committee of officials of the Departments concerned, under the chairmanship of a deputy secretary in my department. The committee hopes to submit its report to the Ministers concerned by early February.

No organisations or persons outside the Departments have been invited to submit evidence, but when my colleagues and I have had an opportunity to study the report, we shall issue a consultation paper to all interested organisations for comment.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Land Registers, published on 8th December 1982.

---

Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his latest estimate of, publicly owned vacant land identified by the land registers.

Sir William Elliott Asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many areas currently listed on the local authority register for England are currently in the ownership of statutory undertakings; and if he will express that figure as a percentage of the total number of areas recorded.

Mr. Giles Shaw I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan).

The text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Lorry Weights, published on 1st December 1982.

---

Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about his proposals relating to lorry weights.

Mr. David Howell The House has welcomed the Government’s comprehensive package of measures to make lorries less objectionable to people, less damaging to the environment and more economic. The House has also approved regulations to make lorries safer and control their size, as well as to allow them to run with fuller loads.