The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT – 16 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

    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.

    Mr. Byers : The Prime Minister will know that, according to the latest Government figures, there are now 39 unemployed people chasing every job vacancy. Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning Littlewoods pools stated that the odds against winning a dividend on their coupon are 39 to one? Can the Prime Minister explain to the House how it is that, after 14 years of Conservative Government, an unemployed person has as much chance of getting a job as of winning the pools?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that in recent years in his constituency unemployment has fallen by 20 per cent. Perhaps that is something that he should have borne in mind.

    Mr. Bill Walker : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the taking- stock exercise has gone down extremely well in Scotland? Will he confirm that this Government will never bring forward proposals for unwanted, expensive regional assemblies in England, where over 80 per cent. of taxpayers and the population live, nor will they bring forward proposals for assemblies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that, as, indeed, I did at the last general election. We do not believe that such extra assemblies would be helpful either to democracy or to good government in any part of the United Kingdom. I know that there are contrary views in the House. On the Opposition Benches we find unionists, federalists, separatists and devolutionists. That does not add up to a great deal ; often not even effective opposition.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister publish the report by the Department of Trade and Industry on the state of Britain’s manufacturing industry?

    The Prime Minister : The report to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers was private advice to Ministers and I do not propose to publish it all. I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should raise that question the day after the news that manufacturing output rose to its highest level for 18 months and that it was up on the year before. Perhaps for once the right hon. and learned Gentleman will acknowledge good news.

    Mr. John Smith : So much for open government. The Prime Minister knows that he is the first to publish information whenever it suits him. Why does he wish to conceal from the British public the devastating assessment of the Department of Trade and Industry in his own Administration–I quote from its report–that our manufacturing product base is weak and deteriorating?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is up to his old tricks yet again. Whatever he can do to talk down British industry, he will do. If he read a little further in the report from which he gleans his information he would recognise that our productivity has improved faster than that of Germany, France, Italy or the United States. I ask again : when will the right hon. and learned Gentleman help to talk up British industry and stop talking it down?

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister now see that he should publish the report, because it also says that the main source of new products is imports, that British industry is fundamentally weak, suffering from inadequate investment in new technology, and that there are flaws which it will take decades to remove? Is not it clear to everyone that the reason why he is frightened to publish it is that it reveals that 14 years of Conservative government have done deadly damage to British industry?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain why output in the engineering industry is rising, computers are rising and textile output is rising. Perhaps he will explain why the CBI survey shows yet another increase in output expectations– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order.

    The Prime Minister : They cannot accept anything but bad news as far as this country is concerned, so they will not like the fact that manufacturing investment has risen in each of the past three quarters. Those are the figures which the right hon. and learned Gentleman never mentions. He knows them, but they never pass his lips.

    Mr. Brazier : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measure introduced temporarily last November to ease the Treasury rule on capital receipts for housing authorities was sensible? Will he join me in condemning what is happening in Canterbury, where the Treasury rule is being abused and the housing account is being raided by the Liberal-controlled authority to squander funds on leisure facilities?

    The Prime Minister : I was not myself aware of that particular point, but my hon. Friend has made me aware of it in a most forceful way. I shall pass it on to my right hon. Friend.

     

    Q2. Mr. McAvoy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mr. McAvoy : Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that one sign of a weak Prime Minister is constant clarification of what he really meant to say. Last Tuesday the Prime Minister talked about “when” Scottish water will be privatised and then tried to cover up by saying that he should have added the words “if implemented”. Does the Prime Minister accept that such weak behaviour fully justifies the Paul Johnson quote :

    “Major is what he is : a man from nowhere, going nowhere, heading for well merited obscurity as fast as his mediocre talents can carry him”?

    The Prime Minister : When the hon. Gentleman gets here, perhaps he can make that sort of remark.

     

    Q3. Mr. Rathbone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Rathbone : Following my right hon. Friend’s answer to the Leader of the Opposition, is he aware that people in manufacturing are indebted to him for his confirmation of the importance of those who work making things? Will he spend a moment today commending the engineering skills that make that possible?

    The Prime Minister : I shall certainly be happy to do as my hon. Friend says. As he knows, and as I have repeatedly made clear, I believe that manufacturing is vital to the United Kingdom economy and that engineers have a key part to play in that. Figures released yesterday showed an encouraging picture, with output in electrical and mechanical engineering rising strongly, as did manufacturing output overall.

    Mr. Eric Clarke : This is the first chance that I have had to ask the Prime Minister a question. When are the Government going to implement the recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which stated that emphysema and bronchitis should be considered as industrial diseases for people who have had mining experience? Is the delay one that saves the Government money since, as we have seen in the past, the claimants die off?

    The Prime Minister : The report has been with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who has been discussing it with colleagues. I hope that an announcement will be able to be made very shortly.

    Sir Michael Grylls : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather a sorry reflection on the standards of the Opposition that the Leader of the Opposition has to rely on the material–

    Madam Speaker : Order. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister is responsible only for Government policy, not for what the Leader of the Opposition gets up to.

    Sir Michael Grylls : Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Leader of the Opposition to visit British industry, where he could see some of the great successes such as in motor cars, television and the chemical industry, where we are now leading the world?

    The Prime Minister : I would endeavour to encourage that understanding opposite. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman heard what was said and I look forward to him taking note of it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Banks : I realise that everyone’s mind is on the Budget, but may I ask the Prime Minister to give some thought today to the future plight of great whales, which has a price beyond calculation? Does he recall when some of us came to 10 Downing Street to present a petition signed by half a million people protesting about Norway’s intention to carry on with commercial whaling? Will he now make a protest to the Norwegian Prime Minister so that she and everyone else in Norway knows that if Norway goes ahead with commercial whaling, there will be no place for it in the Community and that appropriate sanctions will be taken against that country?

    The Prime Minister : I will certainly raise the point that the hon. Gentleman mentions, which he has raised with me before and which we have raised with Norway on a number of occasions in the past. But I will not take the hon. Gentleman’s advice on the second point. Norway is keen, I think, to join the Community and I hope that in due course she will.

     

    Q5. Mr. Faber : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Faber : In the light of reports last week that about 30 per cent. of 14-year-olds now achieve a reading age of between nine and 11, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is more important than ever that these children are rigorously tested regularly and that the results are made available to their parents? Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the disgraceful action proposed by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers which will wreak havoc in the classroom?

    The Prime Minister : I very much agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend’s remarks. No one can be happy with the level of achievement in English that is thrown up by the report, but if we are to help pupils and raise standards, we need testing and the national curriculum. If we get the tests, we shall see which children are falling behind and we shall then be in a position to take action to help them. I would certainly deplore any action to disrupt those tests and I look for support in that from every part of the House.

    Mrs. Fyfe : Would the Prime Minister like to demonstrate his support for open government by instructing the Secretary of State for Scotland to publish details of the secret correspondence he had with the leader of the Scottish National party?

    The Prime Minister : I rather thought that it had been published.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mrs. Gorman : During his visits behind what used to be the iron curtain, did my right hon. Friend have a chance to go shopping, as I did recently on a visit to Kiev, where I discovered that the contents of the very best department store were about the equivalent of a boot sale on a bad Sunday afternoon? Is not it true that, despite the attempts of the Opposition to talk this country down, this is still the best democracy in the world? But, before we hand over our government to Brussels, should not we consult the British people through a referendum?

    The Prime Minister : For one magical moment I thought my hon. Friend was going to carry me entirely with her. I strongly agree with the first part of her question and I think that no one is in any doubt about the acutely difficult situation faced by the Russian Parliament and by the Russian leadership at the moment. We very much hope that the Group of Seven will be able to help the reform movement in Russia and we certainly intend to do so. So far as the referendum is concerned, I can give no comfort to my hon. Friend.

     

    Q7. Mr. Miller : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Miller : On 31 March last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told Channel 4 News :

    “We will not have to increase taxes. I cannot see any circumstances in which that will be necessary.”

    Does the Prime Minister appreciate that if the Chancellor breaks that pledge in a few moments’ time, no one will ever trust anybody on the Government Benches again?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will not have long to wait on that point. It is an odd question to come from him, when the leader of his party said recently:

    “Well, we change our policies as we move towards a different election. We’re not necessarily committed to what we did at a particular election.”

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Poland

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the matters discussed during the recent visit of the Prime Minister of Poland and the outcome of those discussions.

    The Prime Minister : I had valuable discussions with Ms Suchocka on a wide range of issues.

    Ms Suchoka briefed me on the Polish economic reform programme. We discussed Poland’s wish to become a full member of the European Community, and ways in which the United Kingdom could help Poland towards this goal. We agreed on the need to develop trade and investment. Ms Suchocka stressed the importance to Poland of the restoration of ECGD cover. I agreed to review the position.

     

    Military Equipment

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish in the Official Report his correspondence to date with the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent since 24 November 1992 on the involvement of United Kingdom companies in supplying Iraq with military equipment, the sales of United Kingdom origin military equipment to Yugoslavia and United Kingdom compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

    The Prime Minister : No. It is not my normal practice to do so.

     

    China (Human Rights)

    Mr. David Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister when he now expects to receive the final report on the outcome of the visit to China of the delegation led by Lord Howe to discuss human rights last December; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on 17 December 1992 at column 352. Work on the report by my right hon. noble and learned Friend, Lord Howe, is well advanced. As soon as it is available we propose to place copies in the Library of the House and to make it available to the public. We continue to raise the issue of human rights in China, most recently in Geneva at the UN Commission on Human Rights, and with Chinese embassy officials here on 4 March.

     

    Liverpool

    Mr. Parry : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

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

     

    Polish Prime Minister

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what matters in regard to (a) PHARE, (b) environmental technology transfer and (c) export controls on military or dual-use equipment were discussed during his recent meeting with his Polish counterpart in London.

    The Prime Minister : These matters were not raised in my discussions with the Polish Prime Minister.

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of January to the hon. Member for Bradford West, what information he has received about the detention of Kashmiri leaders, Shabir Shah and Yasin Malik in Delhi; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : We have asked the Indian Government through our High Commission in New Delhi for information about Shabir Shah and Yasin Malik and are awaiting a reply.

     

    Public Bodies

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of total Government spending is accounted for by the bodies listed in “Public Bodies 1992”.

    The Prime Minister : Gross expenditure by executive non-departmental public bodies was 8.2 per cent. of general Government expenditure in 1978-79 and 5.8 per cent. in 1991-92.

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister how many non-departmental public bodies there were in (a) 1979 and (b) the last year for which figures are available.

    The Prime Minister : There were 2,167 non-departmental public bodies in 1979 consisting of 492 executive bodies, 1,485 advisory bodies, 70 tribunals and 120 boards of visitors; and 1,412 in 1992 consisting of 369 executive bodies, 846 advisory bodies, 66 tribunals and 131 boards of visitors.

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister how many appointments to public bodies and positions he is able to make; and if he will list the bodies and positions.

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

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister what was the total budget of all non-departmental public bodies in (a) 1979 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available.

    The Prime Minister : Total expenditure by executive non-departmental public bodies was £6,150 million in 1979 and £13,750 million in 1992.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister how many of additional topics have been referred to Lord Justice Scott since his terms of reference were established; and when he will now report.

    The Prime Minister : The wide terms of reference of Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry enable him to examine whatever topics he considers relevant to the issues of his inquiry. Lord Justice Scott has not yet announced when he expects to publish his report.

     

    Water Privatisation, Scotland

    Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Angus East, of 9 March, Official Report, column 783, what plans the Scottish Office now has to announce the conclusions of its consultative process on the privatisation of the water industry in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering the responses to the Government’s consultation paper on the future of water and sewerage in Scotland. An announcement will be made when that consideration is complete.

     

    Ghazanfer Ali

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 21 October concerning Ghazanfer Ali, in prison in Pakistan, what further information he has received about the progress of the case; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Mr. Ghazanfer Ali is facing two murder charges. They were due to be heard on 13 and 14 March 1993. We shall continue to watch developments.

     

    Prerogative Powers

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what prerogative powers pertain to public borrowing.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 9 March 1993] : Central Government borrowing to raise money for general purposes is undertaken under the National Loans Act of 1968 and not under the prerogative. Public borrowing to raise money for various specific functions is generally undertaken under statutory powers.

     

    Maastricht Treaty

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister when he last communicated with his counterparts in other EC countries over the proposed ratification of the Maastricht treaty by the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 12 March 1993] : I last discussed ratification of the Maastricht treaty with my European Community colleagues collectively at the Edinburgh European Council on 11 and 12 December 1992. I have since reaffirmed to our partners our commitment to ratify the treaty, most recently in my meeting with the Prime Minister of Denmark on 9 March.

     

    Scottish Water Privatisation

    Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answers to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), of 9 March, Official Report, column 783-4, whether a decision has now been taken to proceed with the privatisation of Scottish water.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 12 March 1993] : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has consulted widely on the future of the water and sewerage services in Scotland. We will announce our conclusions after the responses have been carefully considered. No decision has been taken.

  • Mr Major’s Article on Industry and Manufacturing – 12 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s article on industry and manufacturing, published on Friday 12th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    British manufacturing is vital for our economic future. And British industry is performing far better than most people realise. Time after time, businessmen tell me of international successes that somehow don’t make the headlines. Who is providing the steel to build the new rail terminal at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris? A British company in Bolton. Which country is exporting Nissan cars to Japan? Britain is. The statistics tell the same story. Manufacturing productivity is up in Britain; so is manufacturing investment; so are manufactured exports – up 6 per cent, in the last quarter of 1992, compared with a year ago.

    Of course, we have a long way to go. There will be setbacks along the way; and – sadly – the last element to turn up in any recovery tends to be employment. But the Institute of Directors’ survey for February showed that business leaders are becoming much more optimistic about their companies’ prospects. This message is reinforced by the latest CBI survey, reporting the biggest rise in car sales for nearly five years, more confidence among retailers and a willingness to increase investment. More houses are being built; and the House Builders’ Federation has just reported a 20 per cent rise in sales. All these figures were released in recent days, but you could be forgiven for missing them in the prevailing gloom.

    I want to see every sector of the economy enjoy recovery. We have a strong service sector. The City of London in particular is a huge generator of export earnings for Britain. Before the 1980s, there was a tendency to undervalue such contributions. Even the name we gave to them – “invisible earnings” – suggested there was somehow something unreal about them.

    In the 1980s, we came to realise services were a big plus to the British economy. But making things matters, too. To earn Britain’s way in the world, we also need a strong, competitive and productive manufacturing base.

    Private enterprise – not government – will create that. Unlike our political opponents, I do not want to go back to a failed past of subsidies and state control. They want to rob successful companies through extra taxes to prop up the weak. I want to get government off business’s back; to set business free to succeed. So let me explain what I believe Government can do to help British industry.

    Its first responsibility is to make sure the fundamentals are right. By that I mean – above all else – low inflation. Our inflation rate has been below the average for the European Community for 18 months now. At 1.7 per cent in January, the headline figure is the lowest for a generation. Low inflation helps industry control its costs and compete abroad. We have the lowest interest rates in the European Community. We have a highly competitive exchange rate. And in our factories costs are rising more slowly in Britain than in Japan or Germany – a sure recipe for export success, and for securing a bigger share of our home market, too.

    With the labour market reforms set under way by Margaret Thatcher, and pursued again in this Parliament, we won our way to industrial peace just in time to take advantage of the huge opportunity presented by the European Single Market. Manufacturing investment has flooded into Britain. Companies like Nissan, Toyota and Sony have brought new jobs and confidence to British manufacturing.

    With the unique version of the Treaty we secured at Maastricht, we have achieved the best of both worlds for inward investors: a Britain inside Europe and outside the Social Chapter. If others want to add costs that make their industry uncompetitive, that’s their business – but perhaps not for long. Once the Maastricht Treaty is ratified, Britain will be the best launch pad for manufacturing success in Europe.

    Our European policy is the second element in our strategy to create the right conditions for British business. It leads to the third, which we are pursuing in Brussels, Whitehall – yes, and town hall too: too roll back regulation.

    We have made a start, at Maastricht, in putting the brakes on Brussels intervention. But too much regulation is home-grown: dreamt up with too little thought, enforced with too much zeal. We have to look again at factory regulations that define mild washing up liquids as hazardous substances. And we have to look more closely at the way European directives grow another layer of regulation when they pass through the hands of our own bureaucracy. The rule too often seems to be: two bits of red tape are better than one. Let me offer you a better rule: red tape costs jobs. That is why, as part of his Deregulation Initiative, I have asked Michael Heseltine to take an especially close look at the way we implement European rules.

    Deregulation doesn’t just help our big, established companies. It clears the obstacles in the way of the new ones that will create the jobs of the future – the jobs that will replace those lost as older firms become more efficient. That means encouraging entrepreneurs, and nurturing innovative ideas.

    The fourth strand in our strategy is to build new bridges between British research and its industrial application. That is why I have appointed William Waldegrave to take responsibility for science, research and development at Cabinet level; and he will be publishing a White Paper shortly on the links between research and wealth creation.

    The fifth – and perhaps most important – strand lies in our policies for education, maths, science and technology are now locked into the curriculum for every child. We are expanding the numbers going on to further education, by nearly a quarter of a million young people over the next three years.

    But we cannot rest content with raw numbers. I have spoken before of the need to create, through vocational qualifications, another ladder of opportunity for young people. John Patten and Gillian Shephard are looking across the board at education and training for 16-19 year olds: to ensure that in quality and relevance we equip young people with the skills for success in the twenty-first century.

    This will help to break down some of the ingrained, senseless prejudices that have directed too many able young people away from industry, commerce and manufacturing. We need to build up craft skills and practical training, as well as enterprise and business initiative.

    Harold Macmillan once said: “Exporting is fun”. Maybe; but in the competitive world of the 1990s, it is also very hard work. Government can’t export for business; but it can help to open doors. And that is the sixth strand in my strategy to help build up our manufacturing base.

    In Europe, we have created a Single market of 340 million people – the biggest in the world. But that is not enough. The world is our market; and we will continue to work hard for the successful completion of the world trade talks, because this will bring down tariffs on British goods, protect British inventions and open new markets for British services too.

    In the Autumn Statement, Norman Lamont helped by providing extra export credits. And when I went to India recently, I took a group of top British businessmen with me – a practice I hope to repeat on other visits. Together, on the same trip, we secured some key orders in the Middle East: Challenger Tanks in the afternoon in Oman; and Tornados in the evening in Riyadh.

    The Government will do all it can to help industry fight its battles for Britain. But I know where the real credit lies behind every success: with the businessmen, the engineers, workers at every level in the companies concerned. Together, Government and industry can make a reality of my ambition – to see more of what matters made in Britain.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Matrix Churchill

    Mr. Mike O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with members of the United States Congress on his recent visit to Washington about Matrix Churchill.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.

    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.

     

    Knighthoods

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if it is now his policy that the Lord Mayor of the City of London corporation will no longer be recommended automatically for a knighthood.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 10 March 1993] : Yes.

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister how many hon. Members have received knighthoods since 1979.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 10 March 1993] : One hundred and seven Members of Parliament have received knighthoods since May 1979.

     

    Prerogative Powers

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 1 March, Official Report, column 19, if he will give examples of areas where the prerogative powers residing in the Crown are not exercisable by Ministers.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 9 March 1993] : There is a variety of situations in which the Queen may exercise the prerogative directly or on the basis of advice, including the advice of Ministers. These include the Dissolution of Parliament and certain appointments–for example, those of Ministers, the Archbishop of Canterbury, other ecclesiastical appointments, lords lieutenant and certain other office holders. In the matter of honours, the Queen would normally make appointments herself in the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle, the Order of Merit and in the Royal Victorian Order, but for the rest would receive recommendations from her Ministers here and in the Commonwealth.

     

    Manufacturers

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his Government’s policy on the level of support and encouragement which should be given to British manufacturers.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 9 March 1993] : The Government’s commitment to industry is at the heart of our policies, where it will remain. I refer my hon. Friend to the detailed answers that he received from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment on 26 January at column 659, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry on 27 January at columns, 735-36, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on 29 January at column 894 for details of specific measures that the Government have recently taken.

  • PMQT – 11 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mudie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.

    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. Mudie : Can the Prime Minister tell the House how today’s distressing news that 5,000 Rolls-Royce jobs are to be lost and how the fact that since he became Prime Minister 750,000 manufacturing jobs have been destroyed fit in with any supposed strategy for manufacturing industry? And can he tell the country when it can expect this industrial carnage to end?

    The Prime Minister : Let me respond first to the hon. Gentleman’s point about Rolls-Royce and the distressing announcement this morning of job losses at Derby and elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman will know that Rolls- Royce has two main international competitors, Boeing and Pratt and Whitney. He will know also that Pratt and Whitney has plans to cut 10,000 jobs over the next year or so and that Boeing will cut a total of 28,000 jobs. In both cases, the job losses have the same cause as those at Rolls-Royce–the state of the international market and of international demand. As to what is being done, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not forgotten the long list of things that I set out the other day. If he wishes me to do so, I shall willingly repeat it.

    Sir Terence Higgins : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to have discussions with the leader of the Labour party about the deplorable behaviour of the official Opposition last night, which was clearly encouraged by the Front Bench? Is it not pathetic that the Opposition have to resort to such tactics, instead of using effective debate, as these inevitably bring the House into disrepute?

    The Prime Minister : Any discussions are for my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and his Opposition counterpart. I condemn what apparently happened last night, although I was not in the House. I have to ask why the Leader of the Opposition did not stop it and, more relevantly, why his deputy Chief Whip seemed to be organising it.

    Mr. John Smith rose–

    Hon. Members : Answer.

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Smith : If manufacturing matters to the Prime Minister– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down and listen to what hon. Members have to say and to the responses.

    Mr. John Smith : If manufacturing matters to the Prime Minister, as he would have us believe, what action does he intend to take to prevent the loss of 5,000 jobs at Rolls-Royce?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman still lives in a world in which the Government do everything and everything is the Government’s fault. That may be his vision of the future, but for most people it is their vision of the past, and a past that was not successful. He should remember, for example, the national enterprise board. It picked losers, not winners, it cost millions, and many of its investments, taking the sort of action that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would advocate, subsequently went into liquidation or receivership.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not remember that an Administration headed by one of his predecessors took Rolls-Royce into public ownership, otherwise it would not be there today? Does he recollect that only last week he told us in his The Independent interview that we have undervalued engineering skills? What on earth is the point of his talking about the value of engineering skills when, as Prime Minister, he does nothing about the loss of 5,000 skilled engineering jobs?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman may also recall that we put many industries into privatisation, without which they would not be in profit and creating jobs today. The way to create engineering and other jobs is to make sure that we have a growing economy and the right sort of international competitiveness. We have intervened to get the single market running and we have improved export credit guarantees. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has clearly forgotten all the matters that were contained within the autumn Budget. It is not nannying intervention of the sort that the right hon. and learned Gentleman advocates that this country needs ; it is the sort of supply-side measures that we are taking.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that this litany of self-serving excuses gives no comfort to the 5,000 people who are to lose their jobs, let alone the 10,000 Rolls-Royce workers who have lost their jobs in the recent past? Does he not understand that in France today the Government are giving temporary help to the aerospace industry precisely to keep skilled engineering groups together? Why does not his Government back British industry the way other Governments back their industry?

    The Prime Minister : If France is so successful, why are there 3 million unemployed there? Here is the right hon. and learned Gentleman again with his perennial gloom. He might welcome some of the new jobs announced recently : Digitals move for 1,100 more jobs at Ayr ; the prospect of 3,000 more jobs in Staffordshire ; the new jobs won yesterday in Cambridge ; the 6,000 jobs to be created in Manchester. Why do these always bypass the right hon. and learned Gentleman on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons?

     

    Q2. Mr. Bates : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.

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

    Mr. Bates : Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is vital to the success of the security services that they are kept free from political interference in operational matters? If so, does he agree that the remarks made yesterday by a Labour spokesman on Northern Ireland were a total disgrace and a slur upon the courageous and dedicated way in which the security services carry out their duties on behalf of all of us?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. Those remarks were absurd. They were a slur on officers whose achievements must have saved many people from death or injury. The Opposition would have done better, rather than attacking the police, to join us last night in attacking terrorism. The Leader of the Opposition might tell us whether he stands by what his hon. Friend said or by the police in what they have to do. He cannot do both.

    Mr. Ashdown : On this bleak day for job losses, will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that, while there are 3 million unemployed in Britain, there are also 3 million small businesses in Britain, and a real, extra boost for small businesses could provide a real, extra boost for jobs? Will he cut the uniform business rate and penalise the late payment of bills, or is he simply content to continue to let small businesses go to the wall, as at present, at the rate of 250 a day?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has absolutely no idea that more than 400,000 new small businesses were formed last year. If he really wants to help create small businesses in future, perhaps he will stop joining others in delaying the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and putting at risk the inward investment that has totalled £100 billion in the past five years. If we have to choose between the right hon. Gentleman’s principles and his action, we had better be careful not to decide on his action until he has done it.

    Mr. Gale : My right hon. Friend will have struck a chord with most of our constituents when he recently drew attention to the corrosive effects of violence on television. Will he now go a stage further and direct the Cabinet’s attention to the further effects of paedophilia created and transmitted by computer which, at present, is not covered by the law? Will he ensure that controls are included in the next criminal justice Bill?

    The Prime Minister : I understand that that is covered by the law. But notwithstanding that, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is well seized of the difficulties raised by my hon. Friend and is examining them.

     

    Q3. Mr. Lewis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.

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

    Mr. Lewis : Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that it is now time to release the capital receipts, long held by local authorities, in order to bring skilled building workers back into work to provide decent homes for the homeless and for elderly people?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman may recall, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer released many of them in the autumn statement and those that have been released are currently being underspent by local authorities.

    Mr. Marlow : We are told that we are winning the arguments in Europe. Does that mean that Mr. Delors, the Commission, Benelux, Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand are now enthusiastic decentralisers? Does that mean that the principle of subsidiarity will allow the House, and this House alone, to make a decision on whether we have a 48-hour week?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, article 3b specifically puts subsidiarity into the EC treaty and changes the situation in the future about that matter. He himself should vote for that instead of obstructing it.

    Mr. Bryan Davies : Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why he has tabled a motion again today to allow debate to continue on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, a motion which has been tabled many times in recent weeks and never moved? Has he made a deal with the Liberals and nationalists this evening, or will he be running away from his second defeat this week?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly is as keen as I am to see progress on the Bill.

    Dr. Spink : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the latest excellent figures for new house sales which were 20 per cent. up in the first eight weeks of this year? The Opposition concentrate on talking Britain down, but is that not good news for Britain?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes his point with great clarity. He is quite right about housing. He will know that mortgage rates for first-time buyers are lower today than they have been since 1956, and that is before many families yet feel the benefit of the interest rate cuts since the autumn. Many people are clearly deciding that now is a good time to buy, and I welcome that.

     

    Q4. Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.

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

    Mr. Taylor : Is the Prime Minister aware that prices in the South West Water region have risen 77 per cent. since 1989, faster than in the rest of the country, and are due to double over the next few years, faster than in the rest of the country? When the right hon. Gentleman recently visited Cornwall and Devon, he told the Western Morning News on 5 February that he was looking at action to help people with those problems. He told me last week on 4 March that he defended the price increases that we have seen. Which is right–what he said here or what he said in the west country?

    The Prime Minister : I told the hon. Gentleman last week that the prices were broadly the same as those of Anglian Water, and they are. I can tell him again this afternoon that I am examining the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

     

    Q5. Mr. David Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.

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

    Mr. Atkinson : Is my right hon. Friend aware of a joint media campaign in my area called Action Desk, involving the Bournemouth Evening Echo, the Dorset chamber of commerce and Two Counties Radio, which is designed to beat the recession in our area by encouraging the spread of good news about our economic recovery and encouraging a positive approach by business and individuals?

    Will my right hon. Friend commend this initiative and recommend it to other areas and above all, will he recommend it to the national media in order to counter the doom and gloom coming out of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It certainly is time that we started talking more positively about our good successes and about the opportunities we now have with low inflation and low interest rates.

    Mr. Lewis : What about jobs?

    The Prime Minister : And, in answer to that seated intervention, about the new jobs, many of which I listed a few moments ago. Exports are up; manufacturing productivity is up ; car sales are up ; house sales are up, and one day Opposition Members opposite may begin to acknowledge that.

  • PMQT – 9 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Roger Moate : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

    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.

    Sir Roger Moate : Does my right hon. Friend agree that to sign up to the social chapter would inflict incalculable damage on British business and hold back economic recovery? Will he confirm that he will continue to resist the social chapter and can I tell him that in doing so he certainly has my support and should have the support of everyone on this side of the House?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The social chapter would be bad for Britain. It would damage British industry, choke off foreign investment and destroy jobs. I have to say to the House that delay in ratifying the Maastricht treaty would do exactly the same thing. The treaty is in the national interest and we shall pursue it. We want to be inside Europe and outside the social charter.

    Mr. John Smith : Bearing in mind the widespread support for the Committee of the Regions to be composed of elected representatives, including support for that proposition from the Tory-controlled local authority associations, what on earth did the Prime Minister think he was doing in opposing an amendment that any real democrat should have supported?

    The Prime Minister : It was a very bad amendment and it was a very bad amendment for this reason : we made it perfectly clear in the debate that we are not against the inclusion of elected local government representatives, but there are others, including business men, who could add value to its work. That would add an element of flexibility and other partners in Europe have come to similar conclusions. Only Holland and Greece have so far made their nominations to the committee and neither of those countries has confined its membership to elected representatives.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister understand that it was his own foolishness and obstinacy which led him to oppose an amendment which, if he had an ounce of judgment, he could have accepted months ago?

    The Prime Minister : The reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon takes that view is quite clear. He is embarrassed that he has neglected his principles yet again on this Bill. I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what this country cannot afford : the lost jobs, the lost investment and the lost influence that would be put at risk if we were seen to turn our backs on this treaty and our place in Europe, as he and his vote last night indicate that he would do.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not the right hon. Gentleman a fine one to talk about delay, when he promised the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that Third Reading would be delayed until the Danish referendum? Is not the painful truth for the Prime Minister that far from being stabbed in the back, as he complains he has been, he has shot himself in the foot?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said one thing and done another on Europe time after time and in this country and, in Europe, no one will ever trust him again on this issue.

    Mr. Quentin Davies : Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the police on their superb achievement in finding a major hoard of Semtex and in making a number of connected arrests? Does he agree that the defence of society against murder by terrorists is a responsibility of every man and woman and every citizen–including Labour party Members, who until now have continually refused to support the prevention of terrorism Act?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, the Labour party will soon have the opportunity to improve on that record. The Opposition have now voted against the prevention of terrorism Act on 11 occasions. Unless they vote with us tomorrow on that Act they should pipe down on crime for good.

     

    Q2. Mr. Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Is the Prime Minister aware of the devastation caused by water cut-offs to tens of thousands of individuals and families in England and Wales? Will he guarantee that there will be no change in Scots law to allow any such domestic cut-offs in Scotland, particularly as part of any Tory plans to steal, privatise or franchise Scottish water? [Interruption.] It is obvious that this lot do not care, judging by the noise that they make, but we do.

    The Prime Minister : I can give the hon. Gentleman no comfort on that point. Privatisation means a better, more efficient service for the consumer and no more subsidies from the taxpayer. I have no reason to doubt that water privatisation in Scotland will be effective and efficient, as elsewhere.

    Mrs. Peacock : Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1992 the United Kingdom clothing industry exported goods worth £2.25 billion, an increase of 8.5 per cent? Is not that a fine example of our first quality manufacturing industry?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that. There is no doubt that the clothing industry and many other manufacturing industries have dramatically increased their exports, not least as a result of the changed economic climate and the changed management structures in so many companies.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Hinchliffe : Does the Prime Minister consider that there is any connection between the prevailing values of the nation and the prevailing values of the Government? Is not there a clear connection between record levels of crime and social breakdown and this Government, who have consistently, in every policy since 1979, appealed to personal selfishness, personal greed and looking after number one?

    The Home Secretary talks about dealing with nasty pieces of work. Is not it true that this country has been run by some nasty pieces of work for the past 14 years and that we are now having to deal with the social consequences?

    The Prime Minister : In the 1980s the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends blamed affluence for crime. These days they tend to blame unemployment for crime. When, if ever, will they blame the criminal, who is truly responsible?

    Sir George Gardiner : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from Maastricht, he enjoys the united support of this party for the Asylum Bill ; the Education Bill ; the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill ; the National Lottery etc. Bill ; with one exception, the Railways Bill ; the Chancellor’s autumn statement ; and his leadership?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right to point to huge areas of agreement and to the enormous extent to which this year’s parliamentary programme has already passed through this House and is in another place. I look forward to completing the rest of our programme, including the European [small section missing].

     

    Communities (Amendment) Bill.

    Q4. Mr. Chisholm : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Chisholm : Will the Prime Minister give a categorical assurance that, whatever else he may try to impose on the Scottish people, he will never seek to change the law which makes the obscenity of water privatisation illegal in Scotland? Will he also give an assurance that he will do not deals on that or any other issue with the Scottish National party? If he does, may we have a copy of the letter, as happened last night?

    The Prime Minister : I must say that when a really substantial deal was done between the Labour party and minority parties, it was in 1970 and it was done by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition.

    As far as water privatisation is concerned, I made my view clear a few moments ago and it will remain as I stated it.

     

    Q5. Mr. Faber : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Faber : Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest Institute of Directors survey, which shows that optimism among business directors about the future of their companies is now at an all-time high since August 1988? Does he agree that that is encouraging news for economic recovery and shows that confidence is returning to businesses, despite the best efforts of Opposition Members to talk Britain down?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right and the number of Opposition Members who were scoffing at the good news he just set out illustrates his point more clearly than anything else. The Institute of Directors survey comes on top of an optimistic survey by the CBI– [Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like that, but it is true. They do not want to know that retail sales rose 1.4 per cent. in January, that car registrations were up 16 per cent. in February and that housing starts and completions are up. They know that good news for the country is bad news for them.

    Mr. Garrett : Is not it the hallmark of a discredited Prime Minister always to say that anybody who criticises him or his policies is unpatriotic?

    The Prime Minister : Only when it is untrue.

     

    Q6. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Is not the decision of the Home Secretary to publish league tables of the relative performances of our police forces welcome, not least at a time when the Government are spending more than ever on the police and when there are more policemen on the streets? Surely the ordinary citizen is entitled to know the relative performance of his local police force.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that he is so entitled and we intend to ensure that he can. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will support that and I hope that Opposition Members will not fight the right to give more information to the public in the way they have fought every other right to give more information to the public. They are in favour of freedom of information only in the abstract, not in the reality.

     

    Q7. Mr. Rooney : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Rooney : Is the Prime Minister aware that tomorrow it will be 22 weeks since the President of the Board of Trade promised to intervene before breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner? In view of his absolute lack of intervention in those 22 weeks, are we to assume that he has been on hunger strike, or has there been a military coup?

    The Prime Minister : I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been asleep for 22 weeks. Let me remind him of some of the things that have happened. There has been the autumn statement, increased capital allowances, the abolition of car tax, maintained capital expenditure, a low inflation rate, low interest rates, competitive exchange rates, pushing towards an agreement on GATT and a large number of tours abroad to sell British business. Where has the hon. Gentleman been that he has missed every one of those things?

     

    Q8. Mr. Duncan-Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Duncan-Smith : Has my right hon. Friend noticed the reports that the Holland Park school, one-time flagship of trendy 1960s educational teaching, has now started to change tack? Will he contrast that with the support it is now giving to the excellent educational reforms which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is pushing through against the rubbishy education policies coming from the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I have not seen that report, but I certainly very much welcome it. There is growing recognition that the damaging and discreditable theories of the 1960s so admired by the Opposition belong in the history books, but certainly no longer belong in the classrooms. Even the pioneers of those theories recognise that and I hope that soon everyone will acknowledge it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Public Bodies (Appointments)

    Mr. John Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the former hon. Members who have been appointed since June 1987 to bodies to which Government Ministers make appointments; and what are the emoluments, remuneration and salaries of the individuals concerned.

    The Prime Minister : The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Clelland : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the former hon. Members of the House who have been appointed to bodies to which Government Ministers make appointments together with the salaries, emoluments or honoraria paid to the former hon. Members concerned, since April 1992.

    The Prime Minister : The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    10 Downing Street (Catering)

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister when catering for No. 10 Downing Street was put out to contract; if this took place by public tender; how many tenders were received; and how long the contract will run.

    The Prime Minister : There is no single contract for catering for 10 Downing Street. Catering for official functions in 10 Downing Street is usually arranged by the Government hospitality fund using outside contractors.

     

    Inhumane Weapons

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will now make it his policy to arrange ratification of the 1977 additional protocols to the Geneva conventions and the 1981 inhumane weapons convention at the earliest possible opportunity.

    The Prime Minister : We expect to reach decisions soon on ratification of both the additional protocols and the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Public Bodies (Appointments)

    Mr. John Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the former hon. Members who have been appointed since June 1987 to bodies to which Government Ministers make appointments; and what are the emoluments, remuneration and salaries of the individuals concerned.

    The Prime Minister : The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Clelland : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the former hon. Members of the House who have been appointed to bodies to which Government Ministers make appointments together with the salaries, emoluments or honoraria paid to the former hon. Members concerned, since April 1992.

    The Prime Minister : The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    10 Downing Street (Catering)

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister when catering for No. 10 Downing Street was put out to contract; if this took place by public tender; how many tenders were received; and how long the contract will run.

    The Prime Minister : There is no single contract for catering for 10 Downing Street. Catering for official functions in 10 Downing Street is usually arranged by the Government hospitality fund using outside contractors.

     

    Inhumane Weapons

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will now make it his policy to arrange ratification of the 1977 additional protocols to the Geneva conventions and the 1981 inhumane weapons convention at the earliest possible opportunity.

    The Prime Minister : We expect to reach decisions soon on ratification of both the additional protocols and the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Family Perspective and Life Cycle

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister how the Government co-ordinate the way Departments put the family perspective and the life cycle into social and economic policy.

    The Prime Minister : The family is central to social and economic policy. The implications for the family are fully considered by each Department in developing and operating its policies. Where policies cross the boundaries of departmental responsibility, these matters are discussed either directly between Departments or through specific inter-departmental groups and committees.

     

    Privatised Companies

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister whether he will amend “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” so as to advise Ministers responsible for future privatisations that they should not subsequently accept paid positions on the boards of the privatised companies.

    The Prime Minister : No. Such guidance is neither necessary nor appropriate. Former Ministers should make their own judgments about potential conflicts of interest, as other Members of Parliament do.

     

    Lord Lieutenants and High Sheriffs

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what are the qualifications for nomination as lord lieutenant or high sheriff.

    The Prime Minister : The only formal qualification required of lord lieutenants and high sheriffs is that the latter must own land in the county in which they are to hold office, but by custom both lord lieutenants and high sheriffs are expected to be based in their counties.

     

    Pit Closures

    Mr. Tipping : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to ensure that a co-ordinated response is made to areas where collieries are under threat of closure.

    The Prime Minister : Lord Walker has been appointed to co-ordinate the regeneration effort in areas under threat of colliery closures. In all areas arrangements are in place to pull together the efforts of all relevant bodies : these include Government Departments, English Estates, training and enterprise councils, British Coal Enterprise, regional development organisations and local authorities.

     

    Full Employment

    Mr. Soley : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 2 March, Official Report, column 138, if he will define the full employment that he seeks to achieve.

    The Prime Minister : The Government pursue policies designed to achieve high levels of employment, consistent with low inflation. Measures to make the labour market competitive, flexible and efficient are an essential part of this.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Civil List

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will arrange for those payments to members of the royal family made through the civil list to be subject to audit and scrutiny by the National Audit Office.

    The Prime Minister : The payments of the annuities to members of the royal family from the Consolidated Fund are already subject to National Audit Office audit. Her Majesty the Queen has agreed to refund those costs, except for the annuities for the Queen Mother and the Duke of Edinburgh.

     

    Market Testing

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what is the highest rank in the civil service or Government to which market testing will be applied.

    Prime Minister : Market testing could apply in principle to any suitable activity and would, therefore, affect staff at any grade in market tested areas.

     

    Nuclear Tests

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he received on nuclear testing during his recent visit to Washington.

    The Prime Minister : During my visit I received one letter about nuclear testing from a United States congressman.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 February, Official Report, column 671, if he will list the titles of the papers his office has made available to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister : No. It would not be appropriate to do so.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Honours System – 4 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement made in the House of Commons on 4th March 1993 on the subject of the honours system.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the honours system and to announce some changes, which have been approved by Her Majesty the Queen. The award of honours for service and achievement has been a valued part of British life for centuries. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Would the Prime Minister allow me? Would those Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly? We want to continue with our business here.

    The Prime Minister : Let me begin again for those hon. Members who may not have heard what I was saying in the hubbub.

    With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the honours system and to announce some changes which have been approved by Her Majesty the Queen.

    The award of honours for service and achievement has been a valued part of British life for centuries. It is the means by which we, as a nation, can show our respect and gratitude to those who have contributed most to our national life. Acts of courage, lives of sacrifice, inventiveness, generosity and commitment to others are formally recognised and acknowledged. It is rooted in our history, and given special value by the close personal attention which the sovereign has given to it. To retain its valued role in our national life, the honours system must, from time to time, be reviewed and renewed.

    The present system has remained largely unchanged for 70 years, despite huge changes in national life. I have therefore been discussing with Her Majesty some changes that will, I believe, enjoy widespread support.

    I wish to start by clarifying the circumstances in which honours awards should be made.

    First, honours should be awarded on merit, for exceptional achievement or exceptional service, over and above that which normally might be expected. Secondly, there should be different levels of award to reflect different levels of achievement. Thirdly, awards should not be automatic and follow simply as a result of doing a particular job. Fourthly, awards should place more emphasis on voluntary service.

    I therefore propose to end the recommendation of honours where they are given solely by seniority or on appointment. In future, with one exception I shall turn to in a moment, there should be no assumption that honours will automatically be attached to particular posts in either the public or the private sector.

    Public servants and office holders will, of course, still be eligible to receive honours, and many will qualify on merit, but the assumption that a particular post automatically carries an honour will end. Instead, awards will be open–on merit–to a wider range of individuals.

    I intend that these principles should be applied throughout the civil service and the rest of the public sector, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence concur in respect of the foreign service and the armed forces.

    I also intend the same principles to apply in the private sector. Many people give generously of their time, energy and expertise to help their fellow citizens, and a more flexible system can take greater account of such contributions. While heads of particular organisations can no longer expect an honour just because their predecessor received one, they will, of course, continue to be eligible if their achievement and their service to the community merit it. I propose to continue making recommendations for political service, and I shall apply the same principles there, too. I mentioned earlier one exception. The independence of the judiciary is fundamental to our legal system. Awards of honours should not be thought to depend upon approval of legal judgments. For that reason, I believe that High Court judges should continue to receive the traditional honour of a knighthood on appointment. This practice has preserved the independence of the Bench from the exercise of patronage for two centuries, and I believe it should continue.

    I should now like to turn to specific awards where I have some changes to announce. The largest proportion by far of current awards are MBEs and BEMs, mainly for service to local communities. The distinction between service meriting the award of an MBE and that meriting a British Empire Medal has become increasingly tenuous. It can no longer be sustained. I therefore intend in future to increase the number of recommendations for MBEs and to discontinue recommending awards of BEMs. I should make it clear that this change will not affect existing holders of the BEM, who will of course retain their medals. These are, rightly, highly treasured personal possessions.

    The change will also apply to the lists recommended by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Governments of those Commonwealth countries that recommend British Empire Medals in their own lists have been informed of these proposals.

    To end a similar distinction in the Imperial Service Order, I shall no longer make recommendations for awards of the ISO. Those considered to merit the award will instead receive OBEs. The associated Imperial Service Medal is a long-service medal awarded on retirement and will continue.

    At present, those receiving the BEM do not attend a royal investiture. For the future, the Queen has graciously agreed to increase the number of investitures both at Buckingham palace and elsewhere in the country. This will enable the increased numbers receiving MBEs to attend a royal investiture, though the Queen will not be able to conduct all investitures herself. I realise, however, that some may value a local presentation which gives greater opportunity for friends and family to mark the occasion. Her Majesty has, therefore, agreed that those awarded MBEs, OBEs or CBEs may receive their honour from their lord lieutenant if they prefer. The choice will rest entirely with the recipient.

    I turn now to military gallantry awards. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is separately conducting a review, and will be announcing his conclusions shortly. But there is one change I can announce today. At present, except for the Victoria Cross, awards for gallantry are linked to the rank of the recipient. Officers are eligible to receive crosses or equivalent decorations, but non-commissioned ranks are eligible only for medals. The time has come to end this distinction. In future, the level of award will be determined by the part played by the individuals concerned, and the courage they displayed, without regard to their rank.

    At present, the numbers and distribution of honours are reviewed every five years. However, I have requested that the next examination of these numbers be brought forward to the summer of this year. I have asked the review, first, to take greater account of the desirability of recognising work in the voluntary sector and service to the community; secondly, to look at the proportion of awards to state servants to ensure that it appropriately reflects changes in the role and the size of the home civil service, the diplomatic service and the armed forces.

    Finally, I believe that the means of nomination for honours should be more widely known and more open. It is, at present, too haphazard. Nomination forms, setting out the type of information needed, have therefore been prepared. I will make sure that the forms are readily available both to members of the public and particularly to voluntary bodies and charities. I hope that this change will help increase the recognition of merit of all kinds.

    The honours system has been with us for centuries and has a continuing and valued role to play in British life. I strongly support it, but it is right that it should periodically be examined. The changes that I have announced today mean that exceptional service or achievement will be more widely recognised; that greater importance will be given to voluntary service; that automatic honours will end; that the distinction between ranks in military operational gallantry awards will cease; that the bulk of honours in the half-yearly lists will be of a single, undifferentiated award, the MBE; that all recipients of honours will be invited to a royal investiture.

    I shall report to the House in due course on the review of the numbers and distribution of honours, and I shall consider at that time whether further changes are needed.