Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Citizen’s Charter (Disabled People)

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the application of the citizen’s charter to the rights of disabled people.

    The Prime Minister : The principles underlying the citizen’s charter apply to everyone, including people with disabilities. Public services should consider the needs of all their customers, including those with special needs, when drawing up charters and planning service provision.

     

    Downing Street Declaration

    Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library questions concerning the Downing Street declaration that he has received from Sinn Fein, together with the Government’s answers.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland issued a commentary yesterday alongside questions from Sinn Fein which the Irish Government handed over last week. This commentary, including the Sinn Fein questions, has been placed in the Library.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    European Union Anti-Discrimination Law

    Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the competence of the European Union in regard to the adoption of European law against discrimination whether on the basis of sex, race, age or disablement following the entry into force of the Maastricht treaty.

    The Prime Minister : The entry into force of the treaty on European Union has not altered the European Community’s competence to legislate in respect of the principles under article 119 of the treaty of Rome against discrimination on the basis of sex, or its lack of specific competence to legislate against discrimination on the basis of race, age or disablement.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 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.

     

    Civil Servants (Disability)

    Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants are employed in his Department; and how many of them are registered disabled.

    The Prime Minister : There are 107 civil servants employed in No. 10 Downing street, none of whom is registered disabled. For recruitment purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. There are 16 registered disabled civil servants employed in the Cabinet Office, out of a total of 1,386. The Cabinet Office is an equal opportunities employer.

     

    Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he received about the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill between 6 and 12 May; what replies he has sent or will be sending; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a number of representations, to which replies are being sent.

    My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People announced the Government’s plans for combating discrimination against disabled people during the debate on Report stage of the Bill on 6 May, Official Report, column 996, and gave further details in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) on 10 May, Official Report, column 136.

    My right hon. Friend is currently working on the detail of the consultation he announced on 6 May. The full proposals will be issued as soon as possible.

  • PMQT – 19 May 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

    Mr. Hain : Did the Prime Minister personally obtain the permission of Her Majesty the Queen to privatise the Royal Mail?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement about the Royal Mail shortly. I have no doubt that he will deal with all the matters that concern the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Batiste : My right hon. Friend will be aware of the statement by the French Government that they propose to remove a part of their forces in Bosnia by the year end if there is not more rapid progress towards a political settlement and if other countries do not provide greater assistance. What is the British Government’s response to that?

    The Prime Minister : What the French Government have said is not that they are going to withdraw all their troops from Bosnia at the end of the year but that they propose to reduce by 1,000 their troops in Croatia, and a small number of further troops–I think 1,500–from Bihac. Even when those reductions have been made, the French will still be the largest troop contributors to the former Yugoslavia. The United Kingdom Government, of course, come second. We have no intention at the moment of removing our troops, although, of course, their safety at all times is paramount.

    Mrs. Beckett : When the Post Office was not even mentioned in the Conservative party election manifesto and the effects of privatisation are causing chaos on British Rail and pushing up gas prices for ordinary families, why are the Government now looking to privatise the Post Office?

    The Prime Minister : As I said to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) a moment ago, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a full statement to the House about the Government’s proposals in just a few moments. The right hon. Lady would be well advised to wait for that statement. As to British Rail, I think that she will find that, when it is operating as a privatised concern, as with the other privatised concerns, the service will be infinitely better than it was under nationalised control.

    Mrs. Beckett : Contrary to what the Prime Minister says, the experience of most of the British public, particularly in the case of British Rail and of water, is that the end result of privatisation has been higher charges and poorer service. Do the Government never learn?

    The Prime Minister : What we see in what the right hon. Lady had to say is the same old knee-jerk opposition to private ownership. It is interesting to see that the same old centralising tendency remains among those on the Opposition Front Bench, just as it always has. What privatisation has produced is better services, profits instead of losses, tax revenue instead of taxpayers’ subsidy, and a better service for the consumer. That is because the private sector will run services better.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does the Prime Minister realise that the Post Office successfully combines running a profitable business with providing a public service that is of fundamental value to the whole community and that no one can be confident that that service will survive undamaged, especially in rural areas? Is not it another privatisation that is unnecessary, unpopular and unworkable?

    The Prime Minister : Once again, in the way that they have done so frequently, right hon. Members make conclusions before they know what is to be proposed and how matters are to be dealt with. Time and again, they have been proven wrong and, on this occasion, they will see how wrong they are very speedily.

    Mr. Congdon : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed new secure training orders for young offenders are a welcome step in protecting the public from persistent young offenders and will be welcomed by most people?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I think that they will certainly combine an effective punishment with a decent education. What those new centres will offer is the opportunity for young criminals to break away from crime and give the public a break from their offending. I am delighted that that commonsense view is now generally but not, it seems, universally held.

    Mr. Ashdown : If, as I hope and believe, the Prime Minister is serious about wishing to use this opportunity permanently to improve the quality of debate in the House, would he be prepared to open discussions and take suggestions about how we might improve these 15 minutes of Prime Minister’s Question Time–only a few weeks ago, he described as “ritual confrontation”–in order to make them more informative and more in keeping with what most people want?

    The Prime Minister : I think that many people in the country believe that these 15 minutes would be used more effectively on policy matters if questions were asked specifically about matters that must concern the people who watch our proceedings on television or read about them subsequently. I certainly wish that to be the case, but it is a matter for the House and for those who question me rather than for me. I am here to respond to the questions that are asked. [Hon. Members :– “Oh!”] The theory that this time is not always wisely used by the Opposition was most clearly illustrated just now.

    Mr. Stephen : Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of our constituents believe that the young American vandal in Singapore got exactly what he deserved? Will my right hon. Friend consider the new clause that I have tabled to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, designed to prevent that vandal, and every other criminal, profiting from his crime by selling his story to the press?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we are seeking in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to make a whole series of changes to improve crime and punishment in this country. I believe that the provisions in the Bill will be very popular across the country, and I hope that they will have the full support of the people. I regret that so many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches still seem to be more concerned for the criminal than for the people against whom the criminal perpetrates his crimes.

     

    Q2. Mr. McKelvey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

    Mr. McKelvey : Does the Prime Minister recall the helpful reply that he gave me some weeks ago when I asked a question about the passage of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Why then did he go on to direct, or at least condone, the sleekit and contemptible tactics used by a Minister to scupper the Bill? Has he no remorse for the disabled of this country? Does not he feel that he should allow the Bill to be passed so that disabled people can have basic civil rights?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the whole House shares the broad aims of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), but the reality is that the Bill, as has been shown in Committee and subsequently, is unworkable in a number of ways. It would impose immense costs and open up enormous scope for litigation. The people who understand and consider such matters carefully will appreciate that fact.

    As the hon. Gentleman will know, for I have told the House on previous occasions, we intend to press ahead with our own proposals, with consultation on a range of measures about discrimination in order to eliminate unjustified discrimination in employment, provide access to goods and services, to financial services and to buildings and to establish an advisory body on disability. That is the right way to proceed in order to produce measures that genuinely will work and will help disabled people. That is the way that we have proceeded in the past and will proceed in the future.

     

    Q3. Mr. Burns : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

    Mr. Burns : If my right hon. Friend will forgive me for changing the subject, does he agree that the unemployment figures released yesterday and the steady fall in unemployment over the past 12 months is welcome news which shows that our economic recovery is steady and sustainable? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is somewhat strange that when the news is bad about unemployment no one questions the authenticity of the figures but when the news is good and people are getting back into work some people seek bogusly to take away from that good news by questioning the authenticity of the figures?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a telling point with great clarity. The facts speak for themselves : unemployment is down by about 100,000 over the last three months and it has been down by more than 250,000 over the last year. What has been especially encouraging is that long-term unemployment has been falling as well. What is equally striking is that, while unemployment falls across the whole of the United Kingdom, it is still rising throughout much of Europe. That shows the extent to which our economy has recovered and is continuing to grow, in sharp contrast to most European economies.

     

    Q4. Mr. Win Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

    Mr. Griffiths : Has the Prime Minister had time this week to read about the seven suicides reported to have been triggered by the actions of the Child Support Agency? An ever-growing number of fathers are giving up work because they cannot afford to pay what the Child Support Agency assesses them for, yet many single mothers are worse off as a result of the agency’s activities. Will he now set aside his well-worn and repeated phrase about keeping the activities of the agency “under review” and institute immediate radical reform by bringing new legislation to the House?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is well aware that we made a number of changes some time ago. It is clearly sensible to let those changes settle down and to get a little more experience of how they are working. The changes were widely welcomed and, in many cases, they reduced the amount of maintenance that absent parents were required to pay. There were a number of other changes that I think that most people would regard as the right way forward.

    The hon. Gentleman has now embarked upon the exercise of that useful quality–the wisdom of hindsight. The principle of the legislation is right. It was widely welcomed in the House. We are determined to examine what is happening and make sure that if changes are shown to be necessary, they can continue to be satisfactorily made.

    Mr. Marland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the losses in excess of £2 billion that were announced by Lloyd’s of London earlier this week bring its total losses to more than £8 billion for the past three years that accounts are available? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that that has led to the suicides of 11 of Lloyd’s investors? If it is correct, and it is correct, that there should be an official inquiry into the activities of Mr. Frederick West of 25 Cromwell street, Gloucester, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also right that there should be an official inquiry into the business practices of some professionals at Lloyd’s, which have led to the deaths of its investors?

    The Prime Minister : As I think that my hon. Friend knows, a number of civil cases relating to Lloyd’s are now before the commercial courts. It would be most unwise of me to comment on that issue while that is the case.

     

    Lockerbie

    Q5. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will have discussions with the German Government about the statements of Edwin Bollier and Ulrich Lumpert concerning the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister : The Scottish prosecuting authorities and police have worked closely with their German counterparts in the course of the Lockerbie investigation. Any discussion of evidence or information that may be relevant to the investigation would be a matter for the Crown Office and the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary to pursue with the relevant German authorities.

    Mr. Dalyell : So why has Bollier’s written request to have a sight of his timers, so that he can determine whether they were in the batch that went to Libya or the batch that went to the Stasi, been turned down?

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of the recent press reports alleging that both Bollier and Lumpert have additional information on the supply of electric timers to the East German Stasi. The Lord Advocate has taken the view that the available evidence justifies the criminal charges that have been brought against the two Libyans. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that beyond that, I cannot comment on the detail of the available evidence while the criminal investigation is still proceeding.

    Mr. Dalyell : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Spring : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

    Mr. Spring : As we congratulate President Mandela on his recent inauguration, does my right hon. Friend agree that the best hope for South Africa’s future lies in economic growth and job creation, flowing from a free enterprise system? Does he further agree that policies such as deregulation, competition and privatisation form the best basis for economic success anywhere in the world?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. It is no surprise that the policies of deregulation, competition and privatisation are now being adopted in every part of the globe. They are certainly being imitated in central and eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. As for South Africa, I wish President Mandela every success in building the strong and stable South Africa that we all wish to see. I am sure that if he pursues those policies, they will assist.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EC White Paper

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a White Paper setting out the economic gains and losses for EEC membership since Britain joined.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s White Paper on competitiveness, to be published on 24 May, will set out the United Kingdom’s approach to Europe, the benefits that that has brought, and how we can enhance the performance of the European economy as a whole.

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 April, Official Report, column 264, if he has now received from the Indian Human Rights Commission its report of the incident at Bijbehara in Kashmir which took place in October 1993.

    The Prime Minister : The Indian Human Rights Commission report into the incident at Bijbehara in October 1993 was published on 24 April. A copy was placed in the Library of the House of Commons on 12 May.

     

    Correspondence

    Mrs. Roche : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement as to whether his office has obtained or sought to obtain a copy of the receipt and letter from the Ritz hotel in Paris referred to in the correspondence between the Prime Minister and Mr. Peter Preston, editor of The Guardian newspaper.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 13 May 1994] : I have nothing further to add to the letter sent from my office to Mr. Preston on 29 March 1994.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with other members of the United Nations Security Council about the statement by Edwin Bollier and Ulrich Lumpert, Swiss manufacturers of timing devices, about the circumstances of the Pan Am 103 disaster over Lockerbie and the policy of sanctions against Libya.

    The Prime Minister : The exchange of information with the authorities of other Governments involved in the Lockerbie investigation is a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. He has made it clear that he cannot comment on the details of the available evidence while criminal proceedings are pending. We have regular discussions with the other members of the Security Council about Libya. They are clearly of the view that Libya has not complied with Security Council resolutions 731, 748 and 883.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

     

    Malaysia

    Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister for how long his predecessor visited Malaysia on 6 August 1988; who she met during her visit and by whom she was accompanied during her meetings; what subjects were discussed during the meetings; and on what date it was decided that she should visit Malaysia on 6 August 1988.

    The Prime Minister : My predecessor decided in June 1988 to visit Malaysia in August on her return from Australia. During a two hour stop-over in Kuala Lumpur on 6 August, she met the Malaysian Prime Minister, who was accompanied by his Foreign Minister, the Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry and two other officials. The British high commissioner and the Prime Minister’s foreign affairs private secretary were also present. A wide range of subjects was discussed, including aid, air services, Cambodia, defence sales, and arrangements for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Malaysia in 1989.

  • PMQT – 17 May 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Dunnachie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

    Mr. Dunnachie : Will the Prime Minister agree to scrap the Child Support Agency in its present form and go back to the drawing board to produce a more efficient and fair method of supporting children of lone parents?

    The Prime Minister : I think that children are entitled to be supported by their own parents and that taxpayers should help only to the extent that parents do not have the means to do so. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in February we made some changes to the Child Support Agency and I repeat what I have said to the House on previous occasions : we shall continue to keep it under review and, if further changes are necessary, we shall make them.

     

    Q2. Mr. Lidington : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

    Mr. Lidington : Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week’s decision by the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill has caused immense dismay among my constituents in Aylesbury and among many other people in London and south-east England? Will he assure the House that the Government will look urgently at other ways in which that project might be taken forward?

    The Prime Minister : I share the disappointment that the Select Committee has rejected the Crossrail Bill. We have consistently made clear our commitment to the project and I am pleased to tell the House that that commitment remains. The promoters are now urgently considering the position and we are in discussion with them on how to proceed.

    Mrs. Beckett : When does the Prime Minister expect to publish the Department of Transport’s report on the technical and legal aspects of fitting seat belts in minibuses and coaches, especially in view of the fact that the Government have been saying since January that that research would be published “in a few weeks’ time”?

    The Prime Minister : I hope that it will not be very long before we are able to publish it. The report has now been delivered to Ministers and I hope that they will be able to announce their conclusions shortly.

    Mrs. Beckett : Could I urge the Prime Minister to make that very shortly indeed, as the report has been in preparation for some time and safety organisations, coach operators and the general public have been calling for a measure along those lines for a considerable time?

    The Prime Minister : We are looking at a range of things. The Department of Transport has been conducting a full review of the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to both minibuses and coaches. We also wish to take into account the circumstances of the minibus accident last Sunday and the vehicles in that respect are still being examined by the Vehicle Inspectorate. It is right that we examine all the circumstances. As soon as we are ready, we shall bring forward our conclusions.

    Mrs. Beckett : Can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that when the Government have looked at this report they will be prepared to introduce legislation as a matter of urgency ? I believe that the amendment paper contains an amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) which might make possible the adoption of a decision in principle as early as tomorrow night. I repeat the offer of all-party talks which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) as long ago as December, with a view to ironing out the difficulties regarding such legislation. I assure the Prime Minister that, subject to proper scrutiny, the Opposition would certainly give any legislation a speedy passage.

    The Prime Minister : We wish to conclude our examination of this matter before deciding what is the right way to proceed. Increasingly a number of minibus manufacturers are fitting seat belts as a matter of course. That is a decision for them. It is also open to potential customers, when making coach or minibus bookings, to ask whether belts are fitted. I do not wish to give any indication of the outcome of the review until we have had time to study the conclusions and to reach a decision based on all the evidence that is available.

    Mr. Couchman : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while regretting the need for such a course, the House will back the decision of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to increase the number of armed response units?

    The Prime Minister : There is a feeling–in the House and across the country, I suspect–that people certainly do not wish the police to be armed as a matter of course. This is a very limited measure and I believe that it is justifiable. Of course, the number of armed policemen will be very small–about 50. These officers are highly trained in the use of firearms and they will be called only to incidents where firearms might be needed.

     

    Mr. Ghazanfer Ali

    Q3. Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he had made to the Government of Pakistan to secure the release of Mr. Ghazanfer Ali from prison in Mirpur.

    The Prime Minister : Although Mr. Ali is not a British citizen, our high commissioner in Islamabad has followed this matter closely on a humanitarian basis. We are concerned that Mr. Ali’s case keeps being adjourned. Officials at the Foreign Office are arranging to meet his son to discuss future courses of action.

    Mr. Madden : I thank the Prime Minister, on behalf of Mr. Ali’s wife and family, for his past efforts on this man’s behalf. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Mr. Ali has been held without proper trial for the past four years. I urge him to make further representations to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and to the Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir, who will be visiting Britain and calling at the House of Commons later this week.

    The Prime Minister : I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a very great interest in the matter. So far, we have pursued it on a humanitarian basis. Given the length of time that Mr. Ali has been detained without trial, I shall consider raising his case again with the Pakistani authorities. The hon. Gentleman knows that as Mr. Ali is not a British national we cannot assist specifically with consular advice. However, on a humanitarian basis, it is right that we should again raise with the Pakistani authorities the question of his lengthy detention without trial.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Dr. Spink : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

    Dr. Spink : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the breast cancer lobby that is taking place at the House of Commons today? Did he have time to read the report on the subject in The Daily Telegraph today? Will he draw its importance to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health?

    The Prime Minister : I think my right hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend’s question. I am very pleased that the Macmillan Fund for Cancer Relief survey shows that there was a high degree of satisfaction with the treatment that women had received from the national health service. That was particularly marked among those who had received treatment more recently. I understand that the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales will publish tomorrow their consultative report on the provision of cancer services. I believe that it will have far-reaching consequences for the services provided for patients with cancer.

     

    Q5. Mr. Grocott : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

    Mr. Grocott : Is not it salutary for the international community to note that in Rwanda more people have been killed in the past six weeks–one estimate puts the figure at 500,000–than were killed in the former Yugoslavia in the whole of the past three years? Is not it vital that the United Nations, the European Community and other international agencies ensure that the time, energy and effort that they devote to the solution of crises worldwide are at least in some way proportionate to the degree of suffering on the ground?

    The Prime Minister : There are many people who feel as the hon. Gentleman clearly does about the dreadful bloodshed in Rwanda. It is clearly a bitter civil war and some of the atrocities that have taken place are unforgivable by any rational judgment. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously adopted resolutions calling for a ceasefire. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to assist where practicable. The mandate is primarily humanitarian, contributing to the security and the protection of refugees and civilians at risk. The resolution also imposes an arms embargo.

    Mr. Bowden : As we approach the 50th anniversary of D-day, will my right hon. Friend give some thought to the war widows whose husbands made the supreme sacrifice, to see whether there is some way in which he can ensure that additional recognition is given to that sacrifice this year by some form of financial payment?

    The Prime Minister : I know that my hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for pensioners generally, and war widows in particular, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will have heard what he has to say. My hon. Friend will agree that, over the years, we have taken great care to recognise the remarkable sacrifice made by many widows whose husbands were killed in the war and most people will consider it right of us to have done so.

     

    Q6. Mr. Foulkes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

    Mr. Foulkes : If the economy is on the mend, as the Prime Minister keeps claiming, instead of increasing VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. in April, will he consider getting rid of it altogether?

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that many people doubt that the economy is on the mend. All the indicators show that that is certainly the case. Not every single indicator in the months ahead may be as good as we would wish, but the overall trend is undoubted. One of the reasons why the economy is moving ahead is that we have taken the tax measures necessary to improve our public finances.

     

    Economy

    Q7. Mr. Luff : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the prospects for economic growth and inflation in the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : The prospects for the economy are extremely good– [Interruption.] –and not only that, this year the United Kingdom is set to be the fastest-growing major European economy for the second year running. Underlying inflation is under control, at its lowest for 25 years and well within its target range. I shall spare Opposition Members all the rest that it says here.

    Mr. Luff : I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the hardest lessons we have to relearn as a country is that British manufacturing industry can prosper only if it is competitive? Against that background, will he join me in welcoming yesterday’s news that factory gate inflation is at a low level not seen in Britain for a generation?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right about competitiveness. The more competitive we are, the more we will sell and the more jobs we will be able to create in this country. The figures on factory gate prices are extremely good–better than we have seen for many years. One of the reasons why we are competitive and will remain so is that we have no intention of saddling our companies with the social on-costs that so many in Europe have now undertaken and which so many in the House would be prepared to undertake.

    Mr. Purchase : Will the Prime Minister contrast the sweeping victories of many Labour groups in the local elections recently

    Madam Speaker : Order. I am listening carefully because the hon. Gentleman’s question has to be tied to the question on the Order Paper on prospects for economic growth and inflation.

    Mr. Purchase : Indeed, Madam Speaker. Will the Prime Minister compare that record with the awful record of the Black Country development corporation on economic development in the black country? In the light of that comparison, would he care to give back to Labour authorities the money taken from them for that economic development?

    The Prime Minister : I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the record of the Black Country development corporation. It is clear that right across the black country and the country as a whole the prospects for manufacturing industry and other industries are rapidly improving. That is self-evident in the growth seen in the past 12 months, the growth that we are seeing now and the growth that we can safely anticipate in the future.

     

    Engagements

    Q8. Mr. Richards : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

    Mr. Richards : Does my right hon. Friend agree that sharpening the skills of our schoolchildren will improve the competitive edge of the economy in the future? Does he welcome the recently announced statistics showing that more of our schoolchildren are staying on at school than ever before?

    The Prime Minister : I do welcome that, just as I welcome the fact that the number of people who are unemployed is falling and has been consistently for 15 months. Some years ago, about one in eight of young people went on to further education; that figure is now one in three. Some 70 per cent. of our 16-year-olds are now in full-time education. I am sure that that trend is right and I thoroughly welcome it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Sir Robin Butler

    Mr. Simpson : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) of 28 April, Official Report, columns 254-55, if he will set out the criteria to be adopted to judge the disproportionate time or effort in preparing information as stated at paragraph (c) of the Cabinet Secretary’s note to which he refers.

    The Prime Minister : The criteria are set out in the guidance on interpretation of the code of practice on access to Government information, which has been issued to all Departments and placed in the Library of the House. The guidance states that consideration should be given to the amount of information sought in an application and the difficulties in identifying, locating or collating the information requested. The guidance goes on to say :

    “In each case, the test is whether these factors would mean that meeting an access request would require an unreasonable diversion of resources or otherwise undermine the work of the department (because files are kept out of circulation for extended periods, for example, or staff have to be diverted a considerable amount of time from other more urgent work).”

     

    Wrafton Laboratories, Devon

    Mr. John Evans : To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has visited the north Devon factory of Wrafton laboratories since January 1993; and what was the date and purpose of each visit.

    The Prime Minister : I have made one visit, on Friday 5 February 1993, as part of a series of regional visits throughout the country.

     

    Consultants

    Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to publish the report of the Cabinet Office efficiency unit on the use of outside consultants to identify savings in the civil service.

    The Prime Minister : The final report of the efficiency unit’s scrutiny on the Government’s use of external consultants will be completed shortly. It is the normal practice for the efficiency unit’s reports to be published. A decision on publishing the report will be made when the final report has been received.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what information has been made available to Her Majesty’s Government as a result of the opening of Stasi files in East Germany about the acquisition of timing devices of the type manufactured by Edwin Bollier and Ulrick Lumpert, which featured in the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie and of the approach to Bollier and Lumpert by United States authorities on 30 December 1988.

    The Prime Minister : The exchange of information with the German authorities in the Lockerbie investigation is a matter for my right honourable and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. He has repeatedly made clear that he cannot comment on details of the available evidence while criminal proceedings are pending.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Scottish Conservative Party Conference – 13 May 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Scottish Conservative Party Conference in Inverness on 13th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Today of all days I want to talk not of partisan politics, but of our country and its prospects.

    There are occasions when it is right to turn aside from the clamour of political differences.

    Yesterday, this conference adjourned to mark its respect for one of our country’s political leaders. An opponent, yes. A gifted and an honourable opponent. Undoubtedly. But a partner, too. A partner in that mission which is central to politics. The guest to build a stronger democracy, a better country, a richer life for all.

    All of us here are people to whom our families matter deeply. John Smith was a family man. And our thoughts and prayers go out, above all, to his family in their grief – in a time of loss for which no words suffice, and into which no-one should seek to intrude.

    The reaction to John’s death tells us much about our country. It showed the priceless asset of the essential decency of the British. We can weep for a good man – even an opponent – because we recognise his qualities.

    This reminds us that there are things higher than politics and, across all divisions, common bonds of humanity that unite us all.

    I liked John Smith. The nation saw us set up in artificial confrontation twice a week in the House of Commons. That was part of our political process – and I make no complaint of that.

    But people did not see behind the scenes. There is friendship in politics, there is decency, there are private relationships across all Parties, there is principle and there is respect and understanding for the beliefs and the convictions of others. What a shame it is that that becomes apparent so rarely.

    Mr President, I must confess to you that I often have little taste for the politics of point-scoring or for the belittling of others. I have none today. I care passionately for what I believe in. But I don’t care passionately for damning what other people believe in. If we could attack the policies of others, but respect their motives, then politics would have a fresher feel than it does today.

    Let us be truthful with ourselves. Across all Europe there is a lower regard for politics than I can ever remember. And, as democrats, we should worry about that.

    Politics isn’t just about power. As you grow more experienced you see the limits on the power of action, limits set by the need to persuade others and carry them with you. Limits set by the capacity of our country to create the wealth and resources needed to fulfil our ambitions.

    No, it isn’t just about power. It’s about ideals. Hopes. Ambitions.

    In politics you never lose the ideals of youth. You always travel in hope. And you never forget your long-term principles.

    There are twists and turns, moments of exhilaration and achievement, and times, too, of disappointment and despair. But you pick yourself up, take on the next task, and go on forward. Because you always have a long-term aim in view.

    Mr President, I sometimes wish that side of politics was more evident. I know politicians of all Parties. And they are not the cynical, power-hungry, self-servers that fiction so often portrays. There is such a thing as public service in this country. And our politicians generally subscribe to it.

    Too often our politics is rooted in old battles, not new opportunities.

    Of course we differ greatly in our philosophy; in our beliefs as to how to do the best for Britain. But sometimes, too, we share a common purpose.

    The War-time coalition and the Labour and Conservative Governments that followed all worked to strengthen the welfare state, develop the Health Service, put in place the modern system of education that Rab Butler had worked to create, and which culminated in his great Education Act of 1944.

    The achievement of Conservatism in the present generation has been to redress the balance between the state and the individual. To extend choice and ownership, to build the right climate for industrial growth and expansion, to set the ambitions, the hopes, and the capacity of every family free.

    I don’t believe those achievements either will ever be challenged or changed. We have created a special British cocktail of free enterprise, tempered with social justice. A wider ownership of homes, shares and pensions than almost any nation in Europe, but a free health service which those overseas envy and admire.

    That will never change. When my parents were old and unwell and without any money, they were well treated. It made an abiding impression on me that they had the security and comfort of mind to know that. While I am Prime Minister, that will never change.

    All of us in politics – national or local – have our role to play. Whether we are players on the stage, or supporters in the wings, or commentators in the front of house, we all have our responsibilities.

    Sometimes I feel – and I don’t only mean in the reporting of politics – that there is too much knocking, too much carping, too much sneering. Too much setting up of Aunt Sally against Aunt Sally.

    Being negative can be an addictive drug. It’s easy. Because we all know how easy it is to do something, if you don’t have to do it yourself. But like any drug it corrodes and destroys the body in which it exists. And one body it runs the risk of corrupting is the body politic of the nation itself.

    If politicians fight – in Party and across Party – like ferrets in a sack on every issue, is it surprising if the public turns away?

    Let’s not be negative here today. Let’s be positive. And look at what’s happened in Britain in the last two years alone, and at our prospects for the future.

    We have achieved an impressive revival from recession – well ahead of the rest of Europe.

    We have the lowest inflation and interest rates for a generation.

    We have growth in the UK – twice as high as anywhere in Europe, and set to continue next year.

    We have public services forced by the Citizen’s Charter to tailor their performance to the needs of the public and to raise their standards year by year.

    We have a National Health Service, in which local doctors have more say than ever, and in which we are treating more patients than ever before – and treating them better.

    We have set reforms in place to raise standards in our schools and to improve the quality of training for young people.

    One third of our young people are now going on to university.

    And crime is now falling in Scotland and throughout the UK.

    That is the reality of what’s happening.

    Mr President, I have not come here to hide the challenges we still face. On the back of a world-wide recession Government is a tough business everywhere. We often have to do things that seem perverse today because we believe they will be right tomorrow.

    Our job is to look long-term, plan long-term, achieve long- term. Set a framework for lasting prosperity. To ensure we don’t go through such difficulties again.

    Some people may not like some of the action we’ve had to take – but our duty is to make the right choices for Britain’s future. It isn’t our job to do things to court short-term popularity, if they have a long-term cost.

    Obligations are painful things. So are difficult decisions. But often they are necessary for the sake of future generations. So that their prospects are not just as good, but better than ours.

    But that is what we’re in Government for.

    “The elevation of the condition of the people”. That’s how Disraeli once put it.

    “The elevation of the condition of the people” – Mr President, that is why I am a Conservative – why we are all Conservatives. And why this party must always frame its policies, not by the yardstick of ideology, but by how closely they touch the everyday lives of the people.

    We mustn’t live in a world of theory. Our theatre must not be the academic clique or the Party caucus. Our theatre is the home, the family, the business, the voluntary group. That is the world from which Conservatism grows.

    Our Party is at its strongest wherever it strikes a chord with the commonsense of the British people. When Conservative canvassers came to my door in Lambeth all those years ago they spoke a language I and the people I knew could readily understand.

    The things they cared about were the things we all care about – how to get on in life, how to take our own decisions, how to acquire new skills, save money, own a home and leave a better start for our children and grandchildren than we ever had ourselves.

    Even to the dependent Conservatism spoke the language of independence. Even to the insecure it offered security.

    It did then. And it must today. Somehow we must break through the artificial frenzy that so often masquerades as political debate and focus attention once more on the essential concerns of the people we represent. That, I believe, is what people want and what our political system needs.

    The Conservative agenda

    Last autumn I spoke of a malaise that I saw creeping across our country. A cloud of unease and uncertainty in the face of constant challenges to the standards that people hold dear.

    I said that our first duty was to dispel that anxiety, answer the worries people have, and draw deep at the well of commonsense instinct as we did.

    I set out there my programme for the rest of this Parliament.

    First, to see through – come what may – our policies for a strong stable economy. That we are doing – through low inflation, low interest rates and falling unemployment.

    It is easy to write off now the importance of the fight against inflation. That is a mistake that I will never allow this Government to make.

    I know from experience what inflation does. What it is like at the end of the week if you’re not sure you’re going to have enough money left over to pay the bills. I grew up in a hard part of London. We shared the house with all sorts of odd characters. Inflation wasn’t our only problem – but it was one of the worst. I know what it is like at the sharp end, what it’s like to struggle on fixed incomes. And so long as I am Prime Minister containing inflation will continue to be a cornerstone of our policy and a touchstone of its success.

    The second goal I set in Blackpool was to bring about a seachange in our approach to crime. Shift the balance in criminal policy decisively against the villain after a generation of liberal ideas. Put punishment back on the agenda. Reject forever the fatal idea that crime can ever be excused.

    If you don’t give young people guidelines and rules you are not helping them. Children who start with a small offence and are not brought up short will commit a bigger offence and then a bigger one, and, before you know it, they’re into serious crime. It is no good if when a young criminal gets caught all he gets is a slap on the wrist and sent on his way.

    We have embarked on a shift in policy on crime, not to turn back the clock – of course not, Dickensian attitudes have no relevance today – but to turn up the heat on the criminal. I make not a shred of apology for that. The British people are heartily sick of the apologists for crime. And the crackdown that’s needed has only begun.

    The third target I have set for the ‘90s is to raise standards in our schools. Without that Britain will not be able to compete in the world. We need to sweep aside the progressive dogma that has done so much damage. Extend parents’ choice. Insist on the basics. Make sure we get the best results for every child. And see that those results are reported, and, what is equally essential, tested.

    Mr President, I simply do not understand opposition to testing. I sent my children to school to learn – so do all parents. You can’t just wrap children in cottonwool. Life itself is a test – and you have to prepare them for it. Compete is what children do naturally. Just put four small children together and see what they do. They see who can run fastest or jump highest. So we will be introducing more competitive games and we will stick to our guns on testing.

    Mr President, in the last six months we have taken huge strides in carrying forward the agenda I set out in Blackpool. Inflation is right down. We have the biggest crime-fighting bill for years before Parliament. And, through teacher training reform, we are putting the last pieces into the mosaic of education reform.

    That is the road this country must follow – and that is the road down which I and this Party will lead.

    Mr President, the mandate we won from over 14 million people was a mandate which runs for 5 years. We are not yet half way through – and I intend to complete it. And then I shall say:

    “Judge me on my whole term of office. All of it. You can’t judge a house when only the foundations are laid”.

    A changing world

    If we are to achieve our social objectives we must have strong economic foundations on which to build.

    There are new and ever greater demands on our resources. But there’s only one way to create the wealth that we need. Through business success.

    We have to lift our eyes from the short-term headlines. Look to the long-term. The world is changing faster than ever before. Just look at the changes there have been.

    Operations that 15 years ago were unheard of now happen almost every day. Young people today have opportunities that our parents’ generation wouldn’t have dreamed of. In future it will not be enough to learn just one skill at 16 and do the same thing all through a lifetime.

    People are living longer than ever before. More people are going into higher education than ever before. Those are all good changes, changes we’ve worked for, changes we want, changes that are making people’s lives better.

    But they all have a cost. We need to pay for them. But we don’t want high taxation. So the challenge for us is to make our economy as competitive as possible, so that we can generate the wealth that we need for the improvements we wish to bring about.

    For today we face a world more competitive than ever before. Not just from America and Japan but from new countries in the Far East, once our captive markets, now our active competitors.

    We must look forward to the world in which our children will live. In the 21st century we’re going to have a world dominated by Japan, the United States and China. The European Community has a choice to make – will it be with those players or will it not?

    The importance of Europe

    I hope it will be, but it is not certain unless Europe follows the right policies. I would give Europe this warning. Unless it makes the right choices about policy today – unless it adopts free market policies – and believes in them – Europe won’t be up there in the next century with the US, Japan and China. It will slide behind.

    That is why Britain must play its full part in Europe. Not just for our own sake, but for Europe’s too.

    Nearly 200 years ago William Pitt said Britain “has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.”

    I know that the issue of Europe runs deep in British politics. It touches emotions more profoundly than routine political differences. It raises concerns and fears that are too often played on too readily. For too long Europe has been the poison in the well of British politics.

    Here, too, far too many people present the European debate in fundamentalist terms.

    People are “for it” or “against it”.

    We “must do this” or “mustn’t do that”.

    Everyone, to paraphrase Gilbert & Sullivan, is either “a little Eurosceptic” or “a little Europhile”.

    This approach misses the real debate. The real debate must be about how we make Europe a success; how to make sure it raises enthusiasm, not resentment; how to make sure it raises the quality of our life and is not seen as threatening the nature of our life.

    What we are talking about in the debate on Europe is our national interest. Our jobs. Our future. And yet far too many people on both sides of the argument miss this wider point. They focus on narrow arguments as though we were fighting a holy war.

    So let us remember the fundamental economic realities.

    British business depends on Europe. Well over half of what we export, we export to Europe.

    We need a place in European Community if we are to continue to attract inward investors to Britain.

    And we need influence in Europe, if we are to make sure that our businesses have the right conditions in which to trade.

    Europe is absolutely fundamental to this country’s national interest. We cannot turn our backs on that. It would be the ultimate abdication, a supreme folly. Limit our horizons and we limit our future. A little country in a lost world.

    I am a Euro realist. I look at Britain’s interests with a cold and clear eye. Britain has a special place in the world. Alone of all nations we live and move in three distinct circles – NATO, the Commonwealth, and the European Community. Each and everyone is a shaping factor in our long-term foreign policy and our own national interest.

    We have a special feeling about America. We are intimately bound up with its history, language and culture. I am one- quarter American. My father lived in America for a number of years. But Americans are realists, too. They want a good relationship with Britain. But, today, one of the main reasons they do is because Britain is in Europe. If Britain’s commitment to Europe was in question, have no doubt – the Americans would look elsewhere for their closest allies – to Germany or to France. They are no more dreamy-eyed about international relations than we are.

    Diplomacy is a calculation of where long-term advantage lies. And, for Britain, that advantage is in Europe.

    Mr President, I don’t accept the argument that a British government, fully involved in Europe, cannot win the battle to shape and mould the future of Europe.

    Who says we can’t win the argument against centralism in Europe? We can and we must.

    Conservative Governments won on the rebate.

    Won on the Single Market.

    Won on subsidiarity.

    And we are winning on deregulation.

    Britain should be confident in Europe.

    One final point. I don’t believe the prevailing orthodoxy that if you disagree with current fashionable opinions in Europe that you are anti-European.

    That is not true. The good European does not rush like Pavlov’s dog to every European fancy.

    He judges what is right for Europe. What will attract the support of the people of Europe. What will retain their liberties – their traditions. And then he fights for it – and that is what we will do.

    Why Conservative?

    Mr President, for the moment the world of politics pauses.

    But in a short while the people of this country will be called, with the rest of Europe, to take up the work of democracy again. And in the European elections we shall put our case to the country on the kind of Europe we want to build.

    You know what I believe in.

    I want to see a wider Europe, which spreads the protective mantle of peace, security and prosperity to the troubled countries of the East.

    I want to see an open Europe in which the weight of bureaucracy and regulation is reduced, and we embrace wholeheartedly the goal of a great single market open for business, competition and trade.

    And I want to see a people’s Europe. One that is not the remote preserve of a circle of planners. But a Community that addresses the concerns of ordinary people – and never seeks to interfere where it does not need.

    Our guiding lights are the principles of free trade, free enterprise and free association.

    Our aim is still to build closer co-operation between a growing number of nations.

    But we shall stand always for individual choice.

    Cherish always national diversity.

    And never deviate for one instant from defence of Britain’s own national interest.

    Our vision remains as it ever has been – a strong Britain in a strong Europe. That vision is supported by all but a handful of the people in these islands.

    Conclusion

    Mr President, I am proud of what Conservative Governments have achieved for our country. And I am full of hope and confidence in what this country still can and will achieve.

    Over the last 15 years we have helped change Britain.

    When I entered Parliament Britain faced real and visible threats.

    Our economy was ravaged by inflation.

    Our industrial strength was sapped by trade union power.

    Our country was threatened by the armed might of the Communist bloc.

    Together we have seen that great external threat dissolve.

    And we have seen many of our internal problems so successfully resolved that many have forgotten the dragons that once stalked the land.

    Of course, in the modern world, new challenges constantly arise. And the pace of invention lays new opportunities and new ambitions in our path.

    But it is all too easy to forget how remarkably the face of our country has changed for the better.

    Today, a child growing up in Scotland is twice as likely to go to university, twice as likely to become a homeowner, and has far better job prospects. Not jobs in declining state owned industries, but jobs in growing industries – profitable businesses with better pay and better working conditions than we’ve ever known before.

    So whenever the storm blows, remember the successes we’ve had – and why we had them.

    We had them because, even when the going was toughest, we stuck to our last, stuck to our guns; we kept cool and we kept faith.

    Throughout all the ups and downs of the last 15 years – and together we’ve seen a few of them both – fashionable opinion has carped and criticised.

    I know many of you were with me in Edinburgh two years ago at that great rally in our General election campaign.

    We didn’t bow then to fashionable opinion. We took it on, shook it by the scruff of the neck, and turned it on its head.

    That Election was about something more profound than many before it. About the very structure and fabric of the nation state our ancestors fought to create. People saw clearly two great threats to our Kingdom – the siren songs of separation at home and surrender abroad.

    It was here in Scotland that we drew the line in the sand. We declared that we could not – we would not – whatever the cost, whatever the risk – compromise our deepest core beliefs, and put our nation at risk.

    We stand – by gut instinct – in defence of the ancient Union between four great nations. For one strong, united country whose voice is heard and respected abroad, as four small nations – however proud – could never be.

    The values we care about are the values that generation after generation in this country have lived for and lived by. I believe that Britain needs those values now, more than ever before.

    So, when the work of politics begins again, let us go out and campaign positively for what we believe in – with pride in our principles, confidence in our future, and faith in our country, the United Kingdom – that unique and special country – that means so much to us all.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister how many employees have worked on a full-time or part-time basis with the Scott inquiry liaison unit set up within the Cabinet Office; when the unit was established; and when its work will be completed.

    The Prime Minister : The Scott inquiry unit in the Cabinet Office was established in December 1992 with three full-time members, increased to five in April 1993. I am unable at this stage to say when the work of the unit will be completed.

     

    Veterans

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will reconsider his decision not to appoint a veterans’ Minister.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 9 May 1994] : Responsibility for matters affecting war veterans, their widows and dependants, forms part of the departmental remit of a number of Ministers, as appropriate. There are no plans to change this arrangement.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    United Nations Security Council

    Q6. Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister if, when he last met President Clinton, they discussed the structure, functions and membership of the Security Council of the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The structure, functions and membership of the United Nations Security Council were not discussed during my visit.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q9. Dr. Liam Fox : To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to pay an official visit to Woodspring.

    The Prime Minister : I have no immediate plans to do so.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 May.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 May.

    Mr. Barry Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 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.

     

    Tigris and Euphrates Valleys

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what latest assessment Her Majesty’s Government have received from medical sources of the latest disease position in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates, related to defective water-pump and water-filtering equipment.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 21 April, Official Report, column 599. We have not received any subsequent assessments or reports.

     

    Savings Disregard

    Mr. Eastham : To ask the Prime Minister what the reasons were for the discrepancy between his oral answer of 5 May, Official Report, column 843, and the answer of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on 14 March, Official Report, column 480, in respect of the uprating of the savings disregard.

    The Prime Minister : There is no discrepancy between my answer on the lower savings disregard and my hon. Friend’s answer, which explained the basis of the formula affecting savings held between £3,000 and £8,000. There is no statutory requirement to increase the capital limits as part of the annual uprating of benefits. We keep the limits under review, but there are no current plans for change.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister how many current and former officials and Ministers in his Department, including the Cabinet Office, have been asked to give written or oral evidence to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister : My predecesor and I have both given written and oral evidence to Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry. In addition, one serving and one former official have given written and oral evidence relating to their respective service within the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet Office, and two former officials have submitted written evidence only.