The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on Royal Taxation – 11 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement made in the House of Commons on 11th February 1993 on the subject of Royal taxation.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about my further discussions with Her Majesty the Queen about taxation and Civil List payments.

    On 26 November, I told the House that the Queen had asked me to consider the basis on which she might voluntarily pay tax on her personal income and also take responsibility for certain payments under the current Civil List arrangements. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales had made a similar request in respect of his income from the Duchy of Cornwall.

    I am now able to tell the House that the further discussions between the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and the royal household have been completed, and that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness have accepted the arrangements proposed.

    The royal trustees are today publishing a report setting out the future tax arrangements for both the Queen and the Prince of Wales. The report includes a memorandum of understanding recording the detailed rules which will apply for income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. The agreement takes effect from 6 April 1993. It provides for the Queen to pay income tax on all her personal income, whether from investments or from other sources. In addition, tax will be paid on that part of the privy purse income which is used for private purposes. There will be no tax payable on income from the Civil List, since that is used to meet official expenses and is not a source of personal income for the Queen; the same will apply in respect of other payments and facilities provided by the state for official purposes.

    Her Majesty will also pay tax on any realised capital gains on her private investments and on the private proportion of assets in the privy purse.

    In the unique circumstances of an hereditary monarchy, special arrangements are needed for inheritance tax. There could, for example, be no question of taxing assets such as the royal palaces which the Queen owns as sovereign and not in a private capacity. The agreement reached with Her Majesty therefore provides that inheritance tax should apply to all bequests or gifts by the sovereign other than to transfers of assets from one sovereign to his or her successor. As the House will know, the Prince of Wales is already fully liable to tax, except on the income that he receives from the Duchy of Cornwall. From 6 April 1993 he will pay income tax on his Duchy of Cornwall income to the extent that it is used for private purposes; this arrangement will replace the voluntary payment of 25 per cent. of Duchy income that he currently makes to the Consolidated Fund. The Inland Revenue will administer these arrangements, and the tax received from the Queen and the Prince of Wales will be included in the Inland Revenue’s accounts. The Queen and the Prince of Wales will both have the same confidentiality on tax matters as any other taxpayer. Although these arrangements are voluntary, both the Queen and the Prince of Wales intend that they should continue indefinitely. Any changes in taxes or tax rates will automatically be applied.

    The report of the royal trustees also sets out the new arrangements that are being made for the management of the royal collection of paintings and other works of art. The royal collection is held by the Queen as sovereign and passes from one sovereign to the next. The collection cannot be sold to generate private income or capital for the use of the Queen, and the Queen does not benefit personally from the income generated by the collection.

    So as to make the status of the royal collection clear, Her Majesty intends that the maintenance, conservation and presentation to the public of the royal collection should in future become the responsibility of a new charitable trust. The trust will fund itself from the income generated from admission charges and other sources. The new arrangements should improve access to the royal collection for the whole country.

    The report also confirms that the Government have accepted the Queen’s generous offer to refund the cost of a further five of the parliamentary annuities payable to members of the royal family under the Civil List legislation, in addition to the three annuities that she already refunds. That will apply from 1 April 1993. The result will be that only the annuities paid to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh will continue as a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund.

    I am confident that the House will welcome these initiatives by the Queen and the Prince of Wales. The new arrangements will ensure that, so far as possible, the Queen will pay tax on her personal income according to the normal tax rules and will herself take responsibility for the Civil List payments to almost all other members of the royal family.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 February 1993

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Definition of Regions

    Mr. Radice : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to co- ordinate the definitions of regions used by Government Departments.

    Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Prime Minister what steps are being taken by his Government to ensure that Government Departments use a standard definition of the English regions.

    The Prime Minister : There is a standard definition of the regions which many Departments use, particularly for statistical purposes. The structures they use for administrative purposes are often based on that definition, while also taking account of the regional pattern which is best suited to managing the services for which each is responsible.

     

    Pensions and Benefits

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up arrangements for (a) the targeted non means-tested retirement pensions and the child cash allowances and (b) the income support measures to be considered in a new department subordinate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer equivalent to the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise systems.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Trident

    Mr. Streeter : To ask the Prime Minister what conclusions he has reached on the decision for the Trident refitting contract.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing to add to the replies given on 9 February, Official Report, columns 571-72, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Members for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) respectively.

     

    Engagements

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

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

    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.

  • PMQT – 11 February 1993

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Heppell : Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the impartiality of Independent Television News is threatened by the appointment as its next chairman of Mr. Michael Green, a known Conservative supporter and Conservative donor? Or does the Prime Minister share the views of his predecessor and ask himself, as she did, “Is he one of us?”

    The Prime Minister : No, I do not think that the impartiality of ITN is at all threatened by the appointment of Mr. Green, any more than I would question the impartiality of many programmes whose presenters may have one or other political opinion.

     

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

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

    Mr. Pawsey : Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the actions of one single militant teacher trade union which proposes to ballot its membership to boycott all tests [Interruption.] –Yes, all tests associated with the national curriculum? Will he also join me in saying just how damaging that would be to the education of the nation’s children?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that point, and I thoroughly condemn the union concerned. I believe that it will be seen by parents as a concerted attack on the rights of pupils and their parents to know what progress the pupils are making in their education at their individual schools. I very much hope that the teachers of that union will reject the proposition put before them.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it not a deplorable indictment of Conservative government that during the Conservative years crime has more than doubled? What action does the Prime Minister propose to take to protect our citizens from the crime wave that is sweeping the nation?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to want to put the blame for everything on the shoulders of the Government– quite apart from the view expressed by his shadow home affairs spokesman this morning. Let me illustrate for the right hon. and learned Gentleman some of the things that we have done. There has been the passage of the Public Order Act, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, both Criminal Justice Acts, the Prison Security Act and the Act to ban joy riding, every one of which was opposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party.

    Mr. Smith : Has the Prime Minister noticed that, whatever he claims to do or to have done, the crime rate rises consistently year after year? Does he think it remotely tolerable that, according to the Government’s crime survey, there are about 25,000 break-ins in this country every week? When will he do something about protecting our citizens from that?

    The Prime Minister : I note that there was no pledge from the right hon. and learned Gentleman to support legislation that we brought forward in previous years or to support us in the future in dealing with crime. Crime has increased ever since the second world war, under all Governments. Our record in combating crime is comparable with that of other countries in western Europe. This trend has been seen year after year, but it is not a matter which can be dealt with just by legislation. I doubt whether any other Government would have provided for the police the resources that the present Government have provided. Certainly, no other Government would have sided with the victim against the villain in the way that the present Government have.

    Mr. Marland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that last night Gloucestershire county council set a budget £10 million over its standard spending assessment? Does he know that Gloucestershire county council has debts of £25 million but has no plans substantially to reduce that figure? Does my right hon. Friend agree that plans should be made immediately to see that Gloucestershire county council seeks to reduce its debts so that money can be spent on education rather than on debt servicing?

    The Prime Minister : I think that it is regrettable that any authority should set an excessive budget. We have made it clear that we shall not hesitate in any way to cap such budgets. It is open to local authorities to set new, lower budgets, and I very much hope that Gloucestershire county council will do so.

     

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

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

    Mr. Barnes : I was interested in the Prime Minister’s initial reply about his engagements for today, but what about his engagements for tomorrow? My Representation of the People (Amendment ) Bill seeks to put the missing millions back on the electoral register and to secure access to polling stations for disabled people. Will the Prime Minister be around tomorrow to vote in support of that measure, and will he bring his friends with him? I know that he needs all the friends that he can get nowadays?

    The Prime Minister : I shall, in fact, be in my constituency meeting those friends.

    Mr. Elletson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the conviction of the IRA terrorist Jimmy Canning represents a real success for the security services? Will he join me in congratulating those services in putting that murderous thug behind bars?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that that will be the wish of the overwhelming majority of people in this country. I am happy to congratulate both the Crown prosecution service and the Metropolitan police.

    Mr. Ashdown : While the Vance-Owen plan extracts the very best out of the terrible opportunities left open to us in Bosnia, does the Prime Minister realise that this is not a peace of which either he or other western leaders can be proud? It is their failure which has resulted in a price being paid in the dismemberment of the Muslim community, the disintegration of a state which was recognised by the United Nations, and reward for the aggressors. Does the Prime Minister understand that while we must all hope for peace in Bosnia, our hopes for peace in Europe will depend on our learning the lessons of this miserable affair?

    The Prime Minister : I regret that the right hon. Gentleman continues to take a wholly negative view of the enormous amount that has been done to seek a satisfactory peace in Yugoslavia. What is significant is the remarkable co-operation between the United States, the European Community and the United Nations in seeking to bring that conflict to an end. The best way forward, and the only credible way forward that has yet been found, is the Vance-Owen plan, which we strongly support. I very much welcome the policy statement from the United States Government earlier this week.

    Mr. Moss : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the three councils in Cambridgeshire–East Cambridgeshire, South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire–which recently announced a zero component for the district council portion of the new council tax? How is it that some councils can deliver a highly effective service to their taxpayers while others, such as Harlow, are gross overspenders? Could it be because the Cambridgeshire councils are not controlled by Labour?

    The Prime Minister : I think that there are two answers. First, the councils are efficient ; secondly, they are not run by the Socialist party.

     

    Q4. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Illsley : Does the Prime Minister not think it scandalous that at a time when the Health Department budget has been put into the public sector spending review and when prescription charges are about to be increased by 10 per cent., the West Midlands and Wessex health authorities have been allowed to squander £67 million on renting luxury homes in London, on air travel, on entertainment and on corrupt computer deals involving former Cabinet Ministers?

    The Prime Minister : I have no intention of commenting on the detailed points made by the hon. Gentleman. There are adequate ways of making sure that they are examined. As to the health budget and all other budgets, one reason for undertaking a fundamental review is to make sure that taxpayers’ money is well spent and that it is spent first on those areas that most require the expenditure.

    Mr. Allason : When my right hon. Friend undertakes his review of European regulations that are handicapping British industry, will he turn his attention to the tourist industry and consult the Torbay environmental health officer who requires every hotelier in Torbay to check, monitor and register the temperature of every deep freeze in every premises three times a day on penalty of prosecution? Is that not exactly the kind of daft regulation that we should get rid of?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that regulation to my attention. I will ensure that it is examined. There are many regulations that we could usefully manage without. The intention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is to identify them so that we can remove them.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hutton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Hutton : Is the Prime Minister aware that many health authorities and national health service trusts are currently being forced to cancel operations and close wards because of the inadequacies, and in some cases the mismanagement, of NHS resources? Is he aware, in particular, that in my constituency Roose hospital, which provides excellent geriatric care for elderly people, is being forced to close? Will he tell the House what measures will be taken to ensure that such hospitals stay open? How does he believe it helps health care for hospitals such as Roose to close?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the increased resources for health authorities–spending of £36 billion this year and planned spending of more than £37 billion next year ; an increase in national health service expenditure by up to 57 per cent. ; and an increase in the number of people treated. The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating the health authorities and the health service on that remarkable record.

     

    Q6. Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Robertson : Does my right hon. Friend agreed that it is the job of Government to attack cartels, cliques and vested interests–cartels in trade unions, cliques in Labour-controlled local authorities and vested interests that support the vast majority of Labour Members?

    The Prime Minister : I strongly suspect that my hon. Friend has struck a sore spot. Every member of the shadow Cabinet is sponsored by a trade union, two thirds of the votes at the Labour conference are still wielded by trade unions; they will not support our tests in the schools because that is what the National Union of Teachers wants, they oppose our reforms on health because that is what the Council of Health Services Employees wants, and they fight competitive tendering because that is what the National Union of Public Employees wants. There is no doubt whose pockets they are in.

    Mr. Faulds : Has no one– [Interruption.] Cheeky little pup.

    Madam Speaker : Order. I recollect that “Erskine May” does not allow that sort of language.

    Mr. Faulds : “Cheeky little pup” is a term of endearment, Madam Speaker. Has no one in government the simple intelligence to understand that the Cyprus– [Interruption.] –rather, the Vance-Owen plan– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down.

    Mr. Faulds : Bosnia is not a laughing matter– [Interruption.] Those idiots on the Government Benches. Has no one in government the simple intelligence to understand that the Vance-Owen plan as now drawn up is unacceptable because it rewards Serbian ethnic cleansing and is in danger of creating a Palestinian-type situation within a quarter of a century? Will the Prime Minister for once listen to reasonable advice from America, and will he understand that that plan can become acceptable only if the Serbian aggression is held, if the danger to the Bosnian Muslims and their territory is removed, and if war criminals in Yugoslavia are brought to proper trial?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has set out many of the matters which have been our policy for some time and were reiterated earlier this week by the American Administration–in particular, the point about war crimes. We have also supported–and others are now joining us in doing so–increased and hardened sanctions, particularly along the Danube, to put further pressure on the Serbs. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the map is not yet a settled matter. Nevertheless, there have been very dramatic improvements towards peace as a result of the Owen-Vance proposals. We need to continue to pursue those, and to continue to put pressure on each of the combatants until they reach a conclusion which will be satisfactory, which can be policed properly and which can bring the dreadful conflict to an end.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 February 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Fisheries Decommissioning Scheme

    Mr. Salmond : To ask the Prime Minister if the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will administer the fishing decommissioning scheme for the entire United Kingdom fishing fleet; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Yes. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will administer the decommissioning scheme on behalf of all four fisheries departments. The scheme is part of a package, including effort control measures, designed to conserve fish stocks and help to meet targets the United Kingdom as a whole under the European Community’s multi-annual guidance programme.

     

    Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant

    Ms. Walley : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to co-ordinate the activities of Departments on the transportation of radioactive materials from and to Thorp; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Transport arrangements are the responsibility of the consignor, subject to meeting the requirements of the Department of Transport on safety issues and the Department of Trade and Industry on export control and security issues. The two Departments co-ordinate as necessary.

     

    Youth Policy

    Mr. Hendry : To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the establishment of a ministerial group to co-ordinate youth policy across Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The interests of young people can best be served through action which addresses specific issues. Where action involves more than one Department, co-ordination between Ministers takes place. These arrangements work satisfactorily and there is currently no need to establish a formal ministerial group.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 February 1993

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Eastbourne

    Q10. Mr. Waterson : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to make another official visit to Eastbourne.

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

     

    Railways (Capital Investment)

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish an analysis of the economic and employment effects of £500 million extra capital investment in railways compared with the same sum spent on supporting deep coal mining.

    The Prime Minister : The economic and employment effects of £500 million extra capital expenditure on the railways would depend on the nature of the investment and on its economic return. The effect of spending the same amount on supporting deep coal mining would depend on the industry’s ability to exploit the opportunity for subsidised sales in the market circumstances it faced. In either case, account would of course need to be taken where the money would be found as well as how it would be spent.

     

    Public Inquiries

    Ms. Walley : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to ensure co-operation between the Department of Trade and Industry and Department of Transport in respect of public inquiries into harbour revision orders and on energy policy; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : It is normal practice for the Department of Transport to consult other Departments, where appropriate, in respect of proposals for the making of harbour revision orders.

     

    Republic of Ireland

    Mr. Trimble : To ask the Prime Minister what current discussions are taking place with the Government of the Republic of Ireland about the events of February 1970 involving the Government of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

    The Prime Minister : None.

    Mr. Trimble : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions are taking place with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on state-sponsored terrorism.

    The Prime Minister : The Government are fully committed to close co-operation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland against all forms of terrorism which threaten our two countries. Both countries are in regular contact on matters of mutual concern.

     

    Departmental Library

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will obtain for his Office’s library a book, the title of which has been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

    The Prime Minister : My office has a copy.

     

    Engagements

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

    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 – 9 February 1993

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Amess : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on launching a fundamental review of all Government spending, just as Conservative-controlled Basildon is currently doing? Does he agree that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure the best possible value for every pound of taxpayers’ money that is spent?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend so often reminds the House, where Basildon leads others tend to follow.

    I welcome yesterday’s statement by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Government spend over £250 billion a year of taxpayers’ money. I believe that it is necessary to look very closely at the way in which that money is spent and at where it is spent and to ensure that we obtain the best possible value for every pound that is spent. It is for that reason that we are conducting the review.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does the Prime Minister recall the promise that he made during the election campaign only 10 months ago? He said that the Government had no plans and no need to extend the scope of value added tax. Does he stand by those words?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady knows that we are near to the Budget. She must wait.

    Mrs. Beckett : The Prime Minister made just that promise to the British people when he needed their votes. Why will not he make it now?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady knows that we are close to the Budget. She must wait.

    Mrs. Beckett : At the time of the election, the Prime Minister and all his colleagues promised no change in VAT, no other new taxes or charges and no cuts in the public spending plans that they had put before the British people. Is not it clear from the Prime Minister’s refusal to answer a simple question that all his promises had a sell-by date of 9 April?

    The Prime Minister : It is not remotely clear from that. What is clear is that we are close to the Budget and the hon. Lady will have to wait for the Budget to find out what it contains.

    Mr. William Powell : Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the article by Robert Fisk in yesterday’s edition of The Independent which describes systematic rape in Bosnia? Has not the time come for the establishment of a war crimes tribunal, so that those responsible for the perpetration of such foul crimes can be brought to justice? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that, under the authority of the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, such a tribunal is established as quickly as possible?

    The Prime Minister : I have not seen the article to which my hon. Friend refers, but, as he will know, we have been considering that matter in concert with the United Nations for some time.

     

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

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

    Mr. Heppell : Is the Prime Minister aware that unemployment in my constituency, in the once-prosperous city of Nottingham, is now higher than in any Scottish or Welsh constituency, having risen by 44 per cent. between 1990 and 1992? With three out of 10 males now unemployed, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect unemployment to start to fall?

    The Prime Minister : I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s concern about unemployment, but I would respect it more if he did not support policies that would deliberately put people out of work– [Interruption.] –rather than back into work. He and his party have consistently argued for a national minimum wage and even the Fabian Society has recognised that

    “an inescapable part of a”

    national minimum wage

    “policy is increased unemployment.”

    Perhaps that is another policy which the Labour Front Bench could ditch.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Government support the Owen-Vance peace plan and that they will continue to keep up their pressure on the warring parties to comply with that plan? In the meantime, will he confirm British support for the humanitarian aid now going to Bosnia?

    The Prime Minister : Yes. I confirm both points. The Government’s policy is fully to support the Owen-Vance peace plan, which was developed out of the conference that I chaired in London last August. We also wish to maintain the conditions in which our forces can support the United Nations humanitarian effort, without which many thousands of people alive today would otherwise have been dead. But we believe it to be necessary to increase the pressure on the parties to help seek a solution. The United Kingdom has put forward proposals for tightening the operation of sanctions across the Danube and for increasing the isolation of Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs if their aggression persists. I hope that that policy will be supported throughout the European Community and the United Nations.

     

    Q4. Mr. Austin-Walker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Austin-Walker : Will the Prime Minister find time today to examine the effects of land contamination on job creation? In particular, will he examine the position of the Woolwich Arsenal site, which once employed 80,000 people in a single factory, but which now lies derelict in an area where male unemployment tops 62 per cent? Will he give a categorical assurance that, as the contamination was caused by the Ministry of Defence, the Government will meet the full cost of decontamination on that site and the neighbouring Thamesmead area?

    The Prime Minister : The Secretary of State for Defence will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, will examine the matter and will respond to him.

     

    Q5. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the great teaching profession clearly welcomes higher standards through the national curriculum, but appears to be flinching from achieving them through standard assessment tests? Does he further agree that it is vital, above all in the interests of our nation and our children, that the tests go ahead without delay?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that we need national tests to raise standards and it is our intention that they shall go ahead. They are and remain a vital part of the national curriculum. Children need them, parents want them and I expect teachers to supervise them.

    Mr. Llwyd : Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will meet the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shortly to discuss his disgraceful betrayal of British farmers with the proposed cuts in hill livestock compensatory allowances–despite the promise, fewer than 18 months ago, that they were safe in his hands?

    The Prime Minister : I meet my right hon. Friend many times a week, but, regardless of the cut in HLCAs to which the hon. Gentleman refers, hill farmers’ incomes will be between £60 million and £70 million higher as a result of increased sheep premiums, the green pound devaluation and other market factors.

     

    Q6. Mr. Nicholls : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Nicholls : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while any convert to conservatism is always welcome, if that conversion is coupled with a continuing opposition to British Rail privatisation, grant- maintained schools, GP fund-holding practices and compulsory competitive tendering, it shows that the conversion is insubstantial and entirely unreal? Is not that now the position of the Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I welcome all conversions to conservatism, especially death-bed conversions–but they must be genuine conversions, not conversions that use the language of conservatism but remain wedded to the instincts and policies of socialism. Until the right hon. and learned Gentleman formally drops his commitment to clause 4, his opposition to privatisation and his idiotic proposal for a windfall tax, no one will take his conversion seriously.

    Mr. Terry Davis : Will the Prime Minister find time today to tell the President of the Board of Trade to get round the table with the Leyland DAF receiver, the management and the unions, in an attempt to save the van factory in Birmingham, which has a highly skilled and motivated work force of 2,000 people?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the receivers. Several Hon. Members rose —

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

    Mr. Forman : When my right hon. Friend is considering new measures to help the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed, will he give careful consideration to the idea of relaxing the social security rules that affect availability for work, so that it is possible for people to do more than 24 hours a week of voluntary work and more than 21 hours a week of educational study–to their benefit and that of the country?

    The Prime Minister : We have looked and are looking at a range of measures that might encourage people back into work. I cannot give my hon. Friend a particular undertaking on the point that he makes, but we are looking at a range of ways to assist.

     

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

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

    Mr. Turner : The Prime Minister’s record is not a good one. Since he came to office in 1990, more than 1 million people have joined the unemployed queues and more than 100,000 training places have been lost. Is this the vision of Opportunity Britain, or is it a sign of the growing army of jobless whose lives have been wasted by the Government?

    The Prime Minister : What we have sought to do and are doing is to put in place the economic circumstances that will create genuine and lasting jobs. That is why we have cut inflation to its lowest level for six years, brought interest rates down to their lowest for 15 years and put in place the most comprehensive training programme ever seen in this country. That is the only way to secure long-term, permanent jobs–not the quick fixes so beloved of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

     

    Cleethorpes

    Q8. Mr. Michael Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Cleethorpes by train.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include my hon. Friend’s constituency among them.

    Mr. Brown : I am delighted to hear that reply. Does my right hon. Friend recall the days when he and I used to travel on the train to Cleethorpes, which used to stop at Huntingdon? Is he aware that if he makes his official visit to Cleethorpes by train, after May this year he will have to change at Newark and hang around on the platform catching flu for hours on end because British Rail is taking away the direct train service to Cleethorpes? Does he agree that it is vital that British Rail should continue that service at least until the Railways Bill is on the statute book, when we can take advantage of the franchising opportunities of privatisation?

    The Prime Minister : I recall those journeys with my hon. Friend with great pleasure, but British Rail’s monopoly service means that it decides what services to run in the light of its view of passenger demand. I stress to my hon. Friend that British Rail’s reluctance to change its service now is no bar to subsequent changes. The privatisation proposals will break British Rail’s monopoly and will bring in private sector operators and I believe that part of those franchises will provide a better, cheaper and more effective service for the commuter.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 February 1993

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Relate

    Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister what steps are taken to co-ordinate the work of the United Kingdom Departments and Scottish and Welsh Offices concerned with Relate; and if he will make a statement on the grants for Relate for future years.

    The Prime Minister : Consultations take place within government on this matter as necessary. The Home Office grant to Relate supports marriage guidance in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The grant for 1993-94 of £1,530,000 is 38 per cent. higher than that for 1991-92. It is planned to increase the grant for Relate in 1994-95 by 4 per cent. over the 1993-94 level, subject to public expenditure constraints. The Scottish Office provides a grant to Marriage Counselling Scotland. In 1993-94 this will amount to £87,288, an increase of one and half times compared with 1992-93.

     

    Coal Industry

    Mr. David Porter : To ask the Prime Minister if he will undertake a comparative study of the employment effects of any tax or consumer subsidy for coal mining on the existing job in nuclear energy supply and in the offshore gas and oil industry.

    The Prime Minister : The coal review being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is considering, among other options, methods and costs of reducing the price of British Coal by providing support to the coal industry, for example by subsidy or levy arrangements, and the implications for other energy providers and customers. The effect of any measures on employment in other energy sectors is one of the factors being considered. Evidence on this has been submitted to the review from organisations and individuals within the nuclear, oil and gas industries, and is being given full consideration.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 February 1993

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Appointments

    Mr. Canavan : To ask the Prime Minister what public appointments he has made since 1 November 1992; and what information he has on the political affiliations of those appointed.

    The Prime Minister : Appointments (including reappointments) made by me between 1 November 1992 and 31 January 1993 have been as follows :

    |Number

    ————————————————

    Trustees of museums and galleries |10

    Civil service appointments |2

    Members of pay review bodies |2

    Other appointments |6

    Any political affiliations those appointed may have are not relevant to their appointments.

     

    Uniform Business Rate

    Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a table indicating the rate in pounds sterling of the uniform business rate in (a) Wales and (b) England in each of the past five years ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The uniform rate was not in operation before 1 April 1990. The information for the last three years is given in the following table.

    Year |Wales |England

    ——————————–

    1990-91 |0.368 |0.348

    1991-92 |0.408 |0.386

    1992-93 |0.425 |0.402

    The poundage for Wales and England were set in 1990 at a level which ensured that the overall yield from ratepayers remained at the 1989-90 level in real terms. Since 1990 poundages have been uprated in line with the annual increase in the retail prices index as at September in the preceding year.

     

    Honours System

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to make an announcement on his review of the honours system.

    The Prime Minister : An announcement will be made shortly.

     

    Crown Immunity

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions Her Majesty’s Government have used Crown privilege in criminal cases in the last three years.

    The Prime Minister : Crown privilege is now described by the courts as public interest immunity. No central records of such claims are maintained. On 1 February 1993 at column 18 my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General provided particulars of cases conducted by the prosecuting authorities superintended by him, in which claims had been supported by ministerial certificates.

     

    Southwark (Visits)

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister how many official visits he has made to Southwark since he became Prime Minister; and if he will give details of the date and purpose of each visit.

    The Prime Minister : I visited Guy’s hospital on 24 July 1991.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Civil Service Club – 4 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Civil Service Club on 4th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like to say a few words here in my role as Minister for the Civil Service. I am a very firm believer in the need for a high quality, impartial civil service. And I know from my personal experience that that is what this country has. I am determined to keep it so.

    I reject the charges of those who attack the civil service and say that, because the same political party has been in power for more than thirteen years, the service must inevitably have lost its impartiality. All Ministers know that their boxes will be full every night with constructive questioning and sometimes unwelcome advice from their civil servants. Good Ministers welcome that, because it is how robust policies are formed.

    This is not an occasion for party political points. But I do want to say that I reject absolutely the Leader of the Opposition’s speech last week entitled “The Standards and Practice of Government”. In it, he attacks the conduct of both Ministers and civil servants. You won’t be surprised to hear that I don’t accept his views about the Government, but I and my Ministerial colleagues are perfectly capable of rebutting that. He is perfectly entitled to make those charges even if they are no more than the small change of partisan politics. But I do regret his comments about the civil service and civil servants, who rightly in my view maintain the principle of not entering the political debate.

    In his speech, old slurs about the civil service were repeated, and issues which are currently the subject of independent scrutiny were prejudged. I find that astonishing and regrettable. Every politician should know better than to let party political advocacy run away with his judgement on matters such as these. I do not believe his charges are justified. And, as Minister for the Civil Service, I take this opportunity to assert my support for the civil service qualities of integrity, objectivity and impartiality which serve the country so well. And my confidence that these qualities are being fully maintained.

    This is also not an occasion for a heavy-weight lecture about reform of the civil service. But it would be wrong for me not to refer to the reforms that are taking place in the civil service. The spread of agencies, the setting of standards under the Citizen’s Charter, greater openness and all the other reforms are producing a quiet revolution in the way in which public services are delivered. I should like to pay tribute to the magnificent way in which the civil service is meeting these new challenges, throughout Whitehall and throughout the country. My view is that the civil service deserves every credit for its achievements and I am glad to have the opportunity to make that clear this evening.

  • PMQT – 4 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Liam Fox : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

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

    Dr. Fox : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the positive response to what he said last night–that the Government will consider new ways to give extra help to unemployed people and to keep them in touch with the jobs market? Is not that open-minded approach in stark contrast with the closed minds but open mouths of Labour Members?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. My concern is to make sure, wherever possible, that we keep unemployed people in touch with the world of work. Both here and elsewhere, that is a vital issue and I believe that we need a public debate on it. It is right to look at all the radical options and we propose to do so. That may mean offering more opportunities, for example, of volunteering, or extending an element of compulsion, which we already have in Restart. I do not believe that we should shy away from considering those options, and we will not.

    Mr. John Smith : After a week of chaos over Government economic policy and yet more redundancies in British industry, does the Prime Minister understand that it is vital for British manufacturing industry that Leyland DAF should not be allowed to collapse, as there are 5,500 jobs at stake in the company and 10,000 among its suppliers? Will the Prime Minister undertake that if the Dutch and Belgian Governments rescue their parts of the company, the British Government will do at least the same for Leyland DAF?

    The Prime Minister : No. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the receivers appointed yesterday at Leyland DAF have made it clear that they believe that at least parts of the business can be saved as a commercially viable business without unnecessary state hand-outs. I believe that that is the way to proceed.

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand the concern which exists in the country because of the Government’s record of neglect of manufacturing industry, and the hesitancy and ambiguity of statements made by the Government? Can the Prime Minister not give a clear undertaking that he will do for Britain what the Dutch and Belgian Governments will do for their countries?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking us to do what has been tried in the past by previous Labour Governments and others and has failed. He should recall the disastrous outcome of the Labour Government’s merger of Leyland with the British Motor Corporation, involving millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money; later they had to nationalise it, which cost even more millions. Much of that money paid for wasteful working practices and unjustified wage increases insisted on by the unions. That was Labour’s idea of industrial strategy and it is clear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it still is. He has learnt nothing.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that that long answer will cause even greater concern to the people in Leyland DAF? Does he not understand that in the real world outside the Carlton club people see a Government lurching from one muddle to another, whether it be interest rates, defence cuts or workfare? Can he not set one simple objective and stick to it? Leyland DAF is a vital British interest and it ought to be secured.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade set out our position quite clearly the other day. Hon. Members must understand that we are not prepared to spend taxpayers’ money to provide working capital for companies in difficulty. Many private companies need more working capital from time to time ; it is simply not realistic to expect the Government to provide it. That approach was tried in the 1960s; it failed. It was tried in the 1970s; it failed. That is the economic reality which the right hon. and learned Gentleman should face up to.

    Mr. Onslow : Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday’s announcement about the size of the Army is particularly welcome as renewed proof that the Government are ready to respond to changing circumstances overseas? As the Opposition are committed to a 25 per cent. cut in the defence budget, will he use his influence with the Leader of the House to make sure that we have an early debate on the subject?

    The Prime Minister : The measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday are a small but necessary adjustment to a changing world situation. They will ensure that the Army has the flexibility and resilience necessary to meet challenges in the years ahead. Had the Opposition been in power and carried out their defence policies, they would have slashed £6 billion off defence. I wonder what they would have said then about the defence jobs that would have been lost.

     

    Q2. Mr. Galbraith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Galbraith : In view of the continuing uncertainty in the money markets, can the Prime Minister say whether his Chancellor will be presenting not only the March Budget but the December Budget? May I have a straightforward answer? Will the current Chancellor be presenting the December Budget–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : I cannot imagine anyone other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer presenting a Budget.

     

    Q3. Mr. Duncan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Duncan : Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that criminals, even teenage criminals and other young offenders, are responsible for their own actions and deserve to be punished accordingly? Will he take this opportunity to reaffirm that it is Government policy to punish such young offenders and not to make excuses for them like the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no excuse for crime. Society is not to blame, and individuals are. For a small number of persistent juvenile offenders we need a new approach. We need new powers to put them into secure accommodation where they can be trained for a useful future. Unless they are trained at an early stage, we betray them, for we leave them in a position where they may believe that crime is justifiable and then wreck their lives as well as other people’s.

    Mr. Ashdown rose– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. This is a very important time, not only for the House, but for people outside who watch and attempt to listen to us. The House must come to order before we can make any further progress.

    Mr. Ashdown : In the light of the Prime Minister’s previous answer and his speech last night, will he assure the House that he understands that any scheme designed to make the victims of his policies the inmates of a compulsory ghetto of low wage and no hope would be rightly condemned? But a policy and programme designed to give the long-term unemployed real training and real job experience–one like the community programme from which I and thousands of others benefited 10 years ago–would be well worth considering.

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman had read my speech before asking his question he might not have asked it in that form.

     

    Q4. Mr. Sumberg : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Sumberg : Has my right hon. Friend noticed reports in today’s press that the National Union of Teachers is requiring its members to boycott the English test for 14-year-olds? Is not that disgraceful decision a grave disservice not only to parents and children but to the vast majority of decent and honourable teachers who serve the community?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I believe that it is a disgraceful decision, and one which, in time, the NUT itself will regret. English is the single most important subject in the curriculum, and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right to insist that grammar and standard school English should be taught in our schools. I condemn without reservation the action proposed by the NUT and I utterly deplore the politically motivated campaign being waged by some members of that union. They said yesterday :

    “A boycott of English tests presents militants with an opportunity to broaden the current struggle.”

    Those militants are playing politics with children’s futures, and the sooner the NUT denounces them the better it will be for everyone.

     

    Q5. Ms. Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

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

    Ms. Eagle : Is the Prime Minister aware that this week sees the 75th anniversary of the occasion of women’s gaining the vote? Is it not an insult that his Government have decided to celebrate this great anniversary by abolishing wages councils, thereby adversely affecting the earnings of 2 million women?

    The Prime Minister : Certainly not. We believe in equality.

     

    Deregulation

    Q6. Mr. Jenkin : To ask the Prime Minister what conclusions were reached at his seminar on deregulation held on 2 February.

    The Prime Minister : We agreed to review all 7,000 regulations currently imposed on businesses, with the aim of abolishing regulations wherever possible. Where they cannot be abolished–for overriding reasons of health or safety, for example–we shall work to simplify them. We agreed also that future proposals for new regulations must always spell out the costs to businesses of complying with them. We must not impose burdensome regulations on business unless they are absolutely necessary, and we are determined not to do so.

    Mr. Jenkin : I thank my right hon. Friend for his response, which will be most welcome to businesses in my constituency and in all other parts of the country. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his junior Ministers have absolute freedom to seek out and destroy unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation, in whichever Government Department or whichever institution it may reside?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is precisely the task that I have given to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. There is a problem with excessive regulation in Brussels, but there is also a problem in Whitehall. We need to deal with both.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. McGrady : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

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

    Mr. McGrady : May I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the patients charter that he had published and so ardently supported? The charter sees clinical effectiveness and accessibility as the twin pillars of a good acute hospital service. Is the Prime Minister aware that in many areas, and in particular my constituency of South Down, with an area of 750 square miles, all hospital services are being abolished? Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning that action as contrary to the patients charter, and will he take a personal interest in seeing that those scandalous proposals are abandoned?

    The Prime Minister : I was certainly not aware of the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to investigate and report back to me.

    Mr. Shersby : Further to my right hon. Friend’s earlier reply about juvenile offenders, does he agree that the two single most important actions that the Government can take to deal with the problem are, first, to stop juvenile offenders reoffending on bail and introduce legislation to deal with that secondly, and to provide the resources for secure accommodation so that youngsters who persistently reoffend can be locked up?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the two points made by my hon. Friend. I assure him that we have both those matters in mind.

     

    Public Interest Immunity Certificates

    Q8. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to prevent Ministers from granting public interest immunity certificates in relation to export licences.

    The Prime Minister : The law on public interest immunity has been developed by the courts over time, and they are the ultimate judge of where the balance of the public interest lies. Public interest immunity is within the terms of reference of Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry and we await his report.

    Mr. Dalyell : Should it not be the House of Commons now, rather than Lord Justice Scott in the ever-receding future, that asks for an explanation as to why–in order to protect five Ministers, including the Foreign Secretary–Alan Moses QC for the Crown in court, and the Attorney- General on 12 November, were very seriously economical?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Claiming public interest immunity is an obligation, not a privilege. In any case, the prosecution in the Matrix Churchill trial failed not because of the disclosure of documents but because of the change of evidence of a key witness. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits the outcome of Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry.