The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Author: admin

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Nuclear Disarmament – 15 November 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on Nuclear Disarmament. The text was issued by Conservative Central Office, news release 906/81, and the speech was made at a Young Conservative Forum in Cambridge on 15th November 1981.

    Conservative News Release 906/81. Extract from a speech by John Major, MP, (Huntingdon), speaking at a YC [Young Conservative] Forum at 91, Hartington Grove, Cambridge.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    The misleading propaganda of the CND:

    The highest aim of Government policy must be peace and security. That is not easily achieved. It will never be achieved by CND marches and demonstrations, nor will it be secured by pious platitudes. I make no apology for the priority the present Government has given to our defence posture, nor for the decision to install Cruise Missiles in East Anglia. Nevertheless, this high profile is controversial. It has provided a great boost for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and I want to deal with this organisation and its propaganda at some length.

    I have no doubt that there are many people in the CND movement who are completely sincere and deeply worried about the growth of nuclear weapons. I respect their sincerity and I share their concern about the dangers of nuclear weaponry.

    However, I cannot respect the movement itself, because its deceptions are legion. To call some of them inaccuracies would be charitable. Much of what the CND proclaim is utterly untruthful and even a cursory examination of Government defence policy can show this to be so.

    It is impossible to detail all these deceptions, but let me put flesh upon some of them that I believe attract many people into the CND who might not otherwise join it. The first of these is to claim that Cruise Missiles – to be sited at Molesworth in my constituency – are a first strike weapon and therefore intended for use in a pre-emptive attack on the Soviet Union. This is a charge made by the CND that has received wide currency.

    It is basic CND propaganda. But it is totally untrue. Apart from the fact that the characteristics of the Cruise Missiles render it utterly unsuitable for a pre-emptive strike.

    Firstly, the missile is exceptionally slow and would take between three and four hours to reach the Soviet Union from the United Kingdom. It would clearly be detected by the Soviet Union in ample time for them to dispatch retaliatory weapons before the Cruise Missiles struck.

    Secondly, the number of Cruise Missiles to be deployed in Europe is much smaller than the total number of Soviet missile silos, so again it could not possibly be used for a pre-emptive strike. Thirdly, such a strike could not possibly hit the many hundreds of nuclear missiles the Russians deploy in submarines with which they would subsequently be able to respond. For this reason then, the Cruise Missile is unsuitable for a pre-emptive strike.

    The CND are perfectly aware of these facts and yet they are undeterred. They repeat this charge again and again and many people who hear it so often are inclined to believe it. But this is by no means the only CND deception.

    The CND alleges that Western planning – NATO planning – is now based on fighting and winning a nuclear war. They must know that is untrue.

    The CND want Britain to “give a lead” by one-sided, unilateral nuclear disarmament. They claim that Britain would set an example that other nations would follow. But which countries would follow? Would anyone follow us? Would the Soviet Union disarm? Would China? Would France? The truth is nobody would follow our lead, if we disarmed unilaterally.

    All we would do by unilateral disarmament would be to weaken the NATO Alliance and encourage the Soviet Union to believe that the resolution to withstand them no longer existed in the West.

    There is an even more dangerous aspect to this particular propaganda from the CND. Shortly – early next year – the United States and the Soviet Union will enter into general disarmament talks. The great danger of current CND propaganda is that the Soviet Union will be encouraged to believe that if they wait long enough and the anti-nuclear movements agitate enough, the Western nations will unilaterally disarm without requiring the Soviet Union to do so.

    In this fashion, the CND are acting both against the national interest and against the interests of millions of their members who genuinely want peace.

    CND propaganda is also blatantly anti-American, this is evident in the frequent charge that the Cruise Missile is being sited in the United Kingdom and in Europe simply because the Americans imposed its siting upon us to make sure that nuclear war is limited to Europe. This is utterly untrue. It was, in fact, Europeans who first suggested the introduction of the Cruise Missiles in Europe, even though it is paid for by the United States. The European nations did so in order to deter the Russians from believing that, because of the growing weight of Soviet nuclear weapons and the obsolescence of the West’s existing theatre nuclear forces, they could seize Western Europe and present the Americans with a fait accompli. Nonetheless, this factual reality does not deter the CND. I wish that the unilateral disarmers would acknowledge just once, in public, that it is Soviet SS20 missiles that are aimed at Western Europe and not Cruise Missiles. I wish they would also acknowledge – since it is surely true – that it is the alliance between Western European countries and the United States in NATO that preserves both our security and our freedom.

    The CND also alleges that the Russian’s arms build-up is only a response to Western arms. And yet how different is the fact. The Russians now spend about one seventh of their annual wealth for military purposes. That is more than twice that of any other Western country. To put it in more lurid terms; the Russians spend twice as much on defence as they spend on health and education combined, whereas we in the United Kingdom spend twice as much on health and education as we spend on defence.

    If the CND campaigners are right and the Russians would follow a lead given in the West, then surely they too should have reduced military expenditure over recent years. Why did they not follow that line? We now know that they have not and any suggestion, therefore, that they would follow our lead, were we unilaterally to disarm and remove nuclear weapons, must surely be exposed for the nonsense it is.

    The CND peddle the alluring fantasy that we can safely dismantle nuclear weapons and rely on conventional weapons alone. That is a remarkable proposition. The Warsaw Pact countries outnumber the West in conventional armaments by between two and three to one. Moreover, if they retained nuclear weapons whilst we did not, they would only have to threaten to use them for all our conventional weapons to become entirely useless. Unilateral nuclear disarmament would mean quite simply that the United Kingdom no longer had the power or the resolution or the intention of defending itself against aggression or contributing to the defence in the West. That is a reality that people must accept.

    However, we cannot be complacent. CND propaganda is effective. It does play upon a universal desire for peace. It does contain significant public figures and churchmen who offer it respectability and who also mask the Communists on its national committee and extremists who have infiltrated its ranks for political purposes.

    The British Government want peace. It wants security; it wants genuine and verifiable multilateral disarmament. These are desirable objectives but we will only achieve them if we have the courage and resolution to sustain our part in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and in the Western Alliance.

    We must not let the CND damage that resolution.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Select Committees – 12 November 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Select Committees, published on 12th November 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will move for the appointment of a Select Committee to examine all aspects of the taxation of married couples.

    Mr. Pym My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer published a Green Paper on this subject last year and is considering the comments on it from individual members of the public and representative bodies. The subject matter is already within the terms of reference of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on the Council of Fisheries Ministers – 28 July 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on the Council of Fisheries Ministers, published on 28th July 1981.

    Sir Patrick Wall Asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the recent meeting of Fisheries Ministers.

    Mr. Major Asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Council of Fisheries Ministers’ meeting in Brussels on 27 July; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Buchanan-Smith I refer my hon. Friends to the statement which I made in the House earlier today.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Crown Agents – 21 July 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Crown Agents, published on 21st July 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Lord Privy Seal when the 1980 report and accounts of the Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board will be laid before Parliament.

    Mr. Neil Marten The report and accounts will be laid before Parliament on 23 July. Published copies of the report and accounts will, as soon as they are available, be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on the Friendly Societies Bill – 14 July 1981

    The text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on the Friendly Societies Bill, published on 14th July 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any explanatory material is to be made available to right hon. and hon. Members to assist their consideration of the Friendly Societies Bill at Second Reading.

    Mr. Lawson Yes. Notes on clauses and a Treasury press notice are available in the Vote Office.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Starter Homes – 8 July 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Starter Homes, published on 8th July 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if local authorities are responding to the development of starter homes for first-time buyers.

    Mr. Stanley Yes, the response by local authorities to our low-cost home ownership programme is already very considerable.

    During the present financial year informal inquiries indicate that 82 authorities intend to make land sales for private low-cost house building; 120 authorities are likely to do building for sale schemes on their own land in partnership with private developers; 72 will be doing improvement for sale schemes; 53 homesteading schemes; and 28 shared ownership schemes.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on the National Enterprise Board – 22 June 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on the National Enterprise Board, published on 22nd June 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on progress on achieving full overlap of board membership between the National Enterprise Board and the National Research and Development Corporation.

    Mr. Michael Marshall In addition to Sir Frederick Wood, who is chairman of the two organisations, my right hon. Friend has appointed Mr. Lawrence Tindale and Sir George Macfarlane as members of the two organisations. Further appointments will be announced in the normal way.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on the International Energy Agency – 17 June 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on the International Energy Agency, published on 17th June 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the meeting of the governing board of the International Energy Agency at ministerial level on 15 June.

    Mr. David Howell The governing board of the International. Energy Agency met at ministerial level in Paris, on Monday, 15 June 1981, under the chairmanship of Senator The Honourable J. C. Carrick, Minister for National Development and Energy of Australia. I represented the United Kingdom.

    The meeting considered short-term oil market questions, including the present situation and the development of measures for responding to any future disruptions and problems of structural change in the medium and longer term, including the question of energy pricing.

    Ministers emphasised that, although the oil market at the moment was soft, it was essential to avoid complacency. The market was fragile and vulnerable to sharp changes as a result of a small incident. Continued market stability depended upon significant levels of supply being maintained from several major producing countries. Present stock levels, allowing for moderate seasonal stock-build this summer, should be adequate for the coming winter. But the situation should be kept under close scrutiny.

    Ministers expressed the determination of their Governments that the agency should be equipped to respond to future supply disruptions in order to prevent them from again resulting in sharply increased prices and severe economic damage. They agreed that officials should continue, as a matter of urgency, to examine a range of measures to deal with such disruptions. The next step will be in-depth international consultations with the oil companies. It is hoped that the official governing board will take decisions in the second half of 1981.

    Ministers agreed that it was essential to press ahead with the restructuring of the IEA energy economies, which was the only sure way of reducing dependence on imported oil. While there was general satisfaction at the progress which had been made, it was recognised that enhanced efforts were needed in a number of areas, particularly coal and nuclear power.

    The importance of economic pricing of energy was recognised. Ministers agreed on the need to carry forward earlier IEA decisions on this subject. There was a widespread view that this further work should centre on the following elements:

    (i) where world markets exist, now only for oil, consumer prices should reflect the world market price;

    (ii) where world markets do not exist, consumer prices should normally reflect the cost of maintaining supply of the fuel concerned in the long term;

    (iii) those subsidies of consumer prices and other interventions which discourage conservation, high levels of domestic production and substitution away from oil should be avoided and a thriving energy trade should be developed;

    (iv) electricity tariffs should not prevent utilities from raising the revenues needed to provide capacity to meet future requirements;

    (v) in considering tax positions proper weight should be given to energy policy objectives;

    (vi) energy prices should be characterised by transparency so that consumers and producers can make economically efficient decisions.

    The governing board at official level has been instructed to take up this question as a matter of urgency using the above elements and the discussion between ministers as a starting point.

    I am placing a copy of the communiqué issued at the end of the meeting in the Library of the House.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Statutory Sick Pay – 17 June 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Statutory Sick Pay, published on 17th June 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has new proposals concerning statutory sick pay; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Patrick Jenkin As I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) on 12 February – [Vol. 998, c.418.] – I have delayed the introduction of legislation for a statutory sick pay scheme until next Session in order to give further consideration to the question of how to compensate employers for their additional costs.

    My Department is today publishing a consultative document which seeks views and comments by 4 September on two new options, each of which relates the compensation more closely than under previous proposals to individual employers’ statutory sick pay costs. My Department will be consulting a number of organisations on these options and the document is available to the public. Copies are available to hon. Members in the Vote Office and a copy has been placed in the Library.

    The Government recognise the importance of devising a fair and workable method for compensating employers for the statutory payments they will be required to make, and will take full account of views expressed in formulating the measure they will bring before Parliament in the coming Session. It is the Government’s intention that a scheme of statutory sick pay should operate from April 1983.

    An annex to the consultative document puts on record some other changes to the Government’s proposals for statutory sick pay, which have been made in the light of the comments received on the April 1980 Green Paper, “Income During Initial Sickness: A New Strategy,” Cmnd 7864. The annex also discusses the question of the provision of medical evidence during incapacity.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Youth Service – 16 June 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Youth Service, published on 16th June 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to receive a report from the review body examining the youth service in England.

    Mr. Macfarlane I understand that the review group aims to report to my right hon. and learned Friend in summer 1982.