Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 February 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister which advisers to his Office are seconded from other organisations; and what are the organisations and the lengths and terms of the secondment.

    The Prime Minister : Lord Poole is on secondment to the policy unit from James Capel and Co. Ltd. The terms of the secondment are covered by the normal confidentiality rules which apply to employer-employee relationships. The other advisers in my Office are not engaged on secondment terms.

     

    Political Honours

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1979 the political honours scrutiny committee has referred back names submitted to it.

    The Prime Minister : The political honours scrutiny committee is a committee of the Privy Council. Its proceedings are never divulged.

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will arrange for future honours lists to include not only particulars of public service of recipients but information on their donations to party funds over the previous 10 years.

    The Prime Minister : No.

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister what is the definition of the term “for political services” as used in honours lists.

    The Prime Minister : The term is used to indicate that the person honoured has rendered public service through the exercise of a political office or through a political party.

     

    Public Appointments Unit

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what information is available to right hon. and hon. Members from the public appointments unit; how this information can be obtained; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The public appointments unit maintains a register of people who are willing to be considered for public appointments. A nomination form and a leaflet explaining the role of the unit, and giving details of the different personal qualities, skills and experience that may be required, is available from the director of the unit, which is in the Cabinet Office. The director welcomes nominations of suitable candidates from all hon. Members.

    The unit also provides advice to Government Departments on public appointments policy and procedures. Details of central guidance and examples of good practice are given in the “Guide on Public Appointments Procedures”, produced in September 1992, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister how many names of candidates for public appointments are held on the Chief Whip’s list as described in the Cabinet Office guide on public appointments procedures.

    Mr. Waldegrave : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend has a number of sources of information upon which he can draw in providing advice, when requested.

     

    Mr. Peter Levene

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what requests his office has received for Mr. Peter Levene to give evidence to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Disabled People

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to promote the rights of disabled people within the international community.

    The Prime Minister : Following the United Nations decade of disabled persons–1983 to 1992–a number of resolutions to promote the integration and equality of opportunity for disabled people have been adopted, which the Government have supported. These include standard rules on the equalisation of opportunities for persons with disabilities, and resolutions on the full integration of persons with disabilities and the international day of disabled persons. The United Kingdom is also involved in a number of European Community programmes designed to integrate disabled people more fully into society, including HELIOS, Horizon and TIDE.

     

    No. 10 Downing Street

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 1 February, Official Report, column 610, if he will list each category of miscellaneous indirect costs of non-official events held at 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 1 February 1994, Official Report, column 610.

     

    Lords-lieutenant

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister what are the powers and duties of the lords-lieutenant in England.

    The Prime Minister : Lords-lieutenant have no statutory powers. Their principal function is to act as the sovereign’s personal representative in the county concerned. Their duties include support of the armed forces, the magistracy and voluntary organisations, as well as certain civic and social functions.

     

    Public Appointments

    Sir Thomas Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the total number of public appointments made by Ministers of the Crown or by the Crown or nominations by Ministers.

    The Prime Minister : The information, as requested, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Belize

    Dr. Spink : To ask the Prime Minister what recent contact he has had with the Prime Minister of Belize regarding the security situation; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I met the Belize Prime Minister during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Limassol in October 1993. Mr. Esquivel and I have since exchanged letters.

     

    Executive Agencies

    Mr. Bayley : To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of civil servants were operating in agencies run along “next steps” lines as at July 1993.

    The Prime Minister : Around 60 per cent. of civil servants were working in agencies and other organisations operating on “next steps” lines as at July 1993.

     

    Cash Limits

    Mr. David Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to change the 1993-94 cash limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office; other services vote.

    The Prime Minister : Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XIX, vote 1– Cabinet Office : other services–will be increased by £166,000 from £21,634,000 to £21,800,000 and the running costs limit increased by £166,000 from £24,414,000 to £24,580,000. The increase will be offset by the following inter-departmental transfers and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure :

    (a) a reduction on Her Majesty’s Treasury : administration–class XVII, vote 1–in respect of the transfer of provision for central services– £116,000;

    (b) the transfer of provision for Property Holdings maintenance charges– £56,000;

    (c) a transfer to Department of Social Security administration and miscellaneous services–class XIII, vote 4–for central services–£6, 000.

     

    Angela Heylin

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the appointment of Angela Heylin to the citizens charter advisory group.

    The Prime Minister : Members of the panel of advisers on the citizens charter are appointed in a personal capacity and bring independent, professional expertise from the private sector. Angela Heylin was appointed on that basis.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister whether he will discuss Lockerbie when he next meets President Clinton.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 3 February 1994] : The agenda for my meeting with President Clinton on 28 February has not yet been fixed.

     

    Accounting Officers

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister what were the two most recent occasions on which the Prime Minister decided that a written ministerial direction should be issued to an accounting officer overruling the accounting officer’s advice.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 3 February 1994] : None, so far as I am aware.

  • PMQT – 3 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir John Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.

    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.

    Sir John Hannam : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the visit by Gerry Adams to America has done nothing to advance peace in Northern Ireland? Will he assure the House that the lies and evasions of Sinn Fein will not be allowed to hold up progress towards a settlement in Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend, and that will be the overwhelming view of right hon. and hon. Members. The way to advance peace in Northern Ireland is for the IRA to end violence now. That is in its hands, and it is in Mr. Adams’s hands and I believe that he could and should do it. However, progress in Northern Ireland cannot and will not wait for Sinn Fein. The Government propose to carry forward actively the political talks with the constitutional parties and with the Irish Government. In further meetings, my right hon. and learned Friend will be floating ideas to give further focus and direction to all three strands of the talks process. This is a democratic process. If Sinn Fein and the provisionals want to be part of it, they must renounce violence for good. The way is open to them, but it is for them to take it.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it correct that the Government intend to raise prescription charges from £4.25 to £4.75–an increase of 11.6 per cent., which is more than six times the rate of inflation?

    The Prime Minister : When we are in a position to make an announcement to the House about that, we will make an announcement in the normal fashion.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that his likely increase, and indeed any increase, in prescription charges comes on top of massive tax increases already being imposed by the Government on the ordinary people of this country? Given all that, for once could not the Prime Minister spare the sick?

    The Prime Minister : I think that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall, only those who can afford to pay prescription charges are asked to pay them. From memory, around 80 per cent. of prescribed items are now free of charge. In 1979, it was, I believe, around 55 to 60 per cent.–a significant change. There is no firm evidence in any information that we have that prescription charges deter patients from obtaining necessary medication. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that. He makes no acknowledgement of the fact that most people do not pay prescription charges. He should get his facts right before he pursues these matters in this fashion.

    Mr. John Smith : It is quite clear from that that prescription charges are going to go up. Given that the Public Accounts Committee has identified millions of pounds that have been wasted by the Government’s health service quangos, would it not make much more sense to tackle that rather than to seek to tax the sick?

    The Prime Minister : The revenue from prescription charges this year is sufficient to fund around 70,000 hip replacements or 45,000 coronary artery bypass grafts. What I should like to hear from the Opposition, for all their complaints about prescription charges, is whether they would abolish prescription charges. If they would, who would pick up the bill of over £260 million? Would it be the national health service, with fewer people treated? Would it be the taxpayer? Or would they borrow more? That is another example of the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he would control expenditure, yet every opportunity he gets, he asks for more expenditure to make cheap political points.

     

    Q2. Mr. Burns : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.

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

    Mr. Burns : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will close any genuine tax loopholes, but will not close what the CBI has shown are not genuine loopholes, as, by so doing, they would fail to raise revenue and would merely damage the economy in general and the economic recovery in particular? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that blows away the smokescreen of the tax-and -spend policies of the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : On the last point, my hon. Friend is generous to assume that the Opposition have tax and spending policies. In successive Budgets, we have closed tax loopholes and tackled abuse. My right hon. and learned Friend will continue to do so wherever he finds abuse. The Labour party, with its hare-brained schemes, is not genuinely concerned about closing loopholes. It would close not loopholes but businesses. That would be the result of its policies. As the CBI says today, Labour supports higher taxes on business. That is why Labour will always be the enemy of enterprise, of employment and of British business.

    Mr. Foulkes : Has the Prime Minister had a report of yesterday’s debate on the Child Support Agency, during which hon. Members on both sides of the House related tales of heartbreak and hardship caused by the operation of the agency and asked the Prime Minister and the Government to undertake another review of its working? Will the right hon. Gentleman now announce such a review so that people may look forward to an end to the hardship and the heartbreak?

    The Prime Minister : I read with some care yesterday’s debate on the Child Support Agency, and I am glad to say that the principles behind it received a warm welcome from every part of the House. The reforms will have a significant effect once the maintenance bills of those who qualify are reduced. When the legislation was being introduced, we stated that it would be kept under review. We are still true to that pledge–it still applies.

     

    Q3. Mr. John Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £26 million investment by Nestle Rowntree, at its York factory, in the new production line for Kit Kat, which is one of Europe’s leading confectionery brands? Does not that illustrate very clearly the advantage, in terms of new investment, of multinational companies having a significant presence in Britain?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that it most certainly does. I had hoped to visit that factory in Yorkshire last week, but, unfortunately, was unable to do so. I was looking forward to seeing the new investment and to congratulating the management and the work force on their success. What that inward investment shows is that Britain is increasingly competitive and increasingly attractive to overseas investors. That is good news for exports, good news for orders and good news for jobs. Conservative Members welcome inward investment–we do not carp at it whenever it is received.

    Mr. Mallon : The Prime Minister no doubt has noticed that during his visit to the United States Mr. Adams provided some clarification by indicating that he does not accept the principle of self-determination based on consent. Indeed, Mr. Adams said that it would be nonsense to argue for such a thing. Does the Prime Minister agree that that runs counter to article 1A of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, counter to paragraph 4 of the joint declaration and counter to the view of every political party in Ireland, excluding the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Fein, and that it is not the view of the vast majority of the people of Ireland who support the joint declaration? Can he assure the House that the two Governments will jointly pursue the objectives of the joint declaration and there will be no unilateral deviation from it in the interests of short-term expediency?

    The Prime Minister : We will certainly continue to pursue the objectives of the joint declaration–there should be no doubt about that. In America, Mr. Adams avoided the central issue on every occasion he could. Sinn Fein has been challenged to give up violence–it has not done so. I do not believe that I can put it any better than today’s edition of the Irish Independent. I quote : “It is a disgrace that he”– that is, Adams–

    “should go on mouthing platitudes while the Provisional IRA continues its violence.”

    Mr. Skinner : The Prime Minister is jealous–Adams was a hit and he was ignored.

    The Prime Minister : I do not believe that people in Britain or in Ireland have been deceived by Adams’s performance, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

    The Irish Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Spring, yesterday posed the critical question : Has Adams got the leadership and the courage to take his people with him in carrying out his own stated commitment to peace and to going the extra mile? That is the question to which everyone awaits an answer.

     

    Ash-cum-Ridley (Visit)

    Q4. Mr. Dunn : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Ash-cum-Ridley.

    The Prime Minister : I have no immediate plans to do so but I will keep it in mind for the future.

    Mr. Dunn : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the range and variety of schools available to parents in my constituency and across Kent exist solely and wholly because of the Government’s policies and that choice and variety in education would be eliminated if the nightmare policies of the Labour party were endured?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. His county of Kent has self-governing schools, selective schools, maintained schools, comprehensive schools and schools that specialise in technology. That is the sort of choice that we believe it is right to offer to parents and will continue to seek to offer to parents. Most of that would be swept away by a Labour Government. They would abolish self- governing schools, abolish city technology colleges, abolish performance tables and abolish the right of parents to know precisely what is happening in the schools that their children go to. As ever, the Labour party would put dogma before common sense.

    Mr. Barnes : Could I persuade the Prime Minister to go to Ash-cum-Ridley, wherever that might be, instead of to Renishaw, Holmewood, Clay Cross and areas in my constituency that have high unemployment and have been devastated by the Government’s policies, because we think that the Government are a waste of time? There are other places that the Prime Minister should go–he could take a break and go to Ash-cum-Ridley.

    The Prime Minister : If my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) cannot persuade me to go to Ash-cum-Ridley, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will have much luck. As for employment, I share with the hon. Gentleman the wish to increase employment and reduce unemployment in this country. He will have noticed that it has been falling steadily for the past year in this country, unlike any other country in western Europe, and I expect it to continue to fall throughout this year.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. Oppenheim : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.

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

    Mr. Oppenheim : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was not the sale of Rover to BMW that lost Britain the chance of having a genuine global player on world car markets? Rather, that chance was lost during the era of misguided Government direction, industrial practices and unfettered union power when British Leyland became the butt of international music- hall jokes. Can my right hon. Friend imagine at that time anyone wanting British Leyland as a gift, let alone paying £800 million for the company?

    The Prime Minister : Rover certainly has been transformed, and I congratulate the work force and the management on their efforts to bring that about, as well as the investment that has been put into the company by British Aerospace. Rover now produces a world-quality product, and it is winning market shares in extremely competitive markets.

    As my hon. Friend said, the contrast with the 1970s could be scarcely sharper. Mass meetings at that time were addressed by Red Robbo, and taxpayers’ money was being poured into a bottomless pit. Rover is now a world beater and it will become better.

    Mr. Caborn : Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he can give assurances to individuals, companies or organisations about the disbursement of the millennium fund and the lottery fund for the construction of sporting facilities?

    The Prime Minister : No, we have given no commitments on that yet. We are looking at the establishment of a committee to determine how the millennium fund will be disbursed, and it will be a considerable period before we are in a position to say what money will be disbursed and where. Consideration of the matter is still in its infancy and it will be some time before we are able to make an announcement.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee Lunch – 2 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee Lunch, held at the Savoy Hotel in London on Wednesday 2nd February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Mr Chairman, thank you for your excellent hospitality, and for the invitation to join you today.

    I am delighted to be here not least to see so many distinguished people here, not least captains of industry, leaders in science and so many members of both sides of both Houses of Parliament.

    It has become something of an institution this Committee. You pay tribute to Gerry Vaughan who retires as Chairman of it very shortly and I believe that was a justified tribute that will be echoed by anyone who’s had any connection with his Committee over very many years and particularly during the last three years in which he’s been a most distinguished Chairman.

    Last year Mr President and eminent mathematician, Sir Michael Atiyah, President of the Royal Society was your guest on this occasion. Today we have several Presidents and former Presidents of the learned societies here today, including of course Sir William Barlow, the current President of the Royal Academy of Engineering. It is indeed by any yardstick a most distinguished gathering.

    Living, as I do, day after day in No 10, I have many constant reminders of the importance of science and technology in British history. Every day I pass portraits of Humphry Davy, Joseph Priestley, Robert Boyle and Michael Faraday. And there is a particularly fine sculpture of Isaac Newton dominating on of the dining rooms.

    And I think it’s right that they should be there. Right, because of their achievements.

    Right, because of the justified pride we can take in British science and British engineering.

    And right above all perhaps, because of the central importance of science to our national life.

    I want to enlarge upon that thought if I may for just a few moments. As the world, as day succeeds day, becomes more competitive, we become more aware that economic prosperity depends on science, on engineering and on technology. We have in this country no natural right to success. Any success we get is success we must earn. Today, countries which 20 even 10 years ago were eager customers of our products, are now our international rivals.

    I remain convinced that, despite difficult times, despite the recession we have faced and so many of our overseas markets still face, we must sustain our strong base of excellence in science, in engineering and in technology. The best of science has a crucial role to play in improving our lifestyle as individuals as well as our prosperity as a country. We need good science to help build our future prosperity.

    But not only for prosperity. It’s not only jobs and the pocket book that’s affected by science. Science impacts on almost every single aspect of our lives. When someone receives drugs that improve their quality of life, that is science in action. Research scientists who discover the drugs; doctors and technicians who laboured over the clinical trials and engineers who manufacture the product.

    Science then is central and it is vital. The truism, perhaps even a trivial thing to say, but yet worth saying I think for this reason. In the past science and engineering have far too often been undervalued. In the future, we need to guard against that. And by ‘we’ I don’t just mean Government – we are one partner in the enterprise of science – I also mean commerce and industry, whose own future depends upon innovation.

    Let me explain just a little what I mean when I talk about undervaluing science and engineering. Despite its importance to a trading nation, we’ve far too often been schizophrenic about science. The great scientists, investors, engineers – of course we’ve been perfectly prepared to praise them, often knight them, sometimes give them seats in the House of Lords. Occasionally, they even make a very great deal of money, which is an invariably, a great embarrassment to them. But despite these honours, despite all this, despite the deference that from time to time is paid to them, a traditional bias against science has persisted in this country for too long. Too much of our education system has treated as subordinate to arts and for far too many years principally a subject primarily for boys.

    Now that is now changing, social and cultural movements have played their part. For example in making science and engineering more acceptable for girls and as it happens their science results last year were rather better than those for boys. Governments have a role of course. Government can take a lead and it can set a framework. And it’s for that reason that we’ve made science and technology a part of the curriculum right through to the age of 16 – and established new vocational qualifications at all levels, to help improve our skills base.

    A beginning has been made but I freely confess there is much still to be done. Now I know there are many eminent scientists here perhaps, locked in the intricacies of their latest examination of some abstruse subject or other. Whatever they’ve been locked in, and however abstruse it is, it is just possible that they will have heard recently a certain clamour about my wish to get back to basics in economic and social policies. It has been, what I think my colleagues in both Houses of Parliament would know, in that rigorous trade of politics, as a vigorous and stimulating debate.

    Be that as it may, the fundamental message of that cannot be ignored and slowly, but certainly, attention is focusing where I intended it to focus, namely: on the common sense – basic – building blocks for civilised living.

    Using our scientific abilities to best advantage is one such building. And some of that message is aimed very directly at Government itself. We were clearly right to question our role and look afresh at it. And if we are to do the things that matter, and not only do the things that matter, but do them properly, then we must concentrate our finite resources.

    Since the very beginnings of science, long term research has usually required a patron, and often one that didn’t interfere too much – a role now which Government much share, along with our universities and our great science charities, particularly perhaps in medicine.

    Now as Lord Flowers was generous enough to mention a moment or so ago, some time ago I invited him and a number of his colleagues to 10 Downing Street. It was an instructive discussion. I remember Lord Flowers advocating many things that have subsequently become Government policy. I remember a constructive discussion about whether all of that was entirely right, but a broad conclusion that it was. And I was glad later to be able to give William Waldegrave a Cabinet responsibility for science. The first time, astonishingly, astonishingly, the first time in 30 years that a Cabinet Minister had such a specific remit.

    And it was similar thinking, similar thinking that lead me to establish the new Office of Science and Technology, to serve as the focus for broad policy advice on science, engineering and technology right across the spread of Government activity. It is headed by my Chief Scientific Adviser, Bill Stewart who is here today, I am delighted to say and who has ready access to me whenever he needs it and tends to use that ready access, much sometimes to the frustration of my Diary Secretary.

    It was, for example, very useful when I was in Japan recently, to have Bill Stewart there with me. With me last Autumn to study the policies followed by the Japanese government and by Japanese industry. I think it was useful for Bill. It was useful for me. And I think it was useful for the country because of the lessons we learned on that occasion.

    One of the first tasks that William Waldegrave and Bill Stewart had was to prepare the White Paper that we published last year. It wasn’t snatched out of the air. It wasn’t written in the rarefied atmosphere of Whitehall with Permanent Secretaries sitting down and exercising their immediate thoughts. To get that White Paper together. To seek to get it right involved very careful consultation with the scientific community and right across business and industry as well. It was, and again, astonishingly was, the first important White Paper published on science for 20 years. Now what of it. And what of its importance. That White Paper set out the key themes that must shape the future of science in this country. The emphasis, and I make no apology for this, for I believe it passionately:

    – The emphasis first on excellence, on national prosperity and on quality of life;

    – the increasingly close interaction between industry, commerce, science, engineering and technology.

    They’re not in separate boxes. Unless they interact we will throw away most of the advantages that we can gain from them. And of course also the way in which the private and the public sectors both have a role, they both have a role and they must work together to complement each other in partnership if we are to get the best result, both for this generation and for the future.

    That is what we thought were the key themes to shape the White Paper. And with that in our minds as the backcloth against which we operate, the White Paper spelt out a number of key proposals and innovations:

    – Research Council with new remits and greater emphasis on wealth creation and quality of life; I emphasise again it is not just about the pocket book, it is about the way in which we live, each and every one of us, that we must harness the aptitude and abilities of science;

    – a new Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to underpin our manufacturing;

    – a new Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council to support a powerful emerging industry, and to continue to support the agriculture and food industries that are so important in this country;

    – and third, a new Council on Science and Technology. We discussed this long and hard, Bill and William and I, and we decided this should be composed of leading industrialists, academics and others and we decided that because we thought they would give independent advice on the competitive needs of British industry. Members such as Ralph Robbins of Rolls Royce; Richard Sykes of Glaxo, Aaron Klug, Nobel Prize winner – and others, who will be unafraid to give firm advice when it’s needed. And William and Bill and I will listen to that advice and listen to it very carefully.

    But if we want science to innovate, and we do, then so must we as Government innovate as well and that is why the Government has committed itself to publishing each year a Forward Look. A Forward Look detailing how taxpayers funds are spent on science and technology right across the public sector. With an emphasis on the future and by the future I don’t mean next week, next month and next year. I mean a much longer term future than that, with an emphasis on the future and not just a look back over our shoulders at the past.

    And despite the absolute necessity of restraining public expenditure, we expect spending on the science base itself to rise in real terms next year. And it will remain a high priority in future.

    The first of these Forward Looks, this innovative idea that I believe may bring so much certainty to the direction in which we are headed. The first of these Forward Looks will be published in April, and it will provide the opportunity for the Government to spell out its priorities for the future.

    Successive Forward Looks will be informed by the Technology Foresight Exercise that Bill Stewart’s leading at the moment. And that’s going to look at every aspect of science, of engineering and technology. It will, must, involve businessmen, scientists and academics. It will examine future trends and where Britain’s special knowledge and expertise may best be used to best advantage.

    In today’s complex and inter-related world, no country, however big, however powerful, can compete in every area. But we are determined not to fall into the trap of the ’60s and ’70s of picking winners, based on the belief that the Government knows best and big bureaucracies can achieve everything. Frankly, we don’t; and frankly they can’t.

    What we should do as Government, is to listen to industry, listen to scientists and listen to academics. And then when we’ve listened, thought, absorbed and made up our minds, make sure that our decisions go with the grain of what science and industry are planning. In short, we need the best scientific advice that we can get. If we seek solutions to problems without good science, we create mirages, not miracles. And for the future of this country I would much prefer to have miracles than mirages in our interest and in the interest of future generations.

    Mr President, I don’t often look back and express qualitative comments on what we’ve done as a Government, but if you’ll forgive me for a moment, I think I will do that. I believe in the past 18 months we have done more to redefine science policy than in the last 20 years. Now the new initiatives must be given time to work. I don’t myself believe in the Maoist theory of continuous revolution. You can’t switch science on and switch science off. We have set a long-term course and now we must hold to that long-term course and make sure that it’s successful.

    And this approach spreads out across all Government departments. Let me illustrate that. The Department of Trade and Industry now focuses on specific industrial sectors, promoting a more innovative culture and improving access to sources of science and technology.

    The Ministry of Defence is working with defence and civil contractors to help develop dual-use technologies that will be of benefit to both.

    In 1991, the Department of Health appointed the first Director of Research and Development to create an R&D programme for the National Health Service, the first of its kind anywhere in the world.

    And the Department of the Environment knows that sound science is the basis of our environmental policies.

    And the Ministry of Agriculture is working on environmentally friendly agriculture.

    Department for Education is fostering the growing importance of science in the National Curriculum and in vocational qualifications.

    They are samples of what is happening across the range of Government. And I set out those developments to illustrate the importance of science to Government. The common theme is to provide the scientific infrastructure to help this country compete ever more successfully. An infrastructure that encourages excellence, rewards talent and helps industry become more competitive.

    Mr President, I do not believe that we need to be modest about British science. We have a strong science base in this country. We have some of the best laboratories in the world. We have research based universities of international excellence. In areas like pharmaceuticals, plant biotechnology, food, agricultural research, it is not unfair to say that we lead the world. We have a British director newly in place at CERN in Geneva – the main international particle physics laboratory in the world. And we continue to work with the best in the world, wherever the best is to be found.

    And so often, the best science is to be found here, in Britain. But too often, too often, we have lost out in applying that science. Our ideas have led to other people’s products. Our brains have led to other peoples’ profits.

    I am determined that the Government and industry should work together as a partnership. I emphatically do not see them as two separate components in separate alleys going in separate directions. Of course industry must make the commercial decisions on where to invest and what to develop. The Government must listen to industry and must frame its policies to help industry. It is on the back of a successful industry that we will become a more successful, a more prosperous country with higher living standards in every aspect of our lives. And so I believe we must focus on excellence, we must help provide the skills base that industry needs. That, Mr President, is the thinking that lies behind the White Paper. That is the thinking that will determine our policy for the future, and that Mr Chairman, encapsulated in just two sentences, that, Mr Chairman is the message I wish to leave you with today.

  • PMQT – 1 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Gillan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.

    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 be having further meetings later today.

    Mrs. Gillan : Does my right hon. Friend agree– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mrs. Gillan : Thank you, Madam Speaker.

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the combination of BMW and Rover, creating the largest specialist car manufacturer in the world, is good news for Rover, for its work force and for the United Kingdom? Given the demand for Rover cars around the world, especially for the Land-Rover, does he agree that this is a far cry from the days when Rover was a state-run bankrupt shambles, producing cars that nobody wanted to buy?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the new arrangements will provide new export markets and more investment for Rover. BMW will be able to offer Rover access to new markets–for example, in Germany and the United States, where the Rover network is weak. With a world-beating product and that link, the prospects for Rover are excellent.

    Mr. John Smith : In the light of that answer, is it now the Government’s definition of success for a British company that it is taken over by a foreign competitor?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman really should catch up with the modern world. He simply does not understand how free markets work. Only a few weeks ago, he welcomed the Government’s achievement in working for a successful conclusion to the GATT round. GATT stands for free trade. That means companies trading and buying across national boundaries. He may know that Marks and Spencer owns Brooks Brothers in the United States; Grand Metropolitan owns Jack Daniels; John Swire owns Cathay Pacific; and Hanson, GEC and Racal own foreign companies. That is the world in which we live, not the 1960s, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman covets.

    Mr. John Smith : I deduce, Madam Speaker– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. If hon. Members wish to make interventions, perhaps they will resume their seats in the normal manner.

    Mr. John Smith : I deduce from that rambling and defensive answer that the right hon. Gentleman believes that a takeover is a sign of success. Why does he think that that view is not held in Germany, France and Italy, which care about keeping their own car industries?

    The Prime Minister : I deduce from that pre-prepared second question — [Interruption.] –that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not listen to the answer. Is he suggesting– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman– [Hon. Members :– “Reading.”]–does not like the fact that we know that he usually has all three of his questions written out, but is he suggesting that some form of protectionism is correct? Is he suggesting that we should have intervened to stop the sale? Is he suggesting that the ramshackle British Leyland that went into the private sector would have been the successful Rover that it is today but for that privatisation?

    Mr. John Smith : Is not the truth that the deal has been done not to further the long-term interests of the British car industry but to satisfy the short-term need of British Aerospace for cash? Is that a good reason for losing our only independent car producer? Did the Prime Minister know of the deal when he told business men in Leeds that he was “betting on Britain”?

    The Prime Minister : I was unfair on the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He should have stuck to his written question, which undoubtedly would have been a good deal better. BMW spent £800 million on Rover because it sees the potential for growth and prosperity. That would never have occurred if the right hon. Gentleman’s policy had kept Rover in the public sector. We would have had the drip, drip, drip feed of public expenditure maintaining British Leyland, not a privatised, world-beating company.

     

    European Council

    Q2. Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the level of public borrowing by member states and institutions of the European Union.

    The Prime Minister : The member states of the European Union have already recognised the need to avoid excessive budget deficits. That objective was included in the broad guidelines on economic policy adopted by the Economic and Finance Council last December.

    Sir Teddy Taylor : As the Prime Minister showed great courage in facing up to the unpopular task of resolving our national finances, will he, in the light of the recently published figures, seek to persuade his continental partners and the EC institutions to follow Britain’s splendid example of controlling borrowing instead of following the spendthrift policies promoted by Mr. Jacques Delors and the British Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I shall certainly seek to do as my hon. Friend suggests. We have taken tough decisions domestically about public expenditure. I believe that those are the right decisions for the British economy. At Edinburgh, we took a step towards controlling Community expenditure. I welcome that step, which means tighter restraint and control. In answer to one part of my hon. Friend’s question, I am not sure whether I shall be able to persuade the Labour party. Last year, it called for a European recovery fund costing £77 billion, a public expenditure commitment which seems to have escaped the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor.

    Mr. Spearing : Does the Prime Minister recall that on 29 November the House, by a rather arcane procedure, approved the establishment of a European investment fund, and that while that was under the auspices of the European investment bank, the people responsible for providing guarantees of £2,000 million for private and public purposes had positions of great patronage? In what way are those people responsible to the Government and to the House?

    The Prime Minister : Part of the funding to which the hon. Gentleman refers was funding that has for a long time been in the European Community budget. Those people are answerable through the Commission to the European Council and hence to this and other Governments.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Pawsey : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the initiative of the Secretary of State for Education, who has today announced measures to combat truancy? Does he further agree that the main responsibility for ensuring that children attend school lies not with teachers but with parents?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that. Truancy is a terrible problem in schools and one which needs increasingly to be tackled with the head teachers and with the staff in the schools. All too often, the child who is found loitering on the street subsequently gets into trouble with the law. That is a problem which we need to tackle, Government and schools together, and we are determined to do so. That is one of the reasons for publishing performance tables, which help to reveal the size of the problem. It is a pity, to put it mildly, that the Opposition talk about the problem but argue against one way of dealing with it.

    Mr. Ashdown : It is now some three weeks since the Prime Minister told us of his personal determination to open Tuzla airport–“as soon as possible”, in his words–for humanitarian aid to Bosnia. Is he able to tell us what steps he has taken to fulfil that commitment, and in what time frame we might expect it to happen?

    The Prime Minister : I also told the right hon. Gentleman that we would take the advice of the commanders on the ground. That is most certainly what we will do and the right hon. Gentleman will learn what is happening when we have had that advice and when we have taken the action that is appropriate.

    Sir Ralph Howell : May I remind my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of the excellent and far-sighted speech that he made a year ago– [Interruption.] –at the Carlton club– [Interruption.] –in which he suggested that the unemployed might be offered work or even required to work? May I thank him for setting up the North Norfolk action pilot scheme, which has proved a great success and is already saving £1,500 a year per person engaged in it? If that scheme were introduced throughout the country, would not it save £4 billion? Could I ask him- – [Interruption.] –if he will now sanction the Fakenham right-to- work pilot scheme which, if operated throughout the country, would save at least £13 billion?

    The Prime Minister : As far as I could hear, my hon. Friend was welcoming the pilot schemes that were set up some time ago to help unemployed people. We are evaluating those schemes ; they are showing signs of being successful. We shall examine them and decide to what extent they may be extended.

     

    Q4. Mr. Etherington : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Etherington : The Prime Minister will undoubtedly be only too well aware of the fact that only one in four crimes is being solved. Instead of following a path of retribution and vengeance, will he now consider crime prevention and the causes of crime? Instead of forever telling the House about rising crime trends in other countries, will he now do something for the citizens of this country, whom he purports to represent?

    The Prime Minister : We spend a great deal of time, trouble and effort on crime prevention, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I also believe in the principle of punishment for crime when people are caught. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed the remarkable success of the Metropolitan police in dealing with burglary. Operation Bumblebee has cut burglary in recent months by around 15 per cent. That is but one illustration of a series of innovative policing efforts, which are increasingly successful, by chief constables.

    Mr. Lidington : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the protestations of Mr. Gerry Adams about his commitment to peace should be taken seriously only when he has been able to announce that the IRA will cease its violence for good?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. Neither Mr. Adams nor the Provisional IRA has given a commitment to end violence for good–a commitment which the House and everybody in the country and Ireland is waiting to hear. We should be clear about that central point. The joint declaration leaves no conceivable excuse for violence. All the words, all the prevarications and all the evasions of Sinn Fein will be utterly and completely hollow until they end violence.

     

    Q5. Mr. Mandelson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Mandelson : Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep anxiety among parents and local communities in coastal areas as far apart as Scotland, the north-east, the Isle of Wight and Cornwall about clusters of babies born with almost identical limb defects, in most cases without hands? Is not the best way to get to the truth of that disturbing development to set up a properly resourced, national investigation? Will he therefore ask the Secretary of State for Health to establish such a study without further delay?

    The Prime Minister : I will certainly seek advice from my right hon. Friend about the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. Whether his proposition of how it should be dealt with is the right one needs further consideration. Clearly, it is a matter of concern, not only to the communities that he mentioned, but to others.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 31 January 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st January 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lords-Lieutenant

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Lords-Lieutenant in England and their dates of appointment.

    The Prime Minister : The following is a list of the Lords-Lieutenant of England and of when their appointments were announced.

    Lord-Lieutenants of England

    County |Lord-Lieutenant |Announcement of Appointment

    ———————————————————————————————-

    Avon |Sir John Wills, TD, FRICS, JP |April 1974

    Bedfordshire |Samuel Whitbread, Esq., JP |January 1991

    Berkshire |John Henderson, Esq., CVO, OBE |June 1989

    Buckinghamshire |Commander the Hon. John Fremantle, RN (Retd.), JP |September 1984

    Cambridgeshire |James Crowden, Esq., JP |May 1992

    Cheshire |William Bromley Davenport, Esq., JP |June 1990

    Cleveland |The Lord Gisborough, TD, JP |March 1981

    Cornwall |The Viscount Falmouth |October 1977

    Cumbria |Sir Charles Graham, Bt. |February 1983

    Derbyshire |Colonel Sir Peter Hilton, KCVO, MC, JP |January 1978

    Devon |The Earl of Morley, JP |May 1982

    Dorset |The Lord Digby, JP |September 1984

    Durham |David Grant, Esq., CBE, JP |April 1988

    East Sussex |Admiral Sir Lindsay Bryson, KCB, FRSE, FEng. |May 1989

    Essex |The Lord Braybrooke |March 1992

    Gloucestershire |Henry Elwes, Esq., JP |December 1992

    Greater London |Field Marshal The Lord Bramall, GCB, OBE, MC, JP |January 1986

    Greater Manchester |Colonel John Timmins, OBE, TD, JP |December 1987

    Hampshire |Mrs. Mary Fagan |January 1994

    Hereford and Worcester |Captain Thomas Dunne, JP |July 1977

    Hertfordshire |Simon Bowes Lyon, Esq., FCA, BA |January 1986

    Humberside |Richard Bethell, Esq., JP |October 1983

    Isle of Wight |The Lord Mottistone, CBE |August 1985

    Kent |The Rt. Hon. The Lord Kingsdown, MA, FRSA, FBIM, JP | August 1982

    Lancashire |Simon Towneley, Esq., DPhil, JP |March 1976

    Leicestershire |Timothy Brooks, Esq., JP |January 1989

    Lincolnshire |Sir Henry Nevile, KCVO, JP |November 1975

    Merseyside |Alan Waterworth Esq., MA, JP |October 1993

    Norfolk |Timothy Colman, Esq., JP |March 1978

    Northamptonshire |John Lowther, Esq., CBE, JP |January 1984

    Northumberland |The Viscount Ridley, KG, TD, JP |January 1984

    North Yorkshire |Sir Marcus Worsley, Bt., JP |March 1987

    Nottinghamshire |Sir Andrew Buchanan, Bt. |January 1991

    Oxfordshire |Sir Ashley Ponsonby, Bt., KCVO, MC |January 1980

    Shropshire |John Dugdale, Esq. |February 1975

    Somerset |Lt. Col. Sir Walter Luttrell, KCVO, MC, JP |March 1978

    South Yorkshire |Hugh Neill, Esq., CBE, TD, JP |May 1985

    Staffordshire |James Hawley, Esq., TD, JP |August 1993

    Suffolk |The Rt. Hon. The Lord Belstead, JP |December 1993

    Surrey |Richard Thornton, Esq., OBE, JP |May 1986

    Tyne and Wear |Sir Ralph Carr-Ellison, TD |July 1984

    Warwickshire |The Viscount Daventry |February 1990

    West Midlands |Robert Taylor, Esq., OBE |November 1993

    West Sussex |His Grace The Duke of Richmond and Gordon |March 1990

    West Yorkshire |John Lyles, Esq., CBE, Bsc. |August 1992

    Wiltshire |Field Marshal Sir Roland Gibbs, GCB, CBE, DSO, MC |December 1989

     

    Paintings and Photographs

    Mr. Boyes : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to buy or borrow photographs; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : None, currently.

    Mr. Boyes : To ask the Prime Minister how many (a) paintings and (b) photographs there are on the walls of his rooms.

    The Prime Minister : A considerable number.

     

    Public Appointments

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister how many recommendations for public appointments by the Crown have been made by the Prime Minister since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1993, Official Report, column 798, if he will show any specific policy or departmental areas on which each of the special advisers listed has worked since December 1990 showing their qualifications, expertise or experience relevant to those areas.

    The Prime Minister : It is not my practice to comment on the qualifications, expertise or experience of my special advisers.

     

    No. 10 Downing Street

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the criteria used to assess applications by private political parties’ organisations for the use of 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), Official Report, 30 November 1993, column 420.

     

    Children

    Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to produce a co-ordinated strategy for children throughout all Government Departments; if he will publish his response to the letter of 24 January from the National Children’s Home; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Our strategy includes regular consultation when considering new legislation or policy initiatives concerning children, between the originating Department and all other Departments with an interest. Several interdepartmental groups have been set up which meet regularly to discuss matters of mutual concern about children. I have no current plans to publish my response to the letter from National Children’s Home Action for Children; that will be a matter for that organisation.

     

    Lebanon

    Mr. Barry Porter : To ask the Prime Minister when he will be able to report to the House on his recent conversations with the President of the Republic of Lebanon.

    The Prime Minister [Pursuant to his answer, 25 January, c.159] : I would like to report on the recent visit by the Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafic Hariri, and on our discussions on 24 January. Mr. Hariri visited Britain from 23-27 January. He was accompanied by a delegation which included his Minister for Defence, Minister of the Interior, Minister of State for Financial Affairs, Minister without Portfolio and the governor of the central bank.

    Mr. Hariri and his team met a wide range of representatives of political, commercial and financial interests in the United Kingdom, to explore the role that the United Kingdom might play in Lebanon’s programme of reconstruction.

    This was a central theme in my discussions with Mr. Hariri. I am keen to see British companies playing an active role, in particular in the water, power and gas sectors. I informed him that we had decided to restore ECGD medium/long-term cover to a ceiling of £50 million. I also discussed with him the possibility of British companies helping to re-equip Lebanon’s internal security forces and the Lebanese armed forces.

    This was the first visit to Britain by a Lebanese Prime Minister for 20 years. It provided us with the opportunity to reaffirm the long-standing links between Britain and Lebanon. Lebanon is now back on its feet and ready to do business. British companies are in an excellent position to exploit the opportunities that exist there.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 January 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th January 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Charterline Pilot Scheme

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received (a) in favour of and (b) against the Charterline pilot scheme.

    The Prime Minister : I have received numerous representations on charter issues.

     

    Advisory Panel on Environmental Policy

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what criteria he used in choosing the members of his advisory panel on environmental policy announced on 25 January.

    The Prime Minister : The members of the panel have been chosen for their wide-ranging knowledge and practical experience in matters relevant to protection of the environment and economic development.

     

    Sustainable Development Strategy

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues prior to drafting his foreword to the report on the sustainable development strategy for the United Kingdom regarding the content of the report.

    The Prime Minister : I have had full discussions with my ministerial colleagues about the content of the United Kingdom strategy for sustainable development.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Mr. Salmond : To ask the Prime Minister how many visits the Prime Minister has made to Scotland since he took office; and if he will list the dates of these visits and locations visited.

    The Prime Minister : Since I took office I have made 13 visits to various locations in Scotland.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Leeds Chamber of Commerce – 28 January 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s speech held at Leeds Chamber of Commerce on Friday 28th January 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    When I sat down here at this top table this evening, I learned the moment I heard that remarkable Grace that this was going to be a special evening, a very classy evening, something perhaps just a touch out of the ordinary so I listened to what the Rector had to say and in the midst of that excellent dinner I thought I might reply for a moment in kind so let me have a crack at doing exactly that:

    The Rector spoke tonight in rhyme and captivated us all the time; It even made me forget that he in times past once worked for the BBC. [Laughter and applause]

    That made him feel distinctly odd but thankfully drove him back to God!

    So I thought I’d follow his lead and say my message in the very same way:

    My call tonight is clear and bright: “Don’t worry boys, the country’s all right!

    Interest rates down and inflation low, exports up and we’re ready to go.

    Things are better and they won’t get worse, we can even accept the Grace in verse! [Applause]

    So Rector, into the pulpit and say: “God Bless Britain, we’re on our way!” [Applause]

    You can go home now! That’s it! We may say it more elegantly, perhaps in better grammar, perhaps in a bit more detail but that’s it so those who wish to leave may decently do so and no offence will be taken!

    It is always a great pleasure to escape from that chattering circle around Westminster and find out what is happening in the real world (Hear! Hear!) – I see you have been there! [Laughter] – How wise of you to come back!

    I have had a most enjoyable and interesting day in the area and I’m delighted to be here this evening and to see, if I may say so, so many of my friends from the House of Commons on both sides of the House here this evening and I am delighted to see them all here.

    Your President mentioned David Curry, the new Minister for Leeds. I would simply single him out for this reason if I may: in Leeds centenary year what we have is one of our youngest and best Ministers to look after your interests at Westminster and I have not a shred of doubt he will discharge that responsibility admirably. [Applause]

    Over the years, like many people who were born down south, I have observed the changing face of the north but I am in no sense the only person to have done that. Consider, for example, the observations of an Italian journalist back here in Britain after ten years’ absence abroad and what did he find? He found here a Britain transformed for the better but with one big failing, a failing touched upon by your President. This is what he said:

    “The British seem unable to appreciate any of the achievements of modern Britain. Not once was I told how good British theatre or the BBC World Service still are or how impressive Marks and Spencers and British Airways have become. There are many examples of the British failing to appreciate what they do well and concentrating instead upon what they do badly. The British have managed to turn grumbling into an art form and are kilometres ahead in it than anyone else.”

    But this wise Italian had one shining exception. He went on:

    “The north of England has stopped moaning, has rolled up its sleeves, displaying some of the grit and determination which astonished the world 150 years ago.”

    Mr. President, I agree with that and today in this area I saw some of that grit and determination and I have not a shred of doubt about your future in this part of the country.

    But if an Italian can stand back and look at our country, so can we. It is our country, so let us for a few moments do that this evening and take a clear-eyed look at ourselves, focus on what we do best and then build on what we do best.

    My overriding priorities for 1994 are the economy, education and building a safer and more ordered society. These, Mr. President, are the basics and tonight I will concentrate on the first two.

    First, the economy. Getting back to the most basic basics of all, lower borrowing, lower unemployment, low inflation and more growth. As you so rightly said, Mr. President, we have to break the inflationary psychology which has so bedevilled our prospects in this country for so long and everyone must understand that competitiveness is the route of our future prosperity, that unless we in this country are the best others will take our markets and steal our profits and as a nation we must steel ourselves to do whatever it takes to win in those international markets.

    The underlying message is very simple. If business succeeds, Britain succeeds; if business fails, we will drift on but not with the same prosperity, not with the same enthusiasm, not with the same belief in ourselves and not with the same political clout in the world and above all the route to future success lies with low inflation. I have always believed that. If you have ever been in a position where you can’t pay the bills at the end of the week, then you feel strongly about inflation and that is why on the very first day I became Chancellor of the Exchequer I was determined to take action that would break the inflation habit for good.

    There is in this country what I personally believe is a cynical view, a cynical view that a little bit of inflation is good for you, people feel better, wages go up, benefits rise more, asset values go up and people have a little bit more money but if that little bit of inflation is higher than your competitors it isn’t good for you and if you are poor or on a fixed income it is deadly for you; like a drug, it makes you feel better for a while but then you need bigger and bigger doses and soon you are hooked on a very nasty addiction indeed.

    Curing that addiction has been very painful. I understand that perhaps as well as anyone in this room, perhaps as well as anyone in this country. During the recession, many businesses and many individuals have been hurt but we are coming through that and a very different prospect lies immediately before us.

    Inflation over the past year has been 2% or less. No-one under the age of 40 can remember when that was last the case and what is more, while it may rise a little over the months ahead, low inflation is here to stay and what does that mean? It means industry can now invest with confidence but if we, if you, the business people who make the wealth to raise the taxes to support this services of this country, if you are to benefit from low inflation we must also break the habit of paying ourselves more than we should. We have no business any of us – public sector, private sector, it makes no difference – to demand pay increases year after year regardless of productivity, regardless of the market and regardless of the competition.

    You in the private sector are keeping your labour costs down while so many of your competitors are seeing them rise. In the public sector too we are keeping tight control of our running costs. We are insisting that any pay increases must be financed out of increased productivity and efficiency. That doesn’t mean no pay increases for public servants; it does mean that the Government will only pay what can properly be afforded.

    Everyone in this country without exception wants the benefit of low inflation but no-one wants the costs of getting there. Getting to low inflation and keeping low inflation is the very stuff of political unpopularity but it is necessary. I can only say to you that no prime minister – certainly not me – is paid to be popular and just right now, Mr. President, that is probably rather a good thing, if I may make the point!

    I will tell you what I believe about that. I believe it is right to take the tough decisions today that will make everyone better off tomorrow. To bring Government borrowing down, we have had to put some taxes up. I would very much have preferred not to have had to do that but it was necessary because sound finances are the only basis for sustained economic growth. Spending must be paid for, it can’t just go on unless one is prepared to meet that discipline and that is also why we have taken some tough decisions on public spending.

    Public spending means either more borrowing or higher taxes or both. We intend to cut borrowing and I do not wish to see higher taxes so I propose to take no nonsense on taxes from politicians who have been handing out promises of extra spending on every street corner. Those promises could easily be made but if those promises are to be kept, they would have to be met by the taxpayer and I remember only too well when the taxman took 98 pence in the pound from savings income, 83 pence in the pound from earnings; remember when corporation tax was 52% and I just have to say this to this audience: tax rates like that cause acute damage to the economy and I believe we must never go back to them. [Applause] It is low direct tax rates that have made Britain a magnet for investment, for enterprise and for skill and that is why other companies are now moving from continental Europe and elsewhere to set up business here in the United Kingdom: low inflation, sound public finance. These policies are right, right for Britain and right for our future prosperity.

    Mr. President, lift your eyes from the everyday headlines that you see, stand back a little and just look at the circumstances that really apply in this country at the present time. Do that with a clear and an uncluttered eye and what do you see?

    You see, I believe, above all else that we now have in this country the conditions for long-term sustainable growth. Last year, the economy grew by 2% – double what people expected – and I quote: “The world’s largest economic survey shows Britain leading Europe out of recession.” That is official; that is what the British Chambers of Commerce say quite apart from what the Government believes. [Applause] We have interest rates at 5.5%, the lowest for 17 years and amongst the lowest in Europe. The time lost through strikes is now the lowest for over a hundred years since records were kept; unemployment down around a quarter of a million since last January. In the United Kingdom still one-in-ten still without work most of them [Inaudible]

    I am not in any way complacent about unemployment, neither do I dismiss for a second the effect that it has upon individuals and their families but that one-in-ten figure is now falling. In other countries that is not the case. In the United Kingdom one-in ten and falling, in France one-in-eight and rising, in Spain one-in four and rising, in the whole of the European Community one-in-nine and rising. We are the only country in Europe seeing more jobs and shorter dole queues and I intend to ensure that we see more jobs and shorter dole queues in the future as well. [Applause]

    Set against that background, it is hardly surprising that our flexible labour markets are the envy of many others in Europe. Your President spoke of the Social Chapter. It wasn’t easy to say No to the Social Chapter but it was right to say No to the Social Chapter and however it may come back to us, this year, next year, some time in the future, I shall say No to the Social Chapter again and I will tell you why: not just because it damages competitiveness though it does but because I think it is morally wrong to provide fresh help for those people in work and ensuring in so doing that those people out of work have an even smaller chance of getting back into work at some stage in the future. [Applause]

    We have at the moment in the economic circumstances that are coming together – and they have painfully come together, they have not magically appeared, they have painfully been brought together over the past two or three years – some unique opportunities and don’t let anyone kid you that we can’t take them.

    You spoke, Mr. President, of people not appreciating what was right in this country and sometimes knocking it. Well here perhaps are a few things that everyone should know:

    We export 20% more per head than Japan and 85% more per head than the United States of America; we have more companies listed in the top hundred European companies than any other country and Japanese and United States companies have chosen to invest in the United Kingdom more than in any other European country; they have shown with their cash, their investment and their hopes for their future that they have a vote for this country and the future of this country.

    We have seen in the last decade or so massive economic changes for the better. The average family today is taking home around £60 a week more after tax and after inflation. Twice as many of our people in this country have foreign holidays, there are twice as many two-car families. I could spread that list to the corners of this room and back again but it isn’t just the material improvement in our well-being that matters. How many of our young people now go on to higher education? They have more than doubled in the last decade or so. One in every three of our young people now have that opportunity. That was the target I set for the Government to be reached by the year 2000; we have reached that one-in-three target this year – that target has already been met.

    And then take another aspect of our lift in this country, charitable giving, again more than doubled and not least from those of you in business.

    But if the changes of the last fifteen years have been rapid [Inaudible] the world is changing, changing at a bewildering pace, becoming more competitive for you to operate in than at any time we have seen at any stage in the past. Our markets will change, Europe will change. The countries of eastern Europe may well be members of the European Union, markets for us but also competitors for us as well. The economies of the Pacific Rim will continue to grow rapidly.

    In this country, we, you, business are going to have to prepare for that. We have to keep asking ourselves the questions: “Are we meeting demand? Where are our weaknesses? Are others doing better than us? If so, why and crucially, what can we do about it to make sure we maintain our competitive edge?” Above all we need to give businesses more freedom, the freedom to succeed. I tell you what success means: success means keeping business taxes low, keeping business free of rules and regulations, backing British exports, investing in our infrastructure and investing in people and in skills.

    We have acted in each and every one of those areas and there is a good deal more still to be done. We have brought corporation tax down, our business taxes are the lowest in the European Union and I intend to keep them that way. But ask any businessman – in Leeds or anywhere else you like – what he really wants from Government! You have given me several answers tonight but if to take your example of the genie, you could have had only one wish, I bet you would have replied like this: “Right Government! Get off my back and get rid of the red tape!” That, I believe, is what business wants from the Government. [Applause]

    I agree and we are acting on it. We have a huge Deregulation Bill cutting excessive regulation across Government, in transport, in employment, in environment and in fair trading. The bonfire of the [Inaudible] an end to controls, to forms and to paperwork and I was delighted to hear of your support for that tonight, Mr. President.

    We are backing British exports – the opportunities are there and you are taking them. Just this morning, the trade figures have shown yet again that exports are running at record levels and now we have a GATT deal opening new markets all around the world and let me tell you this: very reserved we are we British, we don’t bang our own drum very often, not often enough in fact, so let me do it now:

    Mr. President, without Britain I doubt whether there would have been a GATT deal at all nor for sure would there have been a Single Market and yet today as the rest of Europe comes out of recession GATT opens up the world market and we have a Single Market of over 340 million people right on our doorstep. I am determined that the Government will help British exporters make the best of those opportunities. We have expanded insurance cover for exports and lowered premiums, you in business have loaned your whiz-kids to Michael Heseltine so that the DTI can provide the best possible export advice, our embassies abroad are putting more and more effort into helping British exporters large and small; more than ever promoting British interests means promoting British trade abroad.

    But business needs good back-up at home as well because to sell the goods you have to move the goods and that is why we are modernising British transport. For years we have had this ludicrous hang-up, this ludicrous belief that big projects can only be done by the State – rot! Who built the railways in the first place? The private sector built the railways – you did and you can do it again in the future.

    So we are now opening-up major projects to private sector investment and private sector expertise. The private sector will help to build the Channel Tunnel rail link and the new Forth Road Bridge, it will modernise the West Coast main line and there is a great deal more to add to that.

    But there is a bigger, longer-term issue that will determine whether Britain will lead the world into the next century. You cannot be competitive without the people to compete and they are moulded in our schools, in our colleges, in our universities as well as in the training grounds of British industry. In many respects, the position is good but in others it isn’t and we frankly cannot afford it not to be, quite literally can’t afford it. Illiteracy and innumeracy among the work-force cost you as employers around £5 billion a year and it costs the children themselves through stunted lives, opportunities missed and a life less rich than it should be and that is why getting back to basics in education must be at the centre of our programme.

    I intend to work with teachers to build a better educated society. The national curriculum backed by testing will ensure that all State schools concentrate on the basics of education, on grammar, on spelling, on maths, on science, on reading, writing and arithmetic – the three R’s. I believe that is what parents demand, it is what employers ask and it is what I am determined that the education system will deliver.

    But I believe there is more still to come. I still believe that we must get rid of the damaging distinction that some people make between white-collar skills and so-called blue-collar skills. What disruptive class-ridden nonsense those distinctions are! Every individual’s different skills and qualities count and they must be made to count in their interests and in our country’s interests and that is why we have improved the range and quality of vocational qualifications for pupils over sixteen.

    I now want to work towards opening-up those opportunities, opening them up for children from fourteen upwards who want to take them so that schools will have the chance to teach a mix of academic and vocational subjects each with equal value, each to fit the child and their own aptitude to build a better future for them and help them build a better future for all of us.

    That must be true for all young people. That is why we have abolished the false distinction between polytechnics and universities, it is why we have created modern apprenticeships to treble the number of young people skilled as technicians, craftsmen and supervisors.

    Mr. President, let me just make the point plain: what we are working for is nothing less than the re-skilling of Britain and anyone who has come up the hard way knows how many others there are who have talent but don’t have the luck, who have talent but don’t break through the barriers, who have talent but don’t have the chance to contribute all that they could from their skills and their will to work. I am determined to give them that chance in the future. Decent education first, good training later – that is the way to let everyone fulfil their potential regardless of who they are or where they may have started.

    None of this, Mr. President, is abstract stuff. It is for real. What is at stake is our future as a country and their future as individuals and here in your city of Leeds I believe you know this better than almost anywhere else.

    Thirty years ago – not all that long – Leeds could have settled for being just a declining textile city but you didn’t. You acquired new skills and you made the old skills pay. Textiles aren’t a thing of the past, they have a future and Leeds has some of the most advanced plants in Europe. The new industries have a future too: financial services, food processing, defence, medicine and high-tech industries, huge investments coming to Leeds, a massive vote of confidence with other people putting their money and their future in your city because you know here in Leeds what change means, you know you can ride it and you have proved it in the past and I think it is no wonder that independent estimates say that Leeds is the fastest-growing job magnet in Britain for the 1990s.

    Yes, competitiveness is about making Britain prosperous and powerful but it is more than that: it is also the means to provide all that is civilised in the life we love. Your two great universities here, your theatres, Opera North, the Leeds Piano Competition, your famous art galleries, you brought together here some of the finest public collection of Henry Moore in Britain if not in the world and I am even told the gallery has been eyeing-up the Henry Moore sculptures in Downing Street but much though I love you, you can keep your hands off my Henry Moore sculptures!

    As it is in the arts, so too in sport. Leeds home to Rugby League, football – and here my eyes mist over – cricket, Headingly. I don’t know, looking round this audience, how many cricketers may be here this evening. One or two and I bet every single one of you remembers that test match in Headingly in 1981. It seemed impossible for England but we won but don’t just remember the runs that Botham scored, the resistance of Dilley or the wickets of Willis; remember that it was that gritty Yorkshireman Chris Old who held the show together when it mattered and opened the opportunity for that victory. I still remember at the most difficult moment of all that great Australian fast bowler Dennis Lilley saying this: “I’m betting on England to win!” Well, looking round Leeds today and looking at all of you tonight let me tell you what I am doing: I’m betting on Britain to win and I’m confident that we will. [Applause]

  • PMQT Written Answers – 27 January 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th January 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Public Appointments

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the public appointments made by (a) Her Majesty the Queen in Council and (b) the Privy Council; and if he will give details of the appointments made by these categories since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : The information requested at (a) and (b) is as follows :

    (a) Appointments made by Her Majesty in Council

    Members of the Privy Council

    Members of the Cabinet

    High Sheriffs for the Counties of England and Wales (excluding Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster)

    Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation

    Visitor of Brunel University

    Civil Service Commissioners

    Visitor of Cranfield University

    Visitor of the University of Essex

    6 Members of the General Dental Council

    13 Members of the General Medical Council

    6 Members of the Governing Body of Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

    (Until April 1992) Inspectors of Schools in England and Wales Chief Inspector of Schools in England

    Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales

    Inspectors of Schools in Scotland

    Visitor of King’s College, London

    3 Members of the Court of the University of Leeds

    5 Members of the Court of the University of London

    Holder of the Lord Northcliffe Chair at University College, London

    Members of the Board of Visitors of The Queen’s University Belfast Visitor of the Royal Postgraduate Medical School

    Visitor of the University of Ulster

    Visitor of the School of Oriental and African Studies

    The Clerk of the Privy Council

    The Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council

    (b) Appointments made by the Privy Council

    2 Members of the Council and 5 Members of the Academic Advisory Council of the University of Buckingham

    5 Members of the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine 3 Members of the Court of the University of Kent at Canterbury Chairman and 5 other Members of the General Optical Council 4 Members of the Court of the University of Lancaster

    3 Members of the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and Chairman of the Statutory Committee of the Society One Member of the Council of the University of the South Pacific 4 Members of the Court and 3 Members of the Conference of the University of Stirling

    3 Members of the General Convocation of the University of Strathclyde

    3 Members of the Court of the University of Sussex

    4 Members of the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

    One Member of the Council of the Royal Veterinary College.

    Well over 1,000 appointments under these categories have been made since 1979, and details of the individuals concerned could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Hong Kong

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on discussions held and agreements made with China in regard to safety arrangements and precautionary evaluation procedures for the Crown territories of Hong Kong for the Daya bay nuclear plant near Hong Kong.

    The Prime Minister : Talks with the Chinese authorities on the co-ordination of contingency arrangements for an emergency at the Guangdong nuclear power station at Daya bay began in June 1992. A memorandum of understanding was signed with the Guangdong authorities on 22 September 1993 on the contingency arrangements for information release and co-operation in the event of an off-site emergency at Daya bay. Discussions on the arrangements for on-site incidents are still in progress.

     

    Lords Lieutenant

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will advertise in the national press vacancies for Lords Lieutenant as and when they become available and give the details of the qualities sought.

    The Prime Minister : Lords Lieutenant are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen under the royal prerogative, on my advice.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.

    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.

     

    Malaysia (Hydro-electric Project)

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister how many files marked, “Not for NAO eyes”, relating to the Pergau hydro-electric project in Malaysia are held by his secretariat and the Cabinet Office.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    One-Parent Families

    Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister if the comments made by the Secretary of State for Wales on 10 January, with regard to one-parent families, reflect Government policy; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 January 1994] : My right hon. Friend was correct in saying that the single parent issue is important to the Government. The growth in single parent families inevitably has an impact on Government policies. For example, rates of pregnancy among 13 to 15-year-old girls have risen substantially in recent years, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has adopted a target of a minimum reduction of 50 per cent. on the 1989 rates by 2000. Similarly, the Child Support Agency was established because of concern about absent fathers and support for children in single parent families.

     

    British Legion Medal

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will recommend Her Majesty the Queen that her permission be granted for any uniformed members of the public services and armed forces who did national service to wear on their uniforms the medal struck for ex-national service men by the Royal British Legion, or the related ribbon.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 26 January 1994] : The medal struck on behalf of the Royal British Legion is unofficial and produced as a commercial venture to raise funds for their Poppy appeal. It would not therefore be appropriate for me to approach Her Majesty the Queen as requested. People who served on national service were eligible for the various official medals approved by the sovereign at the time.

  • PMQT – 27 January 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th January 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Garrett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.

    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. Garrett : In all the ministerial dodging and weaving on “back to basics” and in all the Prime Minister’s vapid speeches on social policy I have never heard anything about child poverty. Has the Prime Minister read the recent report that 3 million children in this country live in poverty, that most of them are undernourished and that this country has the fastest growing rate of child poverty in western Europe? What is more basic than nurturing and cherishing our children?

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that Conservative Members need any lectures from the hon. Gentleman on nurturing and protecting children. We have not only ensured and enshrined the system of child benefit but introduced family credit and a range of other benefits specifically to help people who face particular difficulties. That has been so over many years, it is an intrinsic of social policy, and the hon. Gentleman in his heart knows that that is the case.

     

    Q2. Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.

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

    Mr. Field : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to have lasting economic recovery, any promises of public expenditure must be subject to the closest possible scrutiny, whether they are made inside or outside the House and whether they are made by blank cheque socialists or by the man who has made more false starts in British politics than a jockey in the Grand National–the leader of the Liberal Democrats?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, of course I agree with my hon. Friend. As for pledges inside or outside the House, that point might have been better directed to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) than to me. I am not at all sure about pledges from the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends. A large number have been made and a large number now seem to have been denied by the hon. Gentleman. It now seems that there is a new doctrine : if a promise is made by the Opposition outside the House, even at their party conference, even to business men, anywhere, nobody should believe a word they say, according to the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. John Smith : How does the Prime Minister explain the devastating catalogue of incompetence, mismanagement and waste of public money by his Government and their agencies announced today in the Public Accounts Committee report?

    The Prime Minister : I welcome the report issued by the PAC today. It provides a useful check list. It suggests that there has been no decline in standards. It quite rightly says that improving the efficiency of the public sector is not inconsistent with propriety. The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question surprises me, because the bodies in question are run by public servants. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not criticising public servants.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister welcome the fact that the situation is so grave that the Public Accounts Committee felt compelled to make such a report for the first time in its 130-year history? Does the Prime Minister welcome the fact that the report reveals that the national health service management executive wasted more than £100 million in the mismanagement of a hospital project ; that the Property Services Agency wasted £65 million, detected by the PAC; and that millions of pounds have been wasted in the health service, in named examples–in Wessex and West Midlands? What does the Prime Minister say about those and the many other fiascos revealed in the report?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in his general role of making all-purpose charges. He clearly has not studied the report with the care with which he would wish people to believe he has. It states clearly that there has been no decline in standards. The PAC quite rightly criticises breaches, but says that there is no suggestion of deficiency in the public sector financial framework itself. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that that is the case?

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that the report says that there has been a departure from public standards that have been observed for 140 years? Does he not understand that the British public now clearly understand that one of the reasons why his Government are a Government of high taxation is that they are also a Government of waste and incompetence?

    The Prime Minister : On the contrary, the report supports our drive for efficiency. Either the right hon. and learned Gentleman has misread or he is misrepresenting the substance of the report. He should look at it more carefully and come to the House and correct what he has said this afternoon. Perhaps he believes that he can convince people that the public service in this country is not, as I believe it to be, of the highest calibre of any public service anywhere in the world. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not share that view, he should.

     

    Q3. Dr. Goodson-Wickes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the House has to endure the ritual gibes of Opposition Members about reductions in the number of hospital beds, the truth is that more and more elective surgery is carried out in general practitioners’ surgeries, in out-patient departments and, most important of all, on a day surgery basis? The Royal College of Surgeons predicts a figure of 50 per cent. in the near future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that proves that the Opposition are as out of date as ever? Is it not about time that they got behind the Government’s reforms and stopped alarming patients?

    The Prime Minister : I would certainly agree with that. We know from what has been said in the past 24 hours that there would be no more spending on the national health service from the Labour party, even though that is described as “obvious rubbish” by leading members of the Opposition. The reality is as my hon. Friend suggests : record numbers of patients are now being treated in the health service and there are record numbers of day cases. Not only is there better value for money in the health service but it is providing what patients and their families want. That is the reality of what is happening under our reforms. They have been an enormous success and they will continue.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister understand the anger that will be felt by many ordinary people who are asked to pay unprecedented levels of taxation only to see his Government hand that money over to quangos and executive agencies to throw away on waste, corruption and fraud?

    The Prime Minister : I hope the right hon. Gentleman can substantiate what he has just said and will be prepared to do it. I hope also that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that it is his party’s stated position to increase taxation.

    Mr. Harris : Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report issued to Members of Parliament today by the Trustee Savings bank on the affordability of mortgages? The report says that the typical first-time buyer of a house now pays no less than £110 a month less than he did a year ago because of the dramatic fall in interest rates. It also says that the fear of negative equity has virtually disappeared.

    The Prime Minister : Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right about that. Indeed, the saving on the average mortgage from the peak level of interest rates to today is about £160 to £170 a month. The result is shown quite clearly in the extent of the personal expenditure that has helped to steer the recovery. We are now recovering, and recovering more comprehensively than any other European economy.

     

    Q4. Mr. Cummings : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.

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

    Mr. Cummings : What words of advice and comfort can the Prime Minister give to my constituent who has a child of 10 with double curvature of the spine whose operation has been cancelled because the joint health commissioning board has run short of cash? Does he not find it extraordinary that while there is a cash shortage for patient care, loads of money can be found for loads of posh cars and loads of managers with hugely inflated salaries in a needlessly expanding national health service bureaucracy?

    The Prime Minister : I think the hon. Gentleman knows as well as any other Member of the House the extent to which patient care has expanded and improved in the national health service. We now know that there is going to be no more money for the health service from the Labour party. We can have no more of this nonsense week after week from Labour Members whenever anything happens, saying that there will be more money, because all their promises are “obvious rubbish,” as the Opposition Front Bench has told us.

     

    Q5. Mr. Lait : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.

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

    Mrs. Lait : Does my right hon. Friend accept that I, along with millions of parents, welcome the new emphasis that he wants put on competitive sports at school? Does he agree that such sports teach children not only team skills but the competitive skills that children need to succeed in their future lives?

    The Prime Minister : I strongly agree with what my hon. Friend has to say. I think children need to learn about competition. I have no doubt that team sports instil that spirit of competition in children, quite apart from enhancing their school days and their childhood generally. Any revision of the curriculum is a matter initially for independent advice from Sir Ron Dearing. He is considering the future place of team games in the school curriculum. When we receive his report, we shall study it very carefully.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : Will the Prime Minister join me in asking the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) to pay back to the ratepayers of Westminster the £50,000 profit that he made when he arranged through an intermediary to buy the council house next door? Will he join me in asking for the repayment of that money?

    The Prime Minister : I have no intention of going down that road with the hon. Gentleman.

     

    Q6. Mr. Clifton-Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.

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

    Mr. Clifton-Brown : Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in The Guardian today commenting on remarks by the German Economics Minister, who says that our Government’s policy of deregulation and privatisation is outstanding and that, indeed, he is going to copy it? Does my right hon. Friend know that Black and Decker has moved its international headquarters from Europe to Durham? Does not that demonstrate that the United Kingdom is the leading country in which to do business, and does not it show the folly of the Opposition’s policy of supporting the social chapter, which is bad for industry and bad for this country?

    The Prime Minister : There is absolutely no doubt about that. If we want jobs in this country, we certainly must not add costs through the social chapter or in any other way. Black and Decker is just the latest in a long line of companies leaving other countries and setting up in the United Kingdom because of its tax structure and its prospects, which make it a very competitive place to do business. Companies like our industrial relations, they like our system of business tax and they like the fact that we have no social chapter.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 26 January 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th January 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will place in the Library the information note prepared by his private secretary on 3 December 1990 on options for responding to allegations published in The Sunday Times on United Kingdom assistance to the Iraqi machine tool industry;

    (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the chronology of United Kingdom trade with Iraq, including the export guideline milestones, prepared for his office by the Cabinet Office in November 1992;

    (3) if he will place in the Library the briefing note prepared for him in support of his answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) of 12 November 1992, Official Report, column 990.

    The Prime Minister : No. All the relevant documents have been made available to the Scott inquiry.

     

    Christmas Cards

    Mr. Bayley : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 January, Official Report, column 456, how many official Christmas cards he sent out in 1993; and how much this cost.

    The Prime Minister : Nine hundred; the direct total cost of purchase and dispatch to the Prime Minister’s office was approximately £205. The cost of the other cards I send does not fall on official funds.

     

    Trinidad Terms

    Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had in the last six months regarding the Trinidad terms; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Under the existing Trinidad terms, which resulted from my personal initiative, 18 countries have benefited. Over $4 billion of debt has been restructured and nearly $2 billion will be reduced over the lifetime of the individual agreements. We expect more countries to benefit over the coming months. These terms have the effect of halving the payments due to creditors and give a commitment to consider restructuring the whole stock of a country’s eligible debt after a good track record of economic reform has been established. This would lead to significant additional relief for indebted countries in the medium term.

    At the G7 Tokyo summit last July, I secured agreement that improved debt reduction terms should be considered for the poorest and most indebted countries, including, for the first time, earlier action case by case on reducing the whole stock of debt – a key Trinidad terms objective.

    The United Kingdom is active in the Paris club and elsewhere in seeking co-ordinated action by creditors on the comprehensive debt reduction which these countries need, the Government miss no opportunity for urging other creditors to make progress.

     

    Second World War Commemorations

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will ensure that recognition is given in the commemorations of the 50th anniversary of the Normandy landings to the contribution made by the construction of Mulberry harbours at the town of Tilbury; (2) if he will consult on ways to commemorate the sacrifices made, and the contribution to victory given, by dock workers and dockland communities throughout the United Kingdom during the Second World War.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s programme for the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the D-Day landings was announced on 6 January : I have arranged for details to be placed in the House Library. Included in the programme is a dinner at the Portsmouth guild hall and representatives of those who designed and built specialised equipment such as the Mulberry harbour will be invited.

    Plans are also being made for an official commemorative event in 1995 to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. This will be a national event involving not only the armed forces, but those civilian organisations which served this country during the war. It pays tribute to all those who sacrificed so much during the Second World War.

     

    Correspondence

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer on 17 January, Official Report, column 367, if he will place in the Library a copy of the unsigned letter on Mr. Adams’s headed notepaper, dated 7 January, which he recently received.

    The Prime Minister : I have done so.