The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Fourth Cabinet – 27 May 1993

    Below is Mr Major’s fourth cabinet, announced on 27th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER – John Major
    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER – Kenneth Clarke
    FOREIGN SECRETARY – Douglas Hurd
    HOME SECRETARY – Michael Howard
    LORD CHANCELLOR – Lord Mackay of Clashfern
    SCOTLAND – Ian Lang
    WALES – John Redwood
    NORTHERN IRELAND – Patrick Mayhew
    LEADER OF THE COMMONS – Tony Newton
    LEADER OF THE LORDS – Lord Wakeham
    TRADE AND INDUSTRY – Michael Heseltine
    DEFENCE – Malcolm Rifkind
    HEALTH – Virginia Bottomley
    SOCIAL SECURITY – Peter Lilley
    ENVIRONMENT – John Gummer
    TRANSPORT – John MacGregor
    EMPLOYMENT – David Hunt
    EDUCATION – John Patten
    AGRICULTURE – Gillian Shephard
    NATIONAL HERITAGE – Peter Brooke
    DUCHY OF LANCASTER – William Waldegrave
    CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY – Michael Portillo

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Social Chapter and the ERM – 26 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Social Chapter and the ERM, made in London on 26th May 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked if it was the situation that he disliked the ERM, the Social Chapter and wanted a Europe a la Carte?]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No it is not, but neither are we in favour of a prescribed Europe a la Carte, prescribed from the centre. Can I take those three issues separately. Why do I oppose the social chapter? It sounds very friendly, does it not, the social chapter? If you called it what it really is – an employment destruction chapter – I do not think it would have the same support across Europe and yet that is what I believe the social chapter to be. There is a second reason. Europe does not just compete within its own boundaries, Europe as a whole has to compete with Japan, with the United States and with the Pacific Basic countries, that is very tough competition. If we pile extra costs on our employers so that we pile extra costs on their products so that they can make a profit, we will make Europe uncompetitive. If we make Europe uncompetitive we will damage the whole of Europe – that is my argument against the social chapter, it is damaging in a highly competitive world to the competitiveness of Europe and that damage will cost us jobs. we have in the European Community nearly 13 million European adult citizens without work, that is far too many, it is not sensible to add to that by imposing at this moment fresh costs on employers that will cost us jobs. That is why I oppose it, I think it is wrong.

    On the Exchange Rate Mechanism, I entered the Exchange Rate Mechanism because I have a passionate dislike of inflation, inflation wrecks jobs, wrecks countries, wrecks lives, I loathe it. We left the Exchange Rate Mechanism through force majeure, it was not a matter of choice, the market overwhelmed us and we left. It might have overwhelmed the Franc if it had been a reserve currency with as many non-resident holders of the Franc as there are non-resident holders of sterling, all able to sell in a market panic. The Franc thankfully did not face that problem and I am pleased about that, but we did and we had to leave. To say that there are no difficulties with the Exchange Rate Mechanism is really to fly in the face of logic, it seems to me. Sterling was tossed out of it, in Spain, in Portugal, in Italy there have been very real problems. One of the problems was that the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which was a flexible instrument, became a very rigid instrument as countries moved towards a single currency, it was too rigid and it broke in our hands and I think we have to look at the way in which it works before I could take sterling back into the Mechanism.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Manchester Airport

    Q6. Mr. Mans : To ask the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Manchester airport.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has at present no plans to do so.

     

    Environmental Appraisal

    Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister which Government Departments have carried out an environmental appraisal of their policy-making and administrative procedures.

    The Prime Minister : All Departments must ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account in developing their policies and programmes. Papers to Cabinet and ministerial committees should, where appropriate, cover any significant costs or benefits to the environment. We are firmly committed to the principle that “green issues” must be built into decision taking throughout Government.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the unveiling of a memorial statue to Field Marshal the Viscount Alanbrooke by Her Majesty the Queen as is, I understand, the Leader of the official Opposition.

     

    Smoke Alarms

    Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that smoke alarms are fitted in all new publicly owned dwellings and buildings.

    The Prime Minister : It has been policy to provide smoke alarms in all new dwellings since 1 June 1992.

    Smoke alarms in other buildings–whether public or privately owned–are normally required under licensing or certification arrangements where appropriate.

  • PMQT – 25 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th May 1993. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mandelson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the unveiling of a memorial statue to Field Marshal Viscount Alanbrooke by Her Majesty the Queen, as is, I understand, the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition.

    Mr. Mandelson : Given that a system of charging for hospital beds would be a tax under which the longer one was ill the more one would have to pay, and given that it would destroy at a stroke the principle of a national health service free at the time of need and point of use, will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance today that the Government will never force NHS patients to pay charges for NHS beds?

    Mr. Newton : I can best point the hon. Gentleman to what was said in our manifesto : that need, not ability to pay, is and will remain the basis on which care is offered to all in the NHS. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Ministers said in an interview in one of this morning’s newspapers, we shall honour our pledges both in the spirit and the letter.

    Madam Speaker : Mr. Patrick Nicholls.

    Mr. Newton : While I am at it, may I just say– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I apologise. I had not appreciated that the Leader of the House had not completed his reply.

    Mr. Newton : That is entirely understandable, Madam Speaker. I simply wanted to add that it was good to see the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) back from his triumph in masterminding the loss of Labour’s deposit in Newbury.

     

    Q2. Mr. Nicholls : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Nicholls : Now that the Maastricht Bill has received its Third Reading, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity, and indeed every opportunity, to tell the people of Britain that the Maastricht treaty is a move away from federalism, not a move towards it? It is the Liberal and Labour parties which are self-confessedly federalist and the Conservative party which is not. Is not this a treaty which gives us the opportunity to co-operate with other nation states, to the benefit of this country, which has always been the policy of the Conservative party?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. By enshrining subsidiarity and co-operation between states, the Maastricht treaty will move us to a much less centralised Europe. That is a major achievement and a great gain from the British point of view. As for the Labour party, it has, to my recollection, had seven different policies on Europe in the time that I have been in the House and the Opposition appeared to be changing their minds again even last week.

    Mrs. Beckett : The Lord President quoted the Prime Minister on the manifesto pledges of the Conservative party. Does he recall the pledge not to increase national insurance contributions–broken? Does he recall the pledge to maintain mortgage interest relief–broken? How does he square all that with what the Prime Minister said yesterday?

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend made the position absolutely clear in his answer last week, in setting out the Government’s intentions to review public expenditure against the background of the pledges that we have made and the need to protect the most vulnerable. If the right hon. Lady disagrees with that, perhaps she would care to tell us whether she is disowning, in his absence, her right hon. and learned Friend’s statement that we should be prepared to re-examine everything and that he has not ruled anything out.

    Mrs. Beckett : The Leader of the House and his party kept talking about taking tough decisions. When will the Government take the tough decision to admit even the smallest share of the blame for the state to which this country has been reduced–never mind the price the Government are asking the British people to pay?

    Mr. Newton : When it comes to talking about the price that the British people must pay, the hon. Lady must count as some kind of expert. I have been looking back at something said by her hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) some time ago :

    “I will not take lessons in Left wing unity from Margaret Beckett. She was the person who went into the 1976 Labour government to implement the cuts over which I had resigned.”

    [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats.

    Mrs. Beckett : The Lord President knows full well that the Government went into the general election campaign promising tax cuts and public expenditure increases. Is not the most fundamental problem that Britain faces today the fact that it has a Government whose dishonesty is exceeded only by their incompetence?

    Mr. Newton : What I know is that the Government are approaching their difficult task in a responsible and considered way and that they are not going to get into the position that led the right hon. Lady into the problem that I have just quoted–the IMF coming here telling the Government what to do.

    Mr. Butterfill : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government’s priorities in the European Community will, in the foreseeable future, be to secure the entry to the Community of our former partners in the European Free Trade Association, notably the Scandinavian countries and Austria, and to facilitate the arrangements that the Community makes with the countries of eastern and central Europe?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have a number of important tasks in the Community, including carrying forward the concept of subsidiarity. Among the most important tasks and among those on which we have made the most gains in recent months is that of enlargement, to embrace exactly the countries to which my hon. Friend refers.

    Mr. Ashdown : Can the right hon. Gentleman categorically assure the House that no Government agency was involved in any way in coaching witnesses from Walter Somers before they appeared before the Select Committee looking into the Iraqi gun affair?

    Mr. Newton : The right hon. Gentleman well knows that all these matters are the subject of an inquiry by Lord Justice Scott. The most appropriate course for Ministers and other hon. Members is to allow that inquiry to conduct its proceedings properly.

    Mr. Duncan Smith : Does my right hon. Friend agree that last week’s Audit Commission report on the chronic mismanagement, waste and incompetence of Lambeth council painted a grim picture of Labour in control of councils? Does he further agree that it is a bit rich when the deputy Leader of the Opposition talks about the Government displaying incompetence and dishonesty when Labour has a record like that?

    Mr. Newton : I was indeed pretty horrified to hear details of that Audit Commission report on Lambeth council, although not entirely surprised in view of its socialist record of incompetence and waste, which is well known on both sides of the House. It reminded me, once again, of that immortal quote from Tribune last May :

    “Ineffectual or rotten Labour councils have been a feature of political life for as long as anyone can remember.”

     

    Q3. Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Prentice : Is the Lord President aware that the first passenger train that ran in England between Liverpool and Manchester achieved a top speed of 29 mph? That was in 1829. Is not it disgraceful that 164 years ago a train could achieve a higher speed than the train currently running between Nelson and Colne in my constituency? Is the Lord President further aware that I have a letter from the chairman of British Rail which says that the 20 mph speed restriction will be permanent because of cuts in Government funding?

    Mr. Newton : Somewhat to my surprise–I had not anticipated that the hon. Gentleman would seek to be so helpful–that seems to be the best argument I have heard for some time for the rapid passage of the Railways Bill, which is before the House today.

     

    Q4. Mr. Fabricant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Fabricant : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that subsidiarity can be applied retrospectively as well as prospectively and that that means that any European legislation which has been laid before the House and which we have had to rubber stamp since 1986 can–if it meets the subsidiarity test–be either amended or swept aside?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend is right. The Commission is reviewing existing European Community law. At the Edinburgh Council it presented some 32 examples of legislation which should be either withdrawn, amended or re- examined, or further proposals that should not be pursued. That review is continuing and a full report is scheduled for the European Council in December this year. It is our intention that those items to which subsidiarity applies should be amended or repealed.

    Mr. Sheldon : In regard to the Government’s intention to reduce the budget deficit, we have heard from Minister after Minister that nothing is ruled out, yet we have heard nothing about increasing the higher rate of tax. Should not that be ruled in?

    Mr. Newton : It is not only from Ministers that we have heard that. As I reminded the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), that is what the Leader of the Opposition is saying, too. That is the sensible way in which to approach these matters and that is the way in which the Government are approaching them.

     

    Overseas Aid

    Q5. Mr. Luff : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s policy on the relative importance of trade and aid in assisting the economic development of the poorest nations.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    Worldwide trade liberalisation and measures to encourage the private sector are critical for developing countries, but many countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, will continue to need concessional finance for the foreseeable future. Further debt reduction along the lines of the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in Trinidad in 1990 will also be required for the poorest, most heavily indebted countries.

    Mr. Luff : I thank my right hon. Friend warmly for what he has just said. Does he agree that the major objective of our aid policy should be to encourage the promotion of private sector enterprises in the developing world? In that context, will he pay tribute to the work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation? Does he further agree that we have a fine record as a Government for fighting for free trade, which brings advantages to the developed and the developing world? Can he give an assurance that that fine record will be enhanced at the G7 summit in Tokyo in July this year?

    Mr. Newton : Certainly I acknowledge, as I think the whole House would, the leading role that my right hon. Friend and other colleagues have played in advancing the cause of free trade and the successful outcome to the GATT round. My hon. Friend is also right about the part played by the Commonwealth Development Corporation which is the main instrument in our aid programme for the direct promotion of private investment in developing countries. As it happens, United Kingdom direct private investment in developing countries was estimated to be some £3 billion in 1991. That is half the overall total for the whole European Community. It is a record of which we can be proud.

    Mr. Worthington : If the Minister is in favour of free trade, when will we abandon the practice of demanding that developing countries drop their import tariffs and when will we stop dumping subsidised CAP food on them?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have always taken the view that trade is as important as aid in advancing the circumstances of developing countries. I think he will agree that we have a better record than many in promoting those objectives.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if civil service (a) terms and conditions and (b) codes of conduct apply to special advisers attached to Ministers in Government.

    The Prime Minister : Special advisers have generally the same conditions of service as other civil servants, except that their salaries are negotiated individually in relation to previous earnings and are confidential. Different arrangements apply to severance pay. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers’ salary spine of 30 points.

    Special advisers are subject to the same rules of conduct as other civil servants, with the exception of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments after resignation or retirement and certain aspects of the rules on political activities.

     

    European Parliament (Elections)

    Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s policy regarding the de Gucht report on elections to the European Parliament.

    The Prime Minister : We are ready to discuss the issue in Council when the presidency decides to table the report. If the council were to reach a consensus, which remains to be seen, it would certainly need to respect different national traditions. We acknowledge the attempt made by the de Gucht report to take these considerations into account.

     

    Nuclear Test Veterans

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister if he will sympathetically consider any request to meet representatives of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Studies so far have shown that the incidence of death and malignant disease has been no greater among British nuclear test veterans than among the general population. If, however, the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association has any new evidence to change the position, I should be pleased to examine it and will readily consider any subsequent request for a meeting in that light.

     

    British Coal Superannuation Scheme

    Mr. Tipping : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the correspondence he has received about the British Coal staff superannuation scheme.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a substantial number of representations on a wide range of coal issues.

     

    Crossrail

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all those organisations and companies, other than the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, from which he has received recent representations concerning the crossrail project.

    The Prime Minister : I have received representations in recent weeks from the following organisations and companies :

    Aylesbury Vale District Council

    Buckinghamshire County Council

    Grosvenor Estates

    London Chambers Network

    London First

    MEPC plc

    Residents’ Association of Mayfair

    Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce and Industry

    The Corporation of the City of London

     

    Yugoslavia

    Mr. Elletson : To ask the Prime Minister what is the total cost of Britain’s contribution to the peace process in the former Yugoslavia.

    The Prime Minister : The costs cannot be precisely calculated but are considerable in the military, political and humanitarian fields. Up to 31 March 1993, the United Kingdom’s contribution to UNPROFOR operations in Croatia and Bosnia has amounted to £93,835,679. Further expenditure of £2,576,831 has been incurred as a result of the airlift of humanitarian supplies to Sarajevo. We expect to recover a proportion of these costs from the United Nations in due course.

     

    EC Additionality

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister when he last met representatives of the European Commission to discuss the application of the additionality principle by (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other member states; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I last discussed additionality with the Commission and other EC Heads of State and Government at the European Council in Edinburgh. We agreed that the basic principles laid down in 1988 – concentration, programming, partnership and additionality–should continue to guide the implementation of the structural funds. Financial control more generally will be strengthened and greater emphasis will be given to appraisal, monitoring and evaluation. The current review of the structural funds regulations is examining the Commission’s proposal on additionality.

     

    European Court of Human Rights

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he intends to bring to the Council of Europe Heads of State summit in October with regard to the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, at its meeting at Strasbourg on 14 May, instructed that work should proceed urgently on the mandate for a draft protocol amending the European convention on human rights, to be submitted to Heads of State and Government at the Council of Europe summit in October. The United Kingdom will contribute fully to this work.

    The purpose of the draft protocol will be to reform the control machinery of the convention, in order to accommodate the growing workload of the European Court and Commission of Human Rights and to ensure that cases are heard in good time. All member states are agreed that such reform is urgently needed.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr. Alan Clark

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if Mr. Alan Clark was telephone tapped during his period in office as a Minister of the Crown.

    The Prime Minister : The policy on the interception of the telephones of Members of Parliament remains as stated in 1966 by the then Prime Minister, the Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and as applied by successive Governments since. In answer to questions on 17 November 1966, Lord Wilson said that he had given instructions that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament and that, if there were a development which required such a change of policy, he would at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on his own initiative make a statement in the House about it. As I said in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 29 June 1992 at column 375, the Government regard this undertaking as still applying to both postal and telephone interception.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Government Priorities

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what priorities have been set for Her Majesty’s Government between now and the beginning of the summer adjournment.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 14 January 1993 at columns 786-87.

     

    Policy Objectives, London

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what are Her Majesty’s Government’s short-term, medium-term and long-term policy objectives for London.

    The Prime Minister : Our policy objectives are to maintain and enhance London’s position as a thriving national capital and a leading world city.

     

    Council of Ministers (Votes)

    Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister what advice has been given to all Departments concerning the recording of answers to be published in the Official Report to parliamentary questions of all votes in meetings of the EC’s Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : All Departments are being advised that statements to the House following meetings of the Council of Ministers should include details of the vote, whenever a formal vote is taken in Council, or should record that no formal votes were taken.

     

    Correspondence (Journalists)

    Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister what guidelines he has issued governing official correspondence between civil servants and journalists; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : None. Guidance on various points concerning relations between civil servants and journalists is given in “A Working Guide for Government Information Officers” produced by the information officer management unit in the Office of Public Service and Science, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Congdon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

  • PMQT – 20 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Bennett : Does the Prime Minister recall his big idea of the citizen’s charter, aimed at giving individuals swift redress? Can he explain why veterans of the atomic tests which took place on Christmas island and elsewhere over 30 years ago, who suffered the horrendous effects of radiation, have still not received compensation? People in the United States who suffered in a similar way have been compensated. The Prime Minister assured the House as long ago as 4 December 1990, in reply to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), that the matter was to receive his urgent attention.

    The Prime Minister : Yes. About 10 days ago I wrote again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and other hon. Members who expressed an interest in the matter. We are still waiting for medical reports on which we can make our judgments. I have sought to have the medical reports expedited, but there is further examination to be done. As soon as these medical reports are received we can reach a decision.

     

    Q2. Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell : Following his statement yesterday, can my right hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to earlier interpretations of the Maastricht treaty and its protocols, he is now advised that the opt out from monetary union extends to the exchange rate mechanism and that Britain has no obligation, under the terms of the treaty, to re-enter the exchange rate mechanism unless and until we decide to seek to enter a single European currency?

    The Prime Minister : Yes. In essence my hon. Friend is quite right. I have had no fresh advice, but that has always been the position. Nothing in the Maastricht treaty obliges us to rejoin the exchange rate mechanism. What the treaty does is make it explicitly clear that we retain responsibility for monetary policy in stages 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union as long as we do not participate in a single monetary policy. As my hon. Friend knows, because of the opt out that I negotiated at Maastricht, we would not enter into a single currency until and unless the House had specifically approved it.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister give the House a guarantee that the Government will not make millions of pensioners and children pay for prescriptions?

    The Prime Minister : I had optimistically thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might welcome a third successive fall in unemployment, but I should perhaps have known him better. May I explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman–so that there is no doubt either to him or millions of people throughout the country–exactly the review that is taking place on public expenditure? My answer to every scare story that the right hon. and learned Gentleman produces will be the same–I hear that he was peddling them earlier today. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been instructed to examine all our public expenditure to ensure that it is well targeted and that it delivers value for money, and to see where savings in taxpayers’ money can be found. However, he knows that in doing so he must protect the position of the most vulnerable members of society, and that is what he is doing. At the moment, my right hon. Friend is being presented with options. He has not yet considered the options or selected those worth further consideration.

    No decisions have been made, and no decision is imminent. Decisions will not be made until the public expenditure round in the autumn. Many options will need to be discarded, but we need to examine public expenditure, and we shall both maintain our manifesto commitments and protect the most vulnerable people in society. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now give up his tedious weekly shroud waving.

    Mr. John Smith : I should have known better than to expect a straight answer from the Prime Minister. No one in the country will know whether his answer means yes or no. The Prime Minister talks about his manifesto commitments; may I remind him that millions of ordinary families are already deeply worried about having to pay another £8.50 per week next year and even more the year after, despite his tax pledges. Now families face the threat of an additional tax on being ill. Why are the Government so intent on making ordinary families in this country pay the price of their economic incompetence?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman really should not peddle those scare stories and frighten people. I have made it absolutely clear that we shall protect vulnerable members of society. “We should be prepared to re-examine everything ; I have not ruled anything out”– [Interruption.] Those are not my words but those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was speaking about his review of social policy.

    Mr. John Smith : Just over a year ago the Prime Minister promised lower taxes and no cuts in public expenditure. We know that he has broken one promise already, and clearly he is planning to break another. Is it any wonder that no one any longer believes anything that he says?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman should stop trying to frighten vulnerable people for his own party advantage. I say to him in all friendliness that it will do him no good in the end. We shall honour our manifesto commitments. Since the general election the right hon. and learned Gentleman has publicly junked all his manifesto commitments. The contrast is obvious, and the public will know which party keeps its promises, for its members sit here, and which party seeks week after week to frighten people with scare stories, for its members sit over there.

     

    Q3. Mr. Kynoch : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Kynoch : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures show a further fall this month, for the third month in a row? Does he agree that that is a further welcome sign that the recovery is starting to work through to where we all want to see it, in the job-centres and in a meaningful and stable reduction in unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, that is welcome to everyone. There are those who mention unemployment when it is going down as well as when it is going up. Unemployment is still too high, but today’s figures offer further hope for unemployed people. Not only has unemployment now fallen for the third month in a row, but the number of people employed in manufacturing industry has risen for the third consecutive month, and the number of new vacancies notified to job-centres is more than it was a year ago. If the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) wishes to continue with his smears, perhaps he will put up or shut up.

    Mr. Foulkes : Following the Tory party conference in Scotland, is the Prime Minister aware of the extent of opposition to water privatisation in Scotland, even among Conservatives? Will he now end the uncertainty and give a clear and unequivocal pledge that there will be no privatisation of water in Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has made the point that he wished to make, and he knows as well as I do that the options are set out in the consultation paper “Investing for the Future”. We are considering those options. When we have finished our considerations, we shall announce the result.

     

    Q4. Mr. Clifton-Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Clifton-Brown : Will my right hon. Friend confirm his view, stated during the last election, that first-past-the-post is the best electoral system ; one which has served us well for centuries? Is it not typical of Opposition Members to want to introduce a proportional representation system–a desire reinforced by their decision to abstain on the historically important European vote this evening?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm that I remain in favour of the first-past-the-post system. I am against proportional representation, and I do not need a referendum to tell me what my view on the matter should be.

     

    Q5. Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Sir David Steel : Has the Prime Minister been able to examine the workings of the community care schemes since they came into operation on 1 April? Is the confusion and anxiety as great in Huntington as it is elsewhere? Will he promise a full review of the schemes at the end of the first three months of working?

    The Prime Minister : The scheme is, with the consent of hon. Members in all parts of the House and people throughout the community care system, a great advance. People have wanted care in the community for a long time, and they now have it. It is a very substantial change. We shall, of course, keep the matter under review to make sure that it is working satisfactorily. There are bound to be some difficulties at the beginning of a change on this scale. It is a welcome change, one for which we have looked for many years, and we intend it to be a success.

     

    Q6. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing suffocation of London by heavy traffic, which is now damaging job prospects in the capital? Will he accept the congratulations of my constituents in Ealing and of the whole of London on his determination to go ahead with the crossrail project? Will the Government do everything possible to expedite the passage of the enabling measure through the House? May we have an assurance that the construction of the project, which will bring jobs to all parts of London, including Ealing, will start yesterday, if possible?

    The Prime Minister : That might be rather difficult. Crossrail is important for London and for jobs throughout the country, and I know that it will be particularly welcome to hon. Members with London constituencies. It will be a joint venture with the private sector and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill will take place in the House next month. Crossrail will obviously make a dramatic difference to London’s transport system, as will the Jubilee line extension, to which the Government are also committed– [Interruption.] –as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is heckling, may wish to know.

    Mrs. Bridget Prentice : The Prime Minister may recall that I wrote to him on 30 March about assisted area status for London. I have since received a holding reply. He will know that if London were to receive assisted area status, the support of the Government would be needed and that 13 London boroughs, including Lewisham, would be affected. When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give me a positive reply?

    The Prime Minister : I very much hope that we will be able to reach a decision on changes to the assisted areas map before too long. We are well advanced with our examination of it and are looking at the various criteria that need to be considered. I would certainly hope that we would have a decision, and announce it, well before the House rises for the summer.

     

    Q7. Mr. Nicholas Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Winterton : I warmly welcome the reduction in unemployment for the third consecutive month, for which Government policies are in part responsible. Will my right hon. Friend give me, the House and the people of this country an assurance that he will not undermine the recovery in our economy by re-entering the exchange rate mechanism? In addition, will he give the pensioners and children of this country an assurance that he will not permit prescriptions to be paid for by the retired or by the young?

    The Prime Minister : I warmly welcome part of my hon. Friend’s question : I share his pleasure at the fall in unemployment. We now have the right conditions which I hope will lead to a consistent fall in unemployment. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who are saying that the figures are a fiddle may be interested to know that the Department’s director of statistics, a civil servant, today issued a statement which said :

    “I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the claimant count figures.”

    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) may sit there giggling and making accusations, but he ought not to attack public officials who are not in a position to answer back. My hon. Friend will have heard me say earlier this week that we had no imminent intention of returning to the exchange rate mechanism because the circumstances for doing so were by no means appropriate at present. As for his second question, he clearly heard the detailed statement that I made to the House some moments ago.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Maastricht Treaty (III) – 19 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Maastricht Treaty, made during an interview held on 19th May 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the Maastricht Treaty would progress quickly following the Danish referendum result].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am certainly pleased the Danes have cleared that uncertainty up, it has been a very debilitating, very difficult period both in Denmark, right across the Community, and certainly in the United Kingdom as well. We have the third reading of the bill in the Commons on Thursday, I hope and expect it will be passed then. The bill will then move to the House of Lords and thereafter we will be able to have Royal Assent and ratify the bill.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he could get the bill through Parliament given the divisions in the Conservative Party and whether he would agree to the social chapter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a very decisive issue, Europe, it has been a very divisive issue in this country ever since we first joined it, and that remains the case. To take the particular points you raised, the social chapter firstly. I was speaking last night to a large number of employers at the CBI, they are absolutely clear that without the social chapter we are in a much better position. People think the social chapter offers all sorts of social benefits. I think it really more aptly ought to be called an employment destructive chapter, and that is emphatically not what we want in the United Kingdom, I want to put people back to work, not raise impediments to them getting work, and I believe that is what the social chapter would do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Edward Heath supporting the social chapter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ted is a very enthusiastic supporter of European development, I do not believe the social chapter is in our interests, I do believe it is very much in the British interest, in the British national interest, our own cold, hard self-interest to be right at the centre of the European Community. And I do not just say that for idealistic reasons. The European Community is where our exports go to, it is where most of our jobs over the last 10 years effectively were created from, because of our growth in trade where was a huge growth of small businesses and firms. We need that growth in trade, we need those jobs. I know of no-one, no-one, who has a practical alternative to Britain being at the centre of Europe using her influence. There are only three alternatives really: leave the European Community, hardly anyone is proposing that; stay in it without influence and be dragged along by the French and Germans, that is not attractive; or get in the middle of the Community, form alliances with our partners, different alliances on different issues, and try and wield real British influence in the European Community, and that is where I stand.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there would be increasing pressure on Britain to rejoin the ERM and join the social chapter and whether he would fight or give in].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think it is quite as straightforward as that either way. For every member of the Community, throughout the lifetime of the Community, there have been pressures. When you have 12 nations, soon to be 16, working together always there are going to be pressures and difficulties. In order to win your way in the Community you need alliances, you need to be taken seriously, you certainly do not want to be sidelined with the rest of the Community ganging up on you, as has happened so often to this country in the past.

    What we are seeing at the moment is a fairly dramatic move towards the sort of European Community that we in Britain have always wanted and feel comfortable with, a wider Community, because of the agreements at Edinburgh the EFTAN nations will soon be joining. They will firstly be net contributors to the budget, which will save us money, and secondly they will be free traders. We have different governments across Europe, more inclined to the British point of view. We are at the moment in a better position than we have been, I believe, at any stage in our membership to start influencing the Community to go in the direction that we the British would like to see it moving.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Maastricht Treaty (II) – 19 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Maastricht Treaty, made during an interview held on 19th May 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the divisions in the Conservative Party over Europe].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a very serious difference of view in the Conservative Party over Europe. There is absolutely no doubt about that, but I understand why that should be. This is a gut issue for the Tory Party; it runs very deep amongst people; they take a view very sharply one side or very sharply the other. They are operating from conviction. I can’t stop people operating from conviction in politics nor indeed would I wish to do so, but I think we have to proceed with the Bill. When we have concluded it, there is life after Maastricht, we will return to the other issues.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he could do about backbenchers who knew they wouldn’t be promoted so may as well rebel].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We’ve had rebellions before and I dare say from time to time we’ll have rebellions again, but one thing I’ve learned even in the two-and-a-half years I’ve been Prime Minister is that the people who are rebelling against a particular policy one week may well be your strongest supporter on another issue a week or so later. I think people are clearly distressed. I would much rather we hadn’t had this great disagreement in the Conservative Party but we have a disagreement of people with convictions that differ but we will get through that. We will conclude the Bill and then we will turn on to other issues where those disagreements won’t arise.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Britain would rejoin the ERM].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that is imminent, no, for reasons we have set out in the past. I think we would need the economies to be much closer together than they are at the moment. Some of the major economies in Europe are at present going in different directions. That is not a Clementine to rejoin the Exchange Rate Mechanism so I don’t think that is imminent. It will be some while before we consider it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked that if the ERM was a pre-cursor to a single currency, whether it would be necessary for Britain to join again].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, well you say that of course when you are referring to the movement towards Economic and Monetary Union, but I think the changes that we have seen in European economies over the last two years rather bear out the reservations that I expressed at Maastricht, before Maastricht and subsequent to Maastricht. In order for Economic and Monetary Union, a single currency, to work you would need convergence of the European economies; they would need to come together. I know of no-one who thinks they have come together in recent years, quite the reverse in fact; they have moved further apart. Although the time-scale may lay on the table for Economic and Monetary Union, I very much doubt that it is realistic.