Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Scottish Conservative Candidates – 22 February 1992

    Below is the text of the press release issued after Mr Major’s speech to Scottish Conservative candidates, made at the Moat House Hotel in Glasgow on Saturday 22nd February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Chairman, I am glad to be here once more in Scotland. Glad to be with you, as you prepare to carry the ideas of this Party out to every doorstep in Scotland. And proud to be with you when you help the Conservative Party win the next General Election.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a crucial election for Britain. And a crucial Election for Scotland. I have no doubt that Britain will retain a Conservative Government. And no doubt that Conservative policies will best safeguard and strengthen the interests of Scotland. Within the United Kingdom. And in the world outside.

    In the 1950s we had a majority of the seats in Scotland. But I know that in recent years it has not always been so easy. You have not let that check your determination to put our case. And I know that when the election comes, you will do so again – with clarity, with vigour, and success.

    For let me tell you what you will be fighting for in the weeks and months ahead.

    You will be fighting for policies that will lead Britain out of recession. And ensure our prosperity and safety in the decade to come.

    Fighting for wider ownership.

    Fighting for wealth creation, for choice, and for opportunity for all.

    Fighting for the rights of the family against encroachment by the state.

    And fighting for a responsible lead in Scotland. For a party that thinks of the long-term needs of our country. For a Party that rises above the short-term opportunism that has characterised Labour and Liberal policy in Scotland.

    And let me tell who’ll be alongside you in that fight. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people in every part of Scotland. In villages and towns. In crowded cities and lonely countryside. Wherever you go in this campaign, if you carry our message, you will find them.

    People who want to see schools, hospitals, and public services that serve them better as our Citizen’s Charter requires.

    People who believe in savings, in holding something of their own and leaving it to their families.

    People who want low tax that spurs on business and leaves choice in every individual’s hands.

    People who want the stability that comes from keeping inflation down and defences secure.

    People with confidence in Scotland. In what it has achieved. In what it is achieving. In what it will achieve.

    People with pride in the role this United Kingdom -Scotland and Wales, England and Northern Ireland together – has played in world affairs. Helping to liberate Kuwait, to safeguard the Kurds, to promote the UN, to help build democracy in the old Soviet Union and to put Europe on the right path.

    People who want us to go on playing a leading role in the councils of the world. Helping to make the world a better, safer place for our children.

    People who know that if the voice of Britain is weakened, so, too, will be the prospects of the new international order that we all wish to see.

    Mr Chairman, there are millions of such people in Scotland today. People with pride, ambition, and determination – for themselves and their families and for their country. They may not all know it – yet. But the values they hold are Conservative values. Your values. And mine.

    I cannot believe that the people of Scotland have so little ambition for their future that they will choose the sterile road to Socialism – just when it has been rejected in every part of the world.

    Last year at our Party Conference in Scotland, I said that I wanted to put Scotland at the centre of international affairs. That is still my aim.

    Already Scotland is:the seat of some of the world’s most innovative industries – the oil industry that has transformed the north-East, the financial centre in Edinburgh, the huge and growing electronics sector, and the whisky industry for which Scotland is world famous. The revival of the great city of Glasgow, backed by the commitment and resources of this Government, and its international recognition as a city of culture – this has been historic. But we can still do more to bring the opportunities of the wider world here to Scotland.

    That is why I have promised that, when a Conservative Government is returned, we will make Edinburgh the city where Europe’s leaders meet in Summit with Britain as their president. It will be in Scotland’s capital that Europe finally agrees the completion of the single market. A step that is essential in the interests of Scotland.

    Mr Chairman, some may say such events are merely symbols. But what symbol could be more powerful than for it to be here in Scotland than an agreement is struck that serves Scottish industry and finance? For an accord to be reached here that will influence the future of much of our continent.

    For Britain is now exerting unique influence on world affairs. And when I say that I’m not thinking only of the Gulf War in which Scottish servicemen and women played such an heroic part. I am thinking of the everyday currency of peacetime diplomacy.

    Last December we negotiated a deal with our partners at Maastricht. It was right for Europe. And right for Britain. A deal that strengthened opportunity for Scottish business.

    That kept Scotland a magnet for foreign investment -with a chance to build on the £4.2 billion that has flowed into Scotland since 1981. A deal, Mr Chairman, that kept away the disaster of a so-called social charter. That charter, as Mr Delors himself admits, would have removed our competitive edge as a haven for international investment in Europe. It would have destroyed jobs by the thousand in Scotland. And Labour would have signed it.

    Last month in New York we brought together the leaders of the world in the Security Council – for the first time in the 47 year history of the United Nations. We reached there an unprecedented level of agreement on plans for a safer, securer world.

    Britain’s initiative was decisive in those great events. And Britain’s initiative was Scotland’s initiative. Together the countries of the United Kingdom are pointing the way to a better future for Europe and the world. I want us to go on using that influence now, when it is most needed. In this uncertain world the experience and the skill of the United Kingdom can play a decisive part. So it is essential now that we should stand together, united, and shape the decade ahead.

    But some see a different future for Scotland. They would break the links through which we have worked together for nearly 300 years.

    They want an independent Scotland. By that they mean a separate Scotland – a very different Scotland. A Scotland apart, adrift from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    I can understand the pride in being a Scot that may lead to that ambition. But everyone should pause to consider what such an historic rupture would mean. Not just for Scotland. But for every part of the United Kingdom.

    Does anyone seriously believe that, if Scotland plunged down the road to separation, the influence for good in the world that we’ve exerted together would remain the same?

    It couldn’t be. And, sadly, it wouldn’t be. It would be a loss for us all – a loss for Europe and the shaping of the century to come.

    That is one reason why I come to this conference today. To speak of a matter that transcends the Election. To say again what I believe. I believe with passion and conviction – this Party should stand for unity – not division. We are a Unionist Party. We should fight for the Union.

    And, Mr Chairman, as we make that stand, we can do so firmly and clearly. For we do not do it for party political advantage. It is not the Conservative party that gains – or has gained – most from the ties between Scotland and England.

    And yet it is our Party that supports the Union. Not because it’s always been good for us, but because it’s always seemed right to us. Not always in our political interest, but always in that of our Kingdom and the countries within it.

    Whether we are in the majority in Scotland, or in the minority in Scotland, I believe we should continue to stand for the historic union of the peoples of the United Kingdom. A union in which our nations work together but each sustains and develops its rich and varied traditions.

    Let me tell you why. Because England and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland together are far, far greater than the sum of their parts. Over the centuries since we came together Scottish Prime Ministers, Scottish administrators, and Scottish statesmen have shared in guiding the policies of Britain and its Commonwealth. Businessmen, scientists, ambassadors, writers have for centuries followed the union flag from Scotland to every corner of the world.

    The shared values of our countries have been planted with that flag from Arctic wastes to the shores of the Southern Ocean. Only last week in my flat in London, I used television – a Scotsman’s invention – to watch pictures of an English game – cricket – being played in a city 12,000 miles away – called after Scotland’s capital, Dunedin.

    Still today Scotsmen – and Scotswomen – figure prominently in the political community from which our government is drawn. There are five Scots in my cabinet. They’re not there on sufferance, or in token representation of Scotland. But because union has given the English and the Scots equal freedom to rise to the top of our national affairs. As British people, to stand for Britain in the councils of Europe and the world.

    As in government, so in industry. In trade. In philosophy. In the professions. In the universities. And in the defence of Britain, for which so many Scotsmen have fought shoulder to shoulder with Englishmen, Welshmen and Ulstermen, too.

    To each of us, the Union has offered two sources of pride. To be British – but also to be Scottish, or English, or Welsh. It has offered the same reassurance to the people of Northern Ireland. In sport, we can compete with each other – and still come together as Britons.

    The delicate balance in the Act of the Union left Scotland free to develop a different code of law, a different education system, different banks, different churches. Nearly 300 years after that Union Scotland is still distinctively Scottish. She has her own Home Department. Her own institutions in the United Kingdom Parliament. Her own system of local government. Her own organisations for the promotion of enterprise, investment and tourism. She has all these things, her own unique responsibilities and traditions – still with all the influence in the world that the union brings.

    If the Union of our four countries had never been founded our history would have been entirely different, our destiny far less great. Are we, in our generation, to throw all that away?

    This debate will continue in Scotland. It is right that it should. For it is the background to a very difficult decision that Scotland must take at this coming Election.

    I don’t want that decision to be taken without the enormity of all that is involved being fully weighed in mind. It is no ordinary decision. No matter to be decided for narrow Party advantage. It goes to the very basis of our constitution and our way of life.

    In that debate I want the Scottish Conservative Party to do what no other Party in Scotland is doing. To ensure that the case for maintaining our union is placed before the people. Nearly 300 years of success together. A union that truly means strength. A union within which the voice of Scotland is heard loud and clear. These are not things that should lightly be cast aside.

    The decision is for Scotland. The challenge is for Scotland. But the results will affect us all.

    I can tell you what I believe. But it is not for me, as an Englishman, to tell the people of Scotland what they should feel. I come here to listen to them. That is my way. To listen. That I will always do. But, as I do so, I have the right and duty, as your Prime Minister – as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – to tell you what others feel, and what I feel, about our union.

    For I, as an Englishman, am part of it.

    As I listen to the debate in Scotland, I know well that many people here have their doubts. I know that many feel that Governments in London, of all Parties, have been too remote from them, that too little regard has been paid to the separate identity of Scotland. I know, too, that many now question the arrangements by which this country is governed.

    Some, they make no secret of it, are eager for drastic change, for the separation of Scotland from Britain.

    Many more oppose that dangerous course, but feel, I believe wrongly, that an assembly or a Parliament for Scotland would not threaten that end. They are misled by those who offer the promised prize of devolution, but say nothing of its certain cost. For the prize does have a price. And Scotland has a right to know it.

    Let me talk of separation, and then of devolution.

    I will not waste much time on the open advocates of independence. They call it independence. But they mean separation. They are still stuck at that end of the political spectrum from which Eastern Europe is struggling to escape.

    They boast of their Socialism. They want nationalisation. They would scrap our nuclear deterrent. They are hostile to enterprise and home ownership. I don’t believe that is the future Scotland truly wants. And I do not wish to see the great Kingdom of Scotland suffer such a fate.

    But Nationalist red, or any other colour of the political rainbow, the thought of a separate Scotland should sadden us all. The United Kingdom untied. The bonds that generation after generation of our enemies have sought and failed to break, cast loose, by us, ourselves. If Scotland wants that, we can do it.

    No nation can be held irrevocably in a union against its will. We can do it. We can break up the United Kingdom.

    But that is not a choice that will affect Scotland alone. A solitary Scotland means a solitary England, along side Wales and Northern Ireland. Two proud nations. Divorced. Marginalised. Diminished. In place of Great Britain, a little Scotland and a lesser Union – each striving, and not always succeeding, to be heard.

    But what, Mr Chairman, of what some call devolution, a separate tax-raising Parliament? Not even that should be considered an easy, or permanent, half-way house -devoid of difficulty. It may sound to some a beguiling prospect.

    But the truth is that, while as Prime Minister of our United Kingdom I listen to the developing debate in Scotland, I hear voices raised in other parts of Britain, too. And it is clear to me that so great a decision as the establishment of a new Parliament is something upon which the other partners in our country will demand their say.

    Our constitution is a delicate balance. As Ian Lang has pointed out, it can, has, and no doubt will, evolve. But so great a change as a new tax-raising Parliament in Scotland could not be a simple bolt-on extra to our constitution. To say that is to mislead the people of Scotland.

    Just as Scotland’s decision cannot – and, I know from the debates in this country, will not – be lightly made. So its consequences cannot be simply measured. Confined north of the border. Or easily contained.

    Labour’s muddled mixture of proposals is being exposed as not only expensive, but unworkable. None of us can foresee where they might lead, or what would be the consequence of the inevitable tensions between a Parliament in Edinburgh and a Parliament at Westminster.

    It would be all too easy in such circumstances for grievances to take hold and grow.

    Grievances amongst the Scots, that certain decisions must still be taken by a Parliament at Westminster in which – however generously Scotland is represented – it will be outnumbered by MPs from other parts of the United Kingdom.

    Or amongst those outside Scotland, that Scotland’s representation at Westminster is too numerous or that the proportion of Britain’s national tax revenues expended in Scotland is too high.

    The danger of Labour’s devolution proposals is that they might feed any such grievances, not dispel them. Labour has chosen to ride on a tiger; that tiger, unless soon caged, could consume the Union itself.

    We Conservatives do not want to see such changes. We have accepted the arrangements that have long endured at Westminster. We have lived with the ebb and flow of political favour in Scotland, as in England and Wales. And we have chosen, as Governments before us -Conservative and Labour – have chosen, to direct more resources into Scotland to meet her needs. That was only right. But the current balance, the right balance, rests on the consent of all involved.

    This continuing consent cannot be assured by giving people in other parts of the Kingdom things they do not want. There is no appetite in England for the raft of expensive regional assemblies that Labour propose. A debate would come in England and Wales and Northern Ireland about the consequences of a Scottish tax-raising Parliament within our constitution. It cannot be evaded in so ham-fisted a way.

    I will never close my mind to ideas for improving the quality of Government. I want better public service. But it doesn’t need more bureaucracy – still less separation – to do that. Let us respond to such anxieties as Scotland voices within our constitution -not use them as a pretext to break that constitution apart. Let us show how, within the Union, we can meet the aspirations of the Scottish people for a better economic future and more say in their individual lives.

    Labour’s extra Parliament would offer neither independence nor wealth. It would introduce yet another layer of Government and a new tax to pay for it – increasing dependence and reducing wealth.

    I will not dwell on the consequences for the people of Scotland of this extra layer of bureaucracy and tax. Ian Lang has exposed the full impact of these for all to see. They would be bad for Scottish industry, and bad for the Scottish standard of living. A truth, that in the last few days, both the Scottish engineering industry and Scottish Financial Enterprise have once again so clearly spelled out.

    Labour make no commitment to protect Scottish business and families against the rapacious demands of their own local councils.

    They give no pledge in Scotland – as they claim to give in England – to make no increase in basic personal tax. The Scots, it seems, will pay. Even Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, John Smith, has said their devolution tax could be up to 3p in the pound.

    No, Mr Chairman, the limits of this tax-raising Parliament’s tax-raising powers are something on which even Scotland’s would-be Welsh Prime Minister has been quite untypically silent.

    If only, he must wish, some of his colleagues could observe the same Trappist vows. Like the loquacious Mr Cook. I wonder if, when Mr Kinnock authorised him to run his “leak-a-week” campaign, he knew it was Mr Cook who’d be doing the leaking.

    You know, and I know, and Mr Kinnock knows that Robin Cook blurted out the truth. Consider what he said, and I quote: “Once we have a Scottish Parliament handling Scottish home affairs, it is not possible for me to act as Minister of Health administering Health in England and Wales.”

    What he meant was that if there were a Scottish Parliament, with powers for health, or education, or industry, from which English and Welsh MPs were excluded, then there could be no place for Scottish MPs running those Departments in London. Nor, by the same logic, could there be any place for Scotland’s MPs voting on those matters. It would mean the creation of two-tier MPs – hobbled MPs from Scotland with half the power to vote, and members from every other nation with full authority on all the business that came before the House. That is the recipe that, over time, would inevitably lead on to separation.

    That used to be called the West Lothian question. Now I suppose we should call it the Cook reply. I don’t want that. And you don’t want that. But that was his vision for Scotland and its members. And that is a reality it would be hard to escape. How lucky for Mr Kinnock that the Cook imagination did not get round to Labour’s planned assembly for Wales.

    Imagine Westminster. No Cook. No Smith. No Brown. Either there is a hole in Labour’s would-be Government. Or a hole in Labour’s would-be strategy for Scotland.

    No wonder Labour are wriggling as their self-serving devolution strategy comes apart. I have no sympathy for them. For years they have put their Party interest first and Scotland second; and now it is beginning to boomerang in their face.

    Mr Chairman – I believe profoundly that the Union has served the people of the United Kingdom well. And served Scotland particularly well. The case for union rests not only on historic experience, but on the common interests we still have in joining our affairs together. Not only on what we have achieved together in the past. But on the lead we must give together in the world of today.

    So I say again that this Party will defend this Union. With confidence and with conviction. And, above all, with pride.

    Scotland has been transformed for the better in the last decade. Her industries are modern. Her prosperity assured. Inward investment has flooded into Scotland. Her economic regeneration is seen world-wide as one of the success stories of the 1980s. Scotland is poised to lead Britain out of recession and into a period of sustained economic growth.

    It is Conservative policies that have brought this about. The low-tax, low regulation economy that a Socialist dominated assembly would stop in its tracks. We must build on our record, not let it be thrown away.

    The 1990s will be a competitive decade – as tough as any we have known. Scotland must be able to compete in world markets. And that’s why at the next election the Scottish Conservatives will fight with a commitment to keep taxes low. We will be the only party with that aim. All the others would increase taxes at every opportunity. They’d mean higher taxation that would be a burden on every Scot – and a barrier to every idea of investment and jobs.

    We want a prosperous Scotland and a modern Scotland. But also a Scotland in which the traditions and the inheritance of her past are properly respected.

    Our vision for Scotland will be realised best if Scotland, by her own free choice, remains a full partner in the Union. Working together to increase prosperity and to improve care for all our citizens. That is central to the Conservative ideal.

    Mr Chairman, it’s not fanciful to say that together the peoples of these islands have moulded the history of the world. Separating or separated we would be tossed to and fro on its tides.

    In the coming campaign you will take that truth and that vision into every corner of Scotland. And, if you do, I know you will be richly rewarded.

    Together, as a Party and as a nation, we will continue the revival of Scotland. Build up the pride of Scotland.

    A confident and united Scotland in a confident and united Britain.

    That is the road to the success and security we want for our children. And, with your help, we will succeed in achieving it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    London School of Economics

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the action necessary by the relevant Government Departments for the London School of Economics to be successful in its bid to move to the old London county council building on the south bank.

    The Prime Minister : The London School of Economics has as yet made no formal bid to the London Residuary Body, which is responsible to the local taxpayers of London for the disposal of county hall, for the acquisition of the site. Should it do so my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science would then be in a position to consider the matter in consultation with the residuary body.

  • PMQT – 20 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Salmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 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. Salmond : When the Prime Minister visits Scotland this weekend, will he be big enough to acknowledge that, sooner rather than later, he will have to bow to the wish of the Scottish people for self-determination? Does he not understand that, at a time when even he is forecasting a Europe of up to 30 member states by the end of the century, it is inevitable that the Scottish nation will demand to be a full part of that process of change?

    The Prime Minister : No, Sir. I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. The Union between England and Scotland is greater than the sum of its parts, and always has been. I understand what activates the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that he is profoundly misleading Scotland and treading a path that is damaging Scotland and the Union.

    Mr. Fishburn : At a time of economic difficulty and rising unemployment across the world, does not this nation–as a great trading nation–need, more than anything else, constant tax policy, the lowest possible income tax and competitive rates of corporation tax? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a disaster to adopt a policy that changed almost from hour to hour under Labour, with no constancy or purpose of any sort?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of clear-cut and low corporate and personal tax rates. I note that the Opposition’s tax plans have gone back to the drawing board ; after five years of careful preparation, they have been ditched in a period of five weeks. I also note that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)–who said, when he took on the job that there would be

    “no more phoney shadow Cabinet Budgets”–

    has now promised that there will be a phoney shadow Cabinet Budget.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister confirm that today’s official figures show that the British economy is in its longest recession for over 60 years? As the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor before it started and has been Prime Minister throughout its course, is it not clear that he is not only the Prime Minister of recession, but the prime cause of recession?

    The Prime Minister : Before the right hon. Gentleman goes into overdrive, perhaps he will confirm that, in the past three months, industrial production has fallen faster in Germany, faster in France, faster in the United States and faster in Japan than it has in this country ; and that, if we take the last year as a whole, industrial production fell more in Japan, and more in Germany, than in the United Kingdom. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that is, if he blames me for everything?

    Mr. Kinnock : To put it into perspective, let me point out that since 1988 the German economy has grown by 10 per cent. The British economy, under the Conservative Government, has not grown at all. Will the Prime Minister recognise that and stop groping round to try to find excuses for his own failure? Does he recall that it is exactly a year since he told us in this House, “Our policies are working”? Does he recall that in that 12 months the British economy has contracted by 2.5 per cent. and that unemployment has gone up by 750,000? Do not today’s figures make it clear that it is official–Majorism isn’t working?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman is now keen to look at a longer period than just the last year, he will also be interested to know that between 1981 and 1991 the British economy grew faster than the German economy, the French economy, the Italian economy or the economy of any other country in Europe. Will he now confirm, since he seems to regard all problems as being entirely domestic, that over the second half of the last year industrial production fell in the United States, in Japan and elsewhere and that Germany’s gross domestic product has now declined for three quarters in succession and Germany is in recession? How can this be if, as the right hon. Gentleman claims, it is all a British problem?

    Mr. Kinnock : In the last 18 months of recession– [Interruption.] British people are not on the dole in Germany ; they are on the dole in Britain.

    In the last 18 months of recession, unemployment in Britain has gone up by 1 million and the British economy has contracted by nearly 4 per cent. The figures speak for themselves. During the course of the time the right hon. Gentleman has been Chancellor and Prime Minister he is convicted by his own record and condemned by his own inaction in the face of the slump that he caused.

    The Prime Minister : The House will have noted that the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand the facts and cannot handle the questions. He may recall that in Germany more than 3 million people are unemployed and he may bear it in mind that a higher proportion of people are in work in this country than in Germany or in any other European country except Denmark. Let me try again to help the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that the world is in an economic slow-down, as even the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has now acknowledged. That makes domestic politics even more important. That is why we have cut interest rates seven times in a year and halved inflation in a year, have the lowest number of strikes for half a century and have cut the basic rate of tax. As a result of our action, real earnings are rising and we have lower interest rates, lower mortgage rates, lower inflation and the right circumstances for recovery. The people of this country will not let the right hon. Gentleman throw that away.

    Mr. Stanbrook : When my right hon. Friend sees the new Irish Prime Minister soon will he tell him that the biggest contribution the Irish Republic can make to peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland is to renounce its claim to sovereignty over Northern Ireland, as that claim encourages Irish Republican terrorism and gives it legitimacy, as well as being the strongest stumbling block in the way of all-party talks aimed at constitutional progress?

    The Prime Minister : I have already spoken to the new Taoiseach and we have agreed to meet shortly. I think that we must wait and see what his detailed policies will be, but everything that I have seen and heard suggests that he is certainly very understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland. Amendment of the Irish constitution is, of course, a matter for the Republic, but I am glad that it continues to be an issue that could be tackled in fresh political talks.

    The Government remain committed to the Anglo -Irish Agreement unless and until agreement can be reached on new and more broadly satisfactory arrangements.

     

    Q2. Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. Kirkwood : Has the Prime Minister had time today to study the Department of Trade and Industry’s figures that were released on Tuesday, which showed that over the last five years Chinese quotas for the importation of cashmere garments into the European Community have been exceeded by 500,000 units and that in 1991 the actual importation exceeded the quotas by over 400 per cent? Is the Prime Minister aware that 500,000 cashmere jerseys are worth £75 million to textile communities such as my own in the central borders in Scotland? Will he take a personal interest in stopping this scandalous dumping and make sure that the overshoot is clawed back during the next two years, the time remaining to the EC-Chinese trade agreement?

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises, not least because he was courteous enough to give me an indication of what he was going to mention this afternoon. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look into the matter and to contact the hon. Gentleman.

    Sir Robert McCrindle : To revert to the Scottish question that was raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), has the Prime Minister noted the statement today by the leaders of the financial services industries north of the border that in the event of a measure of devolution or independence, to which the Opposition parties aspire, the likeliest result would be that many of the financial services companies would move south of the border? In his forthcoming visit to Scotland, will the Prime Minister underline the fact that these are matters which the Scottish people should also take into account before moving in the direction Opposition Members would like them to go–in favour of devolution or independence?

    The Prime Minister : I did notice those remarks, which were widely reported this morning. We have made it clear for a long period that we believe that devolution or independence would damage very severely the degree of inward investment into Scotland and the degree of self-generating investment within Scotland as well. The Union has been in the interests of both this country and Scotland for many years, and it remains so.

     

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

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

    Mr. Fatchett : May I also raise a matter with the Prime Minister, of which I have given him prior notice? It concerns the tragic death on 5 February of six-year-old Carley Reavill who died in hospital of meningitis. That is the reason why I gave the Prime Minister prior notice of the question. She died not because, as the Department of Health says, she was too ill to be moved, but because, according to her paediatrician, Dr. Alison Schurtz, no intensive care hospital bed was available at St. Mary’s hospital or Great Ormond Street hospital. Is not that a tragic waste of a life? Does it not provide further evidence for the argument that if money is available it should be spent not on tax cuts but on our health service?

    The Prime Minister : I asked for a report on this tragic case this morning. As the hon. Gentleman has raised it, I reply assuming that he has received the permission of the family for it to be the subject of a public exchange. I am advised that doctors at the Queen Elizabeth II hospital have confirmed that Carley could not have been transferred when the hospital test results showed that she had meningitis and the test results were available within one hour of Carley’s admission. Carley’s decline, I am informed, was sudden and fast. Medical advice is that paediatric intensive care is unlikely to have arrested this.

    The House may wish to know that between 1979 and 1990 the perinatal mortality rate for England and Wales dropped by 45 per cent. It is now at its lowest ever recorded level. As for national health service resources, the hon. Gentleman will know of the very large real-terms increases that have been made–in excess, in fact, of the real-terms increases promised by the Opposition at the last general election.

     

    Q4. Mr. Brazier : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. Brazier : Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of those who live on their income from savings are either widows or those who retired early, very often to look after an elderly dependant? Does he further agree that it would be a grave injustice indeed to put swingeing extra taxes on the savings of these people as a result of the profligacy of socialism?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that such people would find it inexplicable if that were to happen. We have sought to encourage savings by abolishing the investment income surcharge and by introducing tax-exempt special savings accounts. It is the Labour party which wants to increase tax by extending national insurance. Its plans would hit more than 1 million people, three quarters of whom pay tax at the basic rate. So much for the Opposition’s promise that no one earning under £20, 000 a year would be hit. That promise is worthless and that pledge by the Opposition illustrates why the promise is worthless.

     

    Q5. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. Livingstone : Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the stabbing to death of the young black schoolboy Rolan Adams and in the year since then 15 black families–council tenants and owner-occupiers–have been driven out of their homes on the Thamesmead estate. The campaign, including a fire-bombing, has been orchestrated by the local headquarters of the British National party. Is there anything that the Government can do to change those events? Will the Prime Minister support the unanimous decision by Greenwich Conservative councillors to support the demonstration called by the Anti-Racist Alliance for Saturday at noon in Plumstead High street to demand the closure of the British National party headquarters?

    The Prime Minister : I have every sympathy for Rolan Adams’s family at this sad time and I wholeheartedly condemn racial attacks and those who commit or incite racial hatred. The hon. Gentleman raised this matter with me in December and my office subsequently corresponded with the mayor of Bexley. Although the location of the British National party office is a matter for Bexley council, we have drawn the council’s attention to the laws available to deal with racial hatred.

    The local police searched the BNP premises in January and evidence has been submitted to the Crown prosecution service which is considering a prosecution. Rolan Adams’s murder a year ago led to the speedy identification and prosecution of the attackers and the murderer subsequently received a life sentence. I very much hope that in the future that will deter similar attacks which are a blot on our country.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Hackney (Government Achievements)

    Mr. Norris : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the achievements of Her Majesty’s Government in Hackney since 1979.

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

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 16 December at columns 22-25.

     

    European Assemblies

    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg : To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the information bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the parliamentary assemblies of the Council of Europe and the assembly of the Western European Union, which has been sent to him.

    The Prime Minister : I have done so today.

     

    Engagements

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

     

    Planning Seminars

    Dr. David Clark : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give the date and location of his national seminar with planners, conservationists and farmers; if he will list the organisations, both government and non-government, which are to be invited to attend; if he will also give the same information for each of the local seminars being organised around the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 February 1992] : A national conference “The Countryside and the Rural Economy” is being held to promote the role of the planning system in balancing the needs to diversify the rural economy and to conserve and enhance the rural environment. It is being organised jointly by the Department of the Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and will be held on 16 March at the Royal Agricultural Society of England. More than 200 invitations have been sent to individual farmers and planners, representatives of conservation, farming, planning and other organisations with an interest in rural development, planning consultants and academics. DoE and MAFF propose to follow up this conference with a series of regional seminars, inviting people and organisations with a similar range of interests and concentrating on issues of particular concern in each area.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Bromley

    Q10. Mr. Sims : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit the London borough of Bromley.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Kent among them.

     

    Underground Nuclear Explosions

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister if a member of his foreign affairs staff attended the seminar on the detection and recognition of underground nuclear explosions held at the Geological Society, London, on 14 February; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Yes, along with experts from the Ministry of Defence seismological centre at Blacknest. We welcome opportunities for constructive discussion of these issues. The United Kingdom has, therefore, been participating actively in related work in the conference on disarmament in Geneva.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 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 – 18 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 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. Skinner : With only a few more bribing days left before the general election and in view of the fact that the House has been televised for more than two years, will the Prime Minister tell us whether he is prepared to take part in televised debates during the general election campaign with the Leader of the Opposition–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we hold televised debates in the House twice a week–

    Hon. Members : Frit!

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Robert B. Jones : Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to study the statement by the Bundesbank that Germany is now in recession and that it blames the fall in output in Germany on the world recession? Does not that nail the lie being put around that these circumstances are due not to world but to British recession?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend points out, the Bundesbank has said that the German economy is now in recession. That confirms the point that I have been making to the House for some time about the international slow-down and international difficulties. A number of countries are either in recession or experiencing a slow-down in activity. Germany, alas, is the latest country to reach a formal recession.

    Mr. Kinnock : Would the Prime Minister confirm that today’s figures show the biggest rise in long-term unemployment in 10 years, that 1.3 million people in Britain have been without work for more than six months and that 750,000 of those have been without work for more than a year? Against that background, does the Prime Minister still dare to say to those people and their families that their prolonged misery is a price well worth paying?

    The Prime Minister : No one has said that, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. This month’s increase in the numbers unemployed for a year or more is certainly extremely unwelcome, but the long-term unemployment level is about half what it was five years ago and long-term unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds is also half that level. Long-term unemployment among the over-50s has halved over the past four years. These figures are too high, but the only way to get them down permanently is to have the right structure of development in the economy : low inflation and stable exchange rates. That is what we are providing ; there is no easy way.

    Mr. Kinnock : But the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that this unemployment and recession are a price well worth paying. Can the Prime Minister really take any comfort from the fact that, bad as today’s figures are, they are slightly less bad than they were in the last Tory slump? Is he really trying to convince the people of Britain, as they tried to do then, that policies of this kind provide a basis for sustained recovery and sustained growth? British unemployment is rising faster than unemployment in any country in the rest of the European Community. We have a huge increase in long-term unemployed, and more job losses are being announced every week. All this is taking place while the Prime Minister has had his present job and while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is not it now obvious that Majorism is not working?

    The Prime Minister : I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that I have said no such thing, and neither in context has my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. As I said a moment ago, there is only one way to create long-term stable employment. The right hon. Gentleman implies that nothing is being done. I do not call halving inflation doing nothing. Last month it fell to just over 4 per cent. If that is doing nothing, what were the last Labour Government doing when inflation went up to 27 per cent ?

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister cannot correct the record to the extent of pretending that both he and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) have not said that today’s conditions, with all their misery, are not a price well worth paying. That is the first point. Secondly, the Prime Minister refers to the record over 13 years. In that 13 years manufacturing output under his Government in Britain has gone up less than 6 per cent. It has gone up by four, five and 10 times as much among our competitors, and the right hon. Gentleman is still not doing anything to bring Britain out of recession, to give us recovery. A Tory Government means permanent high unemployment.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman does not listen and he does not understand. I repeat : I have said no such thing and I invite him to withdraw. The House will know that he changed his allegation between his first and third questions. If he is really concerned about unemployment, why does he want to cripple British industry by bringing back flying pickets, by encouraging mass pickets, by returning trade union immunities, with all the difficulties that we saw in the 1960s and 1970s ? That would not produce growth and jobs. That would produce permanent slump, no jobs, no prospects, no hope for the future. Those are the policies that the right hon. Gentleman sets out before this nation.

    Mr. John Marshall : Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the decision to compensate those who contracted HIV as a result of treatment through the national health service is widely welcomed ? I thank him for a speedy and compassionate response. He knows the representation that I made with other colleagues only a fortnight ago.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. We made special provision for those with haemophilia and HIV because of the special circumstances that are apparent and because of the widespread representations that have been made to us. I hope that it will ease the difficulties of people who face such a tragic circumstance.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that there are only two facts that one needs to know to assess the Government’s real commitment to recovery? The first is that unemployment rose by 53,000 last Thursday and the second is that the Government cut their training budget by £171 million last Friday. How does the Prime Minister justify that?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that we have the largest training provision that this country has ever seen. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know what circumstances are necessary for long-term prosperity and jobs, and that they are basically low inflation and a stable economy, he ought to learn that speedily.

    Mr. Gorst : When my right hon. Friend is making arrangements for his business in the second week in April, will he please include a visit to Edgware general hospital, where he will find patients, members of staff and doctors highly satisfied with the changes that have taken place in the national health service?

    The Prime Minister : I shall be happy to visit that hospital. I think that the changes in the health service are increasingly being understood to be welcome and to be providing a better health service for the future. That is becoming increasingly understood within the health service–if not, alas, on the Opposition Benches.

     

    Q2. Mr. Patchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Patchett : The Government have increased prescription charges 14 times, and they did so just this week by twice the rate of inflation. Will the Prime Minister intervene to stop this disgraceful taxation of the sick- -yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : There are 100 million more free prescriptions this year than there were at the time of the last Labour Government. The number of people who pay for prescriptions has shrunk and shrunk, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He should stop trying to misrepresent policies.

     

    Q3. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Amess : Will my right hon. Friend agree to visit Basildon– [Interruption.]–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Come on.

    Mr. Amess : –the finest and most exciting town in the country? When my right hon. Friend does so, will he tell my constituents that there has been a record reduction in the number of strikes and that we now have the best figures for decades? Does he agree that such improvements are a key component in a strong economy and that they have been achieved through the Government’s industrial relations laws, which the Opposition parties wish to repeal?

    The Prime Minister : I shall be happy to visit my hon. Friend at Basildon either before or after the general election. He makes a good point. Indeed, the figures for 1991 are even better than those for 1990. There were fewer strikes last year than in any year since records began a century ago. That is essentially because of the change in labour relations and the encouragement that has been given for employers and the work force to work together.

     

    Q4. Mr. John Garrett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Garrett : Has the Prime Minister seen the prospectus from Pathfinders Repossessions plc, which is a company which proposes to buy repossessed homes at auction and then flog them off or rent them at a huge profit? I understand from the promoters that the project cannot fail because it qualifies for tax reliefs under the business expansion scheme. Does the Prime Minister find this proposition just plain squalid?

    The Prime Minister : The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman is no, I have not seen that prospectus. If the hon. Gentleman had wanted a detailed comment on it, he would have invited me to look at it before he asked his question. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Oppenheim : Has my right hon. Friend had the chance to study the document entitled “The Citizen’s Charter”, which was written in 1921 by Herbert Morrison, then secretary of the London Labour party? It states that the best way to improve public services is to increase competition. Does not that show that no amount of tacky red plastic roses, sharp suits and slick public relations can disguise the fact that, far from progressing, Labour is regressing?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that it does show that. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the merits of competition. We now have another citizen’s charter that addresses the direct problems faced by the people of this country. The Opposition are so rattled about it that NALGO is spending £2 million to advertise against it.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mrs. Mahon : The Prime Minister does not seem to be aware of what is happening with prescription charges. May I draw to his attention the case of a constituent of mine, a Mr. Russell, who is paid just 6p more than the income support level? From 1 April, he will have to pay £3.75 a week for a prescription out of an income of £60.31. If that is not a tax on the sick, will the Prime Minister tell us what it is?

    The Prime Minister : One in three people are now entitled to free prescriptions, as opposed to one in six.

    There are far more prescriptions than ever before for which people no longer pay, and those who find themselves marginally above income support level have the option of acquiring a season ticket precisely to meet that problem.

     

    Q6. Mr. Moate : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Moate : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is an essential weapon in the battle against terrorism? Does he agree that all parties in the House should support its annual renewal, so that we can send the terrorists the clear message that they can never win?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir–and I believe that recent events reinforce that point. Without the renewal of the Act, the IRA would be free to march, recruit and raise funds anywhere in Great Britain. Its renewal is absolutely essential, not just as a clear message to the terrorists but as a vital part of our ability to safeguard the lives of our citizens. I hope that, in the light of all that has happened, the Opposition will change their policy on this occasion, and will support the renewal of the Act.

  • Social Democrats Press Release – Supporting John Major – 17 February 1992

    Below is the text of the Social Democrats press release in support of John Major, issued on 17 February 1992. There is also a Conservative Party press release.


    SOCIAL DEMOCRATS FOR JOHN MAJOR

    Twenty former members of the SDP, including five of the Party’s 1987 General Election candidates, two former National Secretaries, a former Policy Director and a political advisor to the Rt. Hon. Dr. David Owen MP, have backed the Conservative Party and will be urging other former SDP members to vote for John Major and the Conservatives at the next election.

    The text of a statement released by the Group is given below:

    “Throughout the 1980s the Conservatives and the SDP were the only parties to stand firm on the key issues of the day – the market economy, trade union reforms, the Falklands War and Britain’s defence.

    In 1990 the SDP realised it was no longer a viable political party and wound itself up.

    Now, in the 1990s, only the Conservatives support the social market economy, strong and independent defence, a firm voice for Britain in Europe and urgent reform of the public sector to make it more responsive to its users.

    Our decision to join the Conservative Party is also a reflection of the changes in policy initiated by John Major – to abandon the community charge, unfreeze child benefit and tackle the urgent problem of homelessness – while not abandoning its commitment to the defeat of inflation, sound money and the privatisation programme.

    The next election will be a watershed for Britain. Either we can continue to move forward with the Conservatives or we can retreat into the past with Labour, or another dismal Lib-Lab pact. Both would prolong the recession by destroying Britain’s competitiveness.

    The key to Britain’s future is a strong but socially responsible market economy, generating the economic growth necessary to spread prosperity and opportunity to all the people of Britain. We shall argue that case as strongly in John Major’s Conservative Party in the 1990s as we did in the SDP of the 1980s”.

    DANNY FINKELSTEIN

    National and Policy Committees 1986-90. Parliamentary candidate (Brent East) 1987. Political advisor to Rt. Hon. Dr. David Owen MP since 1986. Currently group editor, VNU Business Publications.

    TIM RYCROFT
    National Secretary (Chief Executive) 1989-90. General Secretary, The Tawney Society (SDP think tank) 1987-88. National Secretary, SDP Students 1987. Currently Public Affairs Consultant, Good Relations Ltd.

    CHRIS HOPSON
    National Secretary (Chief Executive) 1989. Director of Campaigns 1988-89. Election Agent (Bath) 1987. Currently studying for MBA at Cranfield.

    ANDREW COOPER
    Director of Policy 1988-90. Policy assistant to Rt. Hon. Dr. David Owen MP 1987-88. Policy Officer, SDP Headquarters, 1986-87. Currently freelance journalist and columnist.

    ANTHONY GOODMAN
    Parliamentary Candidate (Uxbridge) 1987. Founder, Young Social Democrats, 1982. Speechwriter, ‘Dukakis for President’ campaign, 1988.
    Currently account director, Royle Communications.

    JACKIE SADEK
    Member, National and Policy committees, 1982-84. First SDP member, National Union of Students’ National Executive Committee. Writer and lecturer on women’s issues. Currently managing social infrastructure components of large scale property developments for Stanhope Plc.

    MARK FOWLER
    Parliamentary candidate (Bolsover) 1987. Member, Council for Social Democracy. National Secretary Young Social Democrats 1983-84. Currently energy commodities trader.

    BERNARD HUGHES
    Member, Council for Social Democracy, 1983-89. President, SDP students, 1985-86. President, Lancaster University Student’s Union, 1983-84. Currently Public Affairs Manager for a leading UK company.

    IAN PRIESTNER
    National Press Officer 1986-87. Local Council Candidate 1983. Greenwich by-election press officer 1987. Currently Public Affairs Manager for a large international company.

    RICK NYE
    Member, Council for Social Democracy 1987-90. Policy advisor to parliamentary party (education and health) 1988-89. Currently information technology journalist.

    VENESSA HOLTHAM
    Secretary to Deputy National Organiser, 1985-86, SDP Press Office 1986-87. Personal assistant to Rosie Barnes MP 1987-90. After a spell in the City with Kidder Peabody she is currently a public affairs consultant.

    CRAIG ARNALL
    Member, Council for Social Democracy 1988-90. Party consultant on information technology 1989-90. Author of articles on IT and public sector service reform and co-author of Social Market Foundation pamphlet on telecoms policy. Currently management consultant with leading international firm.

    JONATHAN MORGAN
    President, Social Democratic Youth and Students, 1989-90. Currently studying for postgraduate qualification.

    SIMON EDWARDS
    Founder, Cambridge University SDP 1988. Currently systems analyst, large merchant bank.

    RICHARD YOUNG
    Vice President, SDP Students 1989-90.

    NICK SUTCLIFFE
    Member, National Committee, SDP Students, 1988-90. Member, Esher Area SDP Committee 1988-90. Currently studying British & US Politics at the University of Kent.

    NIGEL SHORT
    Member, Council for Social Democracy 1988-90. Currently an international Chess Grandmaster and Britain’s leading chess player.

    ROB WILSON
    President, Reading University Student’s Union 1987-88. Local Council Candidate 1988. Committee member, Berkshire Area SDP, 1987. Currently public relations consultant for A Plus Group.

    STUART MAXWELL
    Member, National Committee, 1984-86. Parliamentary candidate (Great Yarmouth) 1987. European candidate (Norfolk) 1989. President, SDP Students, 1983. (Chairman of Aberystwyth University Conservative Association 1980).

    CHRIS MULARCZYK
    Parliamentary candidate (Brent North) 1987. Islington Councillor 1986-89 (Chief Whip of Opposition Group). Currently Public Affairs Consultant and manager of aid programmes in Poland.

    In addition also attending:

    GEORGE APTER
    Founding Trustee of the SDP.

    DAVID ASTOR
    Former Trustee of the Campaign for Social Democracy (between 1987-88). PPC for Plymouth Drake in 1987.

  • Press Release Referring to Social Democrats Supporting John Major – 17 February 1992

    Below is the text of the Conservative Party Press Release referring to former Social Democrats supporting John Major. It was issued on Monday 17th February 1992, reference 214/92. There is also a Social Democrats press release with further biographical details.


    SOCIAL DEMOCRATS FOR JOHN MAJOR

    The Rt Hon John Major MP (Huntingdon), Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party today welcomed a number of former members of the SDP to Conservative Central Office. He said:

    “I am delighted to welcome so many leading members of the SDP into the Conservative Party today. It is particularly significant that young SDP members are so well represented. They can see that Britain’s future prosperity depends on a continuation of Conservative Government.”

    “I have always believed strongly that only a tough-minded determination to improve economic efficiency can produce the resources to provide generous help for those in need. That is why the Conservative Party is the natural home for all those who used to support the SDP.”

    NOTE TO EDITORS

    Twenty former members of the SDP, including five of the Party’s 1987 General Election candidates, two former National Secretaries, a former Policy Director and a political advisor to the Rt Hon Dr David Owen MP, have backed the Conservative Party and will be urging other former SDP members to vote for John Major and the Conservatives at the next election.

    The text of a statement released by the Group is given below:

    “Throughout the 1980s the Conservatives and the SDP were the only parties to stand firm on the key issues of the day – the market economy, trade union reforms, the Falklands War and Britain’s defence.”

    “In 1990 the SDP realised it was no longer a viable political party and wound itself up.”

    “Now, in the 1990s, only the Conservatives support the social market economy, strong and independent defence, a firm voice for Britain in Europe and urgent reform of the public sector to make it more responsive to its users.”

    “Our decision to join the Conservative Party is also a reflection of the changes in policy initiated by John Major – to abandon the community charge, unfreeze child benefit and tackle the urgent problem of homelessness – while not abandoning its commitment to the defeat of inflation, sound money and the privatisation programme.”

    “The next election will be a watershed for Britain. Either we can continue to move forward with the Conservatives or we can retreat into the past with Labour, or another dismal Lib-Lab pact. Both would prolong the recession by destroying Britain’s competitiveness.”

    “The key to Britain’s future is a strong but socially responsible market economy, generating the economic growth necessary to spread prosperity and opportunity to all the people of Britain. We shall argue that case as strongly in John Major’s Conservative Party in the 1990s as we did in the SDP of the 1980s.”

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Disability

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of the work force of the Cabinet Office are disabled.

    The Prime Minister : The percentage of registered disabled persons employed by the Cabinet Office is 1.3 per cent. The Cabinet Office is an equal opportunities employer, and continually seeks to encourage the employment of people with disabilities.

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of the work force of the Prime Minister’s office are disabled.

    The Prime Minister : None. For recruitment purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office which is an equal opportunities employer.

     

    Radioactive Waste

    Mr. McGrady : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Director of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. concerning the transportation of radioactive waste for re-processing at Sellafield in Cumbria.

    The Prime Minister : None.

    Mr. McGrady : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Director of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. concerning the siting of the repository for radioactive and toxic waste at the Sellafield re-processing plant in Cumbria.

    The Prime Minister : None. Proposals for developing a repository for intermediate and low-level radioactive wastes are a matter for UK Nirex Limited. The Departments of Energy and of the Environment are in contact with Nirex from time to time.

     

    Pollution, Northern Ireland

    Mr. McGrady : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with the directors of industry concerning environmental pollution during his recent visit to Northern Ireland.

    The Prime Minister : The subject did not arise.

     

    Scotland

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

    The Prime Minister : I hope to make another visit to Scotland in the near future.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    GATT Negotiations

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what response he has made to the proposals made by the Vice-President of the United States of America on 9 February to link the outcome of the negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and European security commitments by the United States of America.

    The Prime Minister : Vice President Quayle has confirmed publicly that he sees no link between GATT and the United States commitment to European security. Vice President Quayle and I agreed that the success of the Uruguay round was of vital importance to the world economy and that the European Community and the United States must work urgently for a successful agreement.

     

    Nuclear Non-proliferation

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he discussed the implementation of safeguards arrangements arising from South Africa’s membership of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty during the recent visit of President de Klerk to the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : No. South Africa has signed an exemplary safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and preliminary IAEA inspections are already taking place.