The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    East Timor

    Mrs. Clwyd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will support a United Nations Commission to East Timor to investigate the killings in Santa Cruz on 12 November 1991.

    The Prime Minister : We support the UN Secretary-General’s proposal to send a representative to examine the situation in East Timor.

     

    Severely Disabled People (Personal Assistants)

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretaries of State for Health and for Social Security concerning policy towards direct payments to severely disabled people to employ their own personal assistants; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Yes.

     

    Armed Forces (Liability to Injury) Bill

    Mr. John Browne : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy with regard to the Armed Forces (Liability to Injury) Bill.

    The Prime Minister : As the Armed Forces (Liability to Injury) Bill will not receive its Second Reading until Friday 24 January 1992, it would not be appropriate for me to make a statement.

     

    British Steel

    Mr. Dewar : To ask the Prime Minister what meetings he has had with British Steel in the last six months; and on what dates.

    The Prime Minister : None, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had four meetings with British Steel during the last six months.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Lithuanian President – 22 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview at Downing Street with the Lithuanian President, President Landsbergis, on Wednesday 22nd January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This morning, I have had the opportunity of having discussions with President Landsbergis and have had the very great pleasure of welcoming him here as President of an independent country. That is an especial pleasure to us in the United Kingdom for we had never recognised the Baltic States’ absorption into the former Soviet Union and to see them again recognised as an independent country gives us especial pleasure and I am delighted that we now have diplomatic representation in his country.

    We have had a wide-ranging discussion this morning and have touched on many matters of bilateral interest. One in particular I would like to mention to you this morning and that is that I have agreed this morning with President Landsbergis that we will repay to his country the Baltic gold that was deposited here in 1940 and that had been sold by a previous government in the late 1960s. What we have agreed is that we will replace the quantity of gold that was originally deposited. President Landsbergis has agreed that he will wish this gold to remain deposited with the Bank of England but we will arrange the transfer of title once legal formalities have been completed.

    We have also agreed this morning that there are a series of relatively small intergovernmental claims one country against the other that have been outstanding for many years. We have decided, in parallel with the agreement over Baltic gold, that we will both renounce the claims one country against another and leave the diplomatic/economic slate entirely clean for us to develop a relationship from now onwards.

    It has been an extremely helpful and useful discussion. We have discussed other economic and wider matters and I am delighted to have had the opportunity of this meeting with President Landsbergis this morning.

    PRESIDENT LANDSBERGIS:

    I am very glad to be here to have this meeting to meet Mr. Prime Minister and say that we had a very good understanding of each other. Mr. Prime Minister understands very good the Lithuanian problems and supports us – has supported before and now – in our goals to be a more democratic, more prosperous country as a member of the European and whole world community of free nations.

    We resolved the old problems; we touched the new ones and we have a very good perspective of cooperation for the future.

    I am very glad Mr. Prime Minister for this meeting.

  • PMQT – 21 January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    South Africa

     

    Q1. Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke) : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on his policies towards South Africa.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I welcome the meeting of the Convention for a Democratic South Africa in December. The Government will continue to encourage all parties to play a constructive role in the reform process. In order to encourage the growth that the South African economy desperately needs, we shall continue to work for the removal of the remaining economic and financial sanctions.

    Mr. Hunter : As many United Kingdom citizens live and own property in South Africa, or in other ways invest there, will my right hon. Friend discuss with President de Klerk the increasing violence there, and seek clarification on how the new South Africa can be built without the effective and practical renunciation of violence by all parties?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend said, and I shall have the opportunity to discuss that with President de Klerk when he visits London early next month. I believe that all parties have a role to play in implementing the peace accord, but of course the South African Government have the primary responsibility for the impartial maintenance of law and order.

    Mr. Robert Hughes : Will the Prime Minister throw his full weight behind the proposition that an interim Government should rule South Africa during the transition period to democratic elections? As the situation is so delicate and as negotiations with the CODESA committees are currently under way, will he not–please not–do anything to damage that process by precipitate action on sanctions?

    The Prime Minister : On the latter point, I do not think that precipitate action on sanctions is the point at issue. One of the great difficulties faced by the South African Government and people at the moment is the need to see growth in their economy, which runs at present with no growth, as against a population growth of around 3 per cent. a year. That is leading to very real hardship for all the people of South Africa–most notably those in South Africa who have least–so I think that the progressive removal of sanctions is desirable for economic and social reasons, and I hope that that progressive removal of sanctions will take place.

    On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I wish to see progress made in South Africa. I think that that can best be done through the constitutional conference rather than by remarks from across many hundreds of miles.

     

    Q2. Mr. Robert Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

    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.

    Mr. Banks : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news that, even in the teeth of an international recession, the Government have achieved reductions in interest rates, which means that the family man with an average, typical mortgage of £30,000 pays £100 a month less? Does not that augur well for the home owner and the property market in 1992?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I do welcome the reductions in interest rates and, of course, in mortgage rates that we have seen. In particular, I welcome the cuts in interest rates which three more building societies have announced this morning. The background of lower interest rates and a continuing reduction in underlying inflation provide what we most need–the opportunity for steady, sustainable, non- inflationary growth.

    Mr. Kinnock : Why is the United Kingdom the only economy in the European Community that is in recession?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is aware that a number of European economies either have been in recession or are moving towards recession at precisely the moment when the United Kingdom economy is poised to come out of recession. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that there is a recession in many other parts of the world as a result of the general world trading conditions.

    Mr. Kinnock : It is a pity that the Prime Minister did not answer the question that I asked. Perhaps he should refresh himself with the facts. Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland and Italy all have growth rates of over 1 per cent., Spain, Portugal and Holland over 2 per cent., and Germany and Luxembourg over 3 per cent. They are all growing ; our economy is shrinking by 2 per cent. Is not that because this country and its people are paying the price for having a Government of unique incompetence?

    The Prime Minister : No, Sir. Almost every country of the industrial world is experiencing economic problems. French unemployment has now reached its highest level. Unemployment in the United States is at its highest level for five years. In recent months, unemployment has risen in every European Community country except the Netherlands. It is higher than a year ago in every EFTA country and in every G7 country except Japan. The right hon. Gentleman cannot live in a cocoon and overlook those facts.

    Mr. Kinnock : On the subject of cocoons, the Prime Minister should acknowledge that the USA, Japan, Australia and Canada are not actually in the European Community. In this country, under his Government, unemployment is going up faster, investment is lower and production has fallen more than in any other European country. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? Why is that happening only in Britain under his Government?

    The Prime Minister : The fact of the matter is that it is not, as I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions, happening only in this country. If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about unemployment and recession, why does he not acknowledge the impact that his minimum wage would have upon unemployment? Why does he not acknowledge what the £6 billion-worth of cuts in defence would do to employment? Why does he not acknowledge what the impact of his tax on savings would do to investment? Why does he not acknowledge what his strikers charter would do to industrial relations? Why does he not acknowledge what his party’s attitude to inward investment would do to jobs in the north-east, in Wales, in Scotland and in many other parts of the country? The policies that the right hon. Gentleman follows will ensure a long-standing and deep recession in this country.

    Mr. Riddick : Is my right hon. Friend aware of policy proposals which would introduce a new payroll tax on every job in this country, policy proposals which would reintroduce secondary picketing, and policy proposals which would introduce a minimum wage which would put literally hundreds of thousands of people out of work? Is my right hon. Friend aware that those policy proposals go under the somewhat misleading title of “Labour’s help to the unemployed”?

    Mr. Speaker : The Prime Minister should answer the first part of that question, but not the second.

    The Prime Minister : We have no plans to introduce any such policies. Industry knows that such policies would be absolutely disastrous to it and knows from what source those policies would come, which is why its hostility to the Opposition’s policies is so severe.

     

    Q3. Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Vaz : Does the Prime Minister recall that, on 26 February 1991, I met him to discuss the case of my constituent, John Hall, who is seriously ill with leukaemia, an illness contracted while he was serving on Christmas island? At the meeting, the Prime Minister told me of his personal knowledge of the suffering of cancer victims and of their families and friends. He also told the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that he hoped that the matter would be expedited as quickly as possible. Almost a year later, nothing has been done. John Hall has spent the last year receiving chemotherapy and blood transfusions in order to stay alive. Will the Prime Minister please show some compassion and award John Hall and the other nuclear test veterans the compensation that the House and the country believe they richly deserve?

    The Prime Minister : I am not sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) renders Mr. Hall’s case particular assistance in raising it in this fashion. I cannot go into the details of Mr. Hall’s case. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Government are willing to consider any claim where any evidence can be adduced of exposure to radiation. We are conducting a validating study into the background of this, and as soon as it is complete, we can reach a general policy conclusion. Until then, I simply have no evidence on which to base a response to individual cases such as Mr. Hall’s.

     

    Q4. Mr. Ian Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Taylor : Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the tax implications of an extra £35 billion of spending pledges? If any Government were to bring in these pledges, they would either have to dishonour them and thereby deceive the public, or income tax payers at all levels of income would need to cough up and pay more to fund them. Is it not true that spending pledges such as those made by Labour politicians would mean that nothing would happen?

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Before the Prime Minister answers, let me repeat that a Member must ask questions about matters for which the Prime Minister is responsible ; he cannot answer for Labour party policies. Answer the first part, please.

    The Prime Minister : The implications of such spending increases are either that borrowing would rise to unprecedented levels, and no doubt interest rates with them, or, alternatively, that taxes would rise to a remarkable extent. It is noteworthy that those who advocate these policies also themselves concede in surveys that they would welcome an increase in the basic rate of tax as well as other tax increases.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister recall that the cause of reconciliation in Northern Ireland was tragically set back in the aftermath of the 1974 election? Will he agree that it would be appalling if we were to allow history to repeat itself after this election? Will he therefore support a cross-party approach to Northern Ireland affairs during the election and unequivocally reject any partisan trading with the Anglo-Irish Agreement in a way that would reverse the peace process after the next election?

    The Prime Minister : This party stands four square against terrorism, and we have set out our policies from this Dispatch Box on many occasions. I see no imminent change.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

    Mrs. Gorman : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a diabolical liberty for people to suggest that they can increase people’s taxes by the underhand method of raising national insurance contributions, as is proposed by the Labour party? Is it not true that the choice for the British people is between our party, which calls for lower taxes and greater spending by the people, and the Labour party, which wants to take people’s money and spend it itself? Is not that robbing Peter to pay Paul?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes her point in her own individual manner. As I have said before, if people advocate spending and tax increases, they should be prepared to defend them. The Labour party knows that its spending and taxation plans have been rumbled–and they dislike it.

    Mr. Barron : Is the Prime Minister aware that, this morning, the Selby group of the British Coal Corporation announced more than 1,100 job losses at four coal mines? Will he get his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to take action now, as he has been urged to do by the European Energy Commissioner, to stop pit closures in this country, given that we produce the cheapest deep-mined coal in the European Community? How long will the country continue to lose jobs and to lose access to the great national asset of our coal, given that the Government want to sell off British Coal overnight at a cheap price, for the benefit of the Treasury?

    The Prime Minister : I am sorry to hear of the job losses to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but the only secure future for the coal industry or, indeed, for any other industry, is for it to produce something that people want at a price that people can afford. That is the only long-term future for the coal industry.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 January 1992

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    European Union

    Mr. Tebbit : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the commitments of the United Kingdom under the declaration of the conference within article C of the provisions of a common foreign and security policy of the draft treaty on European union.

    The Prime Minister : The declaration has no legally binding effect. It does not alter the fact that unanimous decisions will still require the unanimous support of all member states. It is similar to the provision in the Single European Act calling upon partners to refrain from impeding the formation of a consensus.

    Mr. Tebbit : To ask the Prime Minister if, in relation to article E of the provisions of a common foreign and security policy of the draft treaty on European union with regard to matters coming within the common foreign and security policy, he will state within which international organisations and international conferences the United Kingdom will retain its own representation rather than be represented by the presidency of the European union.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom will retain the membership and representation in all international organisations and international conferences it enjoys at present.

     

    Sir Basil Feldman

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister (1) when he last met Sir Basil Feldman on official business; and what subjects were discussed;

    (2) how many times he has met Sir Basil Feldman in the last 12 months; and whether Sunday trading has been discussed.

    The Prime Minister : My normal practice is to neither confirm nor deny whether meetings with private individuals have taken place.

     

    Office Costs

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give the cost of running his office in 1989, 1990 and 1991.

    The Prime Minister : The cost in 1990-91 was £8,225,816. The cost in 1989-90 was £7,669,276.

    Note : Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs, the costs of office services and the grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust are included in the costs. The Prime Minister’s salary is excluded.

     

    Businesses (Environmental Performance)

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any proposals to recognise businesses who improve their environmental performance.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s environment White Paper “This Common Inheritance”, and last year’s first anniversary report on it stressed that all parts of society have a role to play in securing environmental improvements. This applies not least to business. The Government want to create the right conditions to encourage business to improve its environmental performance and to recognise and reward those businesses which rise successfully to the challenge. On my recommendation, Her Majesty the Queen has given her approval in principle to the introduction of a new Queen’s award for environmental achievement.

    The new award will recognise product and process development which has major benefits for the environment and which is commercially successful. It will form part of the established Queen’s awards scheme alongside business awards for export and technology achievement. It is planned that applications will be sought in June and that the first environment awards will be made on the Queen’s birthday on 21 April 1993.

    The addition of environment achievement to the Queen’s awards builds on the pioneering work of the Royal Society of Arts whose better environment awards for industry have led the way and generated invaluable experience in awards for business in the environmental field. The RSA plans to continue activity in this area in a way which will complement the new Queen’s award.

     

    Lord Lieutenants

    Mr. William Powell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the lord lieutenants with the dates of their appointment and expected retirement.

    The Prime Minister : A list of lord lieutenants, together with the dates of their appointment and expected retirement, is set out in the table.

    County |Lord-Lieutenant |Date of Appointment |Date of Retirement

    —————————————————————————————————————–

    England

    Avon |Sir John Wills, TD FRICS JP |April 1974 |July 2003

    Bedfordshire |Samuel Whitbread, Esq |January 1991 |February 2012

    Berkshire |John Henderson, Esq, CVO OBE |June 1989 |May 1995

    Buckinghamshire |Commander, The Hon. John Fremantle, RN (Retd.) JP |September 1984 |January 2002

    Cambridgeshire |Michael Bevan, Esq |August 1985 |August 2001

    Cheshire |William Bromley Davenport, Esq. JP |June 1990 |March 2010

    Cleveland |The Lord Gisborough, TD |March 1981 |July 2002

    Cornwall |The Viscount Falmouth |October 1977 |October 1994

    Cumbria |Sir Charles Graham, Bt |February 1983 |July 1994

    Derbyshire |Colonel Peter Hilton, MC JP |January 1978 |June 1994

    Devon |The Earl of Morley, JP |May 1982 |May 1998

    Dorset |The Lord Digby, JP |September 1984 |July 1999

    Durham |David Grant, Esq, CBE |April 1988 |January 1997

    East Sussex |Admiral Sir Lindsay Bryson, KCB |November 1989 |January 2000

    Essex |Admiral Sir Andrew Lewis, KCB JP |August 1978 |August 1992

    Gloucestershire |Colonel Martin Gibbs, CB DSO TD JP |June 1978 |February 1992

    Greater London |Field Marshall, The Lord Bramall, GCB OBE MC JP |January 1986 |December 1998

    Greater Manchester |Colonel J B Timmins, OBE TD JP |December 1987 |June 2007

    Hampshire |Sir James Scott, JP |December 1982 |October 1999

    Hereford and Worcester |Captain Thomas Dunne, JP |July 1977 |October 2008

    Hertfordshire |Simon Bowes Lyon, Esq, FCA |January 1986 |June 2007

    Humberside |Richard Bethell, Esq |October 1983 |March 1997

    Isle of Wight |The Lord Mottistone, CBE |August 1985 |December 1995

    Kent |The Right Hon. Robin Leigh-Pemberton |August 1982 |January 2002

    Lancashire |Dr. Simon Towneley |March 1976 |December 1996

    Leicestershire |Timothy Brooks, Esq, JP |January 1989 |March 2004

    Lincolnshire |Henry Nevile, Esq |November 1975 |March 1995

    Merseyside |Henry Cotton, Esq |May 1989 |July 2004

    Norfolk |Timothy Colman, Esq |March 1978 |September 2004

    Northamptonshire |John Lowther, Esq, CBE JP |January 1984 |November 1998

    Northumberland |The Viscount Ridley, TD |January 1984 |July 2000

    North Yorkshire |Sir Marcus Worsley, JP |March 1987 |April 2000

    Nottinghamshire |Sir Andrew Buchanan, Bt. |February 1991 |July 2012

    Oxfordshire |Sir Ashley Ponsonby, MC |January 1980 |February 1996

    Shropshire |John Dugdale, Esq |February 1975 |May 1998

    Somerset |Lt. Col. Geoffrey Luttrell, MC JP |March 1978 |October 1994

    South Yorkshire |Hugh Neill, Esq, CBE TD JP |May 1985 |March 1996

    Staffordshire |Sir Arthur Bryan |July 1968 |March 1998

    Suffolk |Sir Joshua Rowley, JP |March 1978 |December 1995

    Surrey |Richard Thornton, Esq, OBE JP |May 1986 |October 1997

    Tyne and Wear |Sir Ralph Carr-Ellison |July 1984 |December 2000

    Warwickshire |The Viscount Daventry |February 1990 |December 1996

    West Midlands |The Earl of Aylesford, JP |April 1974 |November 1993

    West Sussex |The Duke of Richmond and Gordon |March 1990 |September 2004

    West Yorkshire |The Lord Ingrow, OBE TD JP |May 1985 |August 1992

    Wiltshire |Field Marshal, Sir Roland Gibbs, GCB CBE DSO MC |December 1989 |June 1996

    Wales Clwyd |Sir William Gladstone, Bt. JP |August 1985 |October 2000

    Dyfed |David Mansel Lewis, Esq, JP |February 1979 |October 2002

    Mid Glamorgan |Murray McLaggan, Esq, JP |January 1990 |September 2004

    South Glamorgan |Captain Norman Lloyd-Edwards |June 1990 |June 2008

    West Glamorgan |Lt. Col. Sir Michael Llewellyn, Bt. |December 1987 |June 1996

    Gwynedd |Meuric Rees, Esq |January 1990 |March 1999

    Gwent |Richard Hanbury-Tenison, Esq, JP |June 1979 |January 2000

    Powys |Mervyn Bourdillon, Esq, JP |July 1986 |August 1999

    Scotland

    Highland region

    Caithness |The Viscount Thurso |April 1973 |December 1997

    Sutherland |Major General David Houston, CBE |November 1991 |February 2004

    Ross and Cromarty |Captain Roderick Stirling, TD |February 1988 |June 2007

    Inverness |Lt. Cdr. Lachlan Mackintosh of Mackintosh, OBE RN (Retd.) | September 1985 |June 2003

    Nairn |The Earl of Leven and Melville |July 1969 |May 1999

    Grampian region

    Moray |Captain Sir Iain Tennant |January 1964 |March 1994

    Banff |James McPherson, Esq, CBE |August 1987 |November 2002

    Aberdeen County |Captain Colin Farquharson, FRICS |March 1987 |August 1998

    Kincardine |The Viscount of Arbuthnott, CBE DSC |January 1977 |October 1999

    Tayside region

    Angus |The Right Hon. The Earl of Airlie, KT GCVO |June 1989 |May 2001

    Perth and Kinross |Major Sir David Butter, KCVO MC |November 1971 |March 1995

    Fife region

    Fife |The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine |October 1987 |February 1999

    Lothian region

    West Lothian |The Earl of Morton |August 1985 |March 2002

    Midlothian |Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, Bt CBE VRD FRSE JP |June 1972 |January 1992

    East Lothian |Sir Hew Hamilton Dalrymple, Bt KCVO |November 1986 |April 2001

    Central region

    Clackmannan |The Earl of Mar and Kellie |September 1966 |February 1996

    Stirling |Lt. Col. James Stirling, CBE TD FRICS |December 1983 |September 2005

    Borders region

    Peebles |Lt. Col. Aidan Sprot, MC |October 1980 |June 1994

    Roxburgh |The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry |January 1974 |September 1998

    Berwick |Major General Sir John Swinton, KCVO OBE JP |April 1989 |April 2000

    Strathclyde region

    Argyll |The Most Hon. The Marquess of Bute, JP |June 1990 |February 2008

    Dunbarton |Brigadier Donald Hardie, TD JP |June 1990 |January 2011

    Lanark |The Lord Clydesmuir, CB MBE TD |August 1963 |May 1992

    Renfrew |Major David Crichton Maitland |November 1980 |September 2000

    Ayrshire and Arran |Major Richard Henderson, TD |April 1991 |July 2006

    Dumfries and Galloway region

    Wigtown |Major Edward Orr Ewing |September 1989 |September 2006

    Stewartry |Sir Michael Herries, OBE MC |March 1989 |February 1998

    Dumfries |Captain Ronald Cunningham-Jardine |October 1991 |September 2006

    Island areas

    Orkney |Brigadier Malcolm Dennison |March 1990 |March 1999

    Shetland |Magnus Shearer, Esq, JP |October 1982 |February 1999

    Western Isles |The Earl of Granville, MC |March 1983 |December 1993

    Northern Ireland

    County

    Antrim |Captain Richard Dobbs |April 1975 |April 1994

    Armagh |The Earl of Caledon |March 1989 |May 2030

    County Borough of Belfast |Colonel J Elliott Wilson, OBE JP |March 1991 |May 2000

    Down |Colonel William Brownlow |January 1990 |August 1996

    Fermanagh |The Earl of Erne |May 1986 |July 2012

    Londonderry |Colonel Michael McCorkell, OBE TD |April 1975 |February 2000

    County Borough of Londonderry |James Eaton, Esq, TD |January 1986 |August 2002

    Tyrone |The Duke of Abercorn |December 1986 |July 2019

  • Mr Major’s Comments at Belfast City Hall – 20 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on his arrival at Belfast City Hall on the morning of Monday 20th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Firstly, I’m delighted to be back here in Belfast, and the first message I bring to the people of Belfast is absolutely clear. We admire the way Belfast, year after year, stands up to some of the terrorist activities that they have to live with. It’s immensely brave and it has the Government’s full support. By being here today I hope I’m going to state that yet again.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, could you reassure the people about the security situation. They want some sort of action taken after the massacre of only two or three days ago.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I understand that and I think the people who were responsible for that massacre are unspeakable. It is difficult to comprehend the evil of people who can stand there, at some distance, and brutally slaughter and murder innocent people in the way they did, and it is against that background that I will repeat again and again and again. “They cannot bomb Belfast out of its way of life. They cannot bomb Northern Ireland out of its way of life and they cannot bomb the British Government out of its policy.” We had made the decision before that atrocity to send more troops here to improve the security situation.

    I am not going to go into details of what can be done and what will be done, but that we will stand four square with the people of Northern Ireland against this terrorism, they need have no doubt.

    QUESTION:

    Can I just ask you, Sir, coming here today, coming to Belfast and going to Craigavon, where there has been trouble. But the people of Magherafelt, Ballymena, these other areas, they will feel very hurt at your absence in those areas today. Are you intending to meet with people, the relatives [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This isn’t my first visit to Northern Ireland, to Belfast, and other parts of Northern Ireland. It isn’t going to be my last. You can expect me to be back again and again and again. What has happened in parts of Northern Ireland; the way in which it has built itself up against the most difficult background, I think is one of the moat impressive stories one could imagine. Yes, I will be back again and again and I will be meeting representatives of people of every part of Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] of the people who were killed, Prime Minister, what about the relatives of those people who were killed, who are burying their dead today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, what can one say except to express one’s sympathy for this quite needless and pointless tragedy. I wish I could find the right words of comfort for them. It isn’t easy to do; it’s a blot on their lives that these people have created that will never go away and I understand that. I wish there was something I could say to offer them greater comfort than I can. What I can say is that they may be absolutely certain that the people responsible for this outrage will be hunted and hunted and hunted for the rest of their days until we find them.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what about the Secretary of State, did he make an error of judgment on Friday night in Dublin?

    [Question not answered]

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, I am sorry for repeating this but to the people who are lying in hospital injured and the relatives of those people, have you any real understanding of their plight today, the sense of despair? Will you have anything to say to them, will you be able to say anything to them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe I do understand their sense of despair. No one who isn’t living through it can quite appreciate the horror of what has happened to them, to their lives and to the lives of their relatives. I do understand that and I think I understand what they want in the future as well. They want to be absolutely certain that they are not going to be abandoned and that Northern Ireland isn’t going to be abandoned, and I can promise them that it isn’t.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 January 1992

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Oxleas Wood

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited Oxleas Wood, south-east London; and if he will make a statement. The

    Prime Minister : I have not visited Oxleas Wood.

     

    European Union

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 13 January, Official Report, column 470, concerning the inclusion in the draft treaty of European union of a reference to the role and significance of European parties, when he expects to receive a draft formulation from the presidency; when he expects to lay this before Parliament; and what is the objective of the provision.

    The Prime Minister : The Portuguese presidency has proposed the following draft treaty article :

    “Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union”.

    Discussion is continuing in Brussels as to where this article should appear in the treaty. This is one of a number of technical points which will be settled before signature in early February. The text of the treaty will be published in the normal way after signature.

     

    Advisory Council on Science and Technology

    Dr. Bray : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the current members of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology; if he will give the date of their original appointment; and what is the date on which their current term of office will end.

    The Prime Minister : The current members of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology are as listed. In addition, the chief scientific adviser, Cabinet Office, Professor William Stewart, attends council meetings. Departmental chief scientists/scientific advisers are also invited to attend most meetings.

    Name |Date of original appointment |Appointment ends

    —————————————————————————

    Sir Robin Nicholson (Chairman) |July 1990 |July 1993

    Executive Director, Pilkington plc

    Professor Roy Anderson |July 1989 |July 1992

    Department of Pure & Applied Biology Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

    Professor Sir Michael Atiyah |July 1991 |July 1994

    President, The Royal Society

    Professor Michael Brady |July 1990 |July 1993

    Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford

    Lord Chilver |May 1989 |<1> n/a

    Chairman, Universities Funding Council

    Dr. Peter Doyle |July 1989 |July 1992

    Director of Research and Technology, Imperial Chemical Industries plc

    Mr. Ian Harvey |July 1989 |July 1992

    Chief Executive, British Technology Group

    Mr. Keith Henry |July 1991 |July 1994

    Chief Executive, Brown and Root Ltd.

    Sir Graham Hills |July 1987 |<2>July 1993

    Past Principal of University of Strathclyde

    Dr. Nigel Horne |July 1990 |July 1993

    Head of IT Practice, KPMG Management Consulting

    Professor Christopher Llewellyn Smith |July 1989 |July 1992

    Chairman of Physics, University of Oxford

    Professor Leonard Maunder |July 1987 |July 1993 <2>

    Department of Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

    Professor Sir David Phillips |July 1987 | <1> n/a

    Chairman, Advisory Board for the Research Councils

    Professor Gareth Roberts |July 1989 |July 1992

    Vice Chancellor, University of Sheffield

    Sir Alfred Shepperd |July 1989 |July 1992

    Former Chairman and Chief Executive, Wellcome plc

    Dr. David Smith |July 1987 |<2>July 1993

    Consultant

    Dr. William Wilkinson |July 1990 |July 1993

    Deputy Chief Executive, British Nuclear Fuels plc

    Sir Martin Wood |July 1990 |July 1993

    Deputy Chairman, Oxford Instruments Group plc

    <1> Lord Chilver and Professor Sir David Phillips are ex-officio members in their capacities as chairman of the Universities Funding Council and Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils respectively.

    <2> Members in their second term.

     

    Staff Salaries

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the number of those employed in his office, their position and the salary range in each case, excluding secretarial and clerical staff.

    The Prime Minister : The number of those currently employed in my office excluding Secretarial and clerical staff and paid from public funds are :–

    Positions Held |Grade

    ————————————————————————-

    1 Principal Private Secretary |Grade 2

    1 Private Secretary-Overseas Affairs |Grade 3

    1 Private Secretary-Economic Affairs |Grade 5

    1 Private Secretary-Parliamentary Affairs |Grade 7

    1 Private Secretary-Home Affairs |Grade 7

    1 Secretary for Appointments |Grade 5

    1 Chief Press Officer |Grade 3

    1 Deputy Chief Press Officer |Grade 5

    1 Policy Adviser |Grade 3

    1 Policy Adviser |Grade 5

    1 Security Co-ordinator |Grade 7

    2 Assistant Private Secretaries |SEO

    1 Parliamentary Clerk |HEO

    5 Special Advisers |-

    3 Senior Information Officers |-

    4 Higher Executive Officers |-

    11 Executive Officers |-

    It is not our practice to reveal the salaries of individual advisers as they are individually negotiated in relation to previous outside earnings and are therefore confidential. The rest are paid in accordance with the civil service pay scales.

     

    Televisions

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister how many television sets there are at 10 Downing Street; and how many television licences are held for 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister : Nineteen television sets are currently in use at 10 Downing Street. No licence fees are payable for television sets on Crown property used for Government purposes.

  • PMQT – 16 January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. Winnick : In view of the evidence given yesterday should there not be a full and frank ministerial statement–which should come from the Prime Minister–of what was known inside the Government at the time about the supergun affair? Bearing in mind the number of military items sold to the Iraqi regime by this country right up to the invasion of Kuwait and the highly critical comments made about the conduct of Ministers during the Gulf war, what right do the Government have to lecture hon. Members on the Opposition Benches over defence matters?

    The Prime Minister : In so far as the Gulf war is concerned, the hon. Gentleman is referring to one of the most successful military operations ever undertaken by this country or any other. It achieved its objectives more swiftly and with less bloodshed than anyone could possibly have imagined. As to the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, he knows that much of what he said was nonsense. It has been dealt with often enough.

     

    Q2. Mr. McGrady : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. McGrady : Could I remind the Prime Minister that one of the consequences of his Maastricht agreement is to prevent Northern Ireland from participating in the new cohesion fund, to the extent of losing tens of millions of pounds? I am sure that he is aware of the total lack of adequate funding for roads, transport and the environment in Northern Ireland, especially now that the Secretary of State has imposed a total moratorium on all public spending in Northern Ireland. Would he assure the people of Northern Ireland and the House that as soon as possible he will remedy that appalling error, and allow Northern Ireland to benefit from the new cohesion fund as a category 1 area?

    The Prime Minister : There is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a higher level of public expenditure per head of population in Northern Ireland–and rightly so–than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The establishment of the cohesion fund and eligibility to benefit from it were agreed by all the member states. There is a misapprehension that Northern Ireland is the only category 1 area that will not benefit from that, but that fund is designed to help the poorest member states, not poorer regions or provinces within the more prosperous nations. So, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the purpose for which the fund was devised.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gwilym Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has no plans to increase income tax and national insurance contributions for millions of ordinary taxpayers? Does he agree that it is the height of irresponsibility to try to pretend that there can be a massive increase in spending from day one of a Government if the tax increases to pay for that are to be phased in?

    The Prime Minister : I can also confirm to my hon. Friend that we have made no plans for a super increase in VAT, as the Opposition have apparently considered. There is no doubt that the Opposition are now in a shambles over their tax plans. Their muddled statements show that they cannot be trusted on tax ; they shift their position from day to day. The only thing that is certain is that a party that promises to spend and spend is a party that would have to tax and tax.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister tell us why his record on unemployment is even worse than that of his predecessor?

    The Prime Minister : Everyone in the House and beyond regrets the fact that unemployment rises. That is why we are persisting with policies that will create long-term, permanent jobs for the future. We have put those policies in place–low inflation, lower taxes and lower interest rates. Those are the only measures that will get people into work and keep them in work, which is the only proper policy to follow.

    Mr. Kinnock : Unemployment has risen by nearly 1 million in the time that the hon. Gentleman has been Chancellor and Prime Minister, but still he refuses to do anything useful to stop that remorseless rise. Is it not because he believes that 2.5 million unemployed is “a price worth paying”?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should not be so cheap over such a problem. Unemployment is greater than a year ago in every country in EFTA and in every G7 country except the Netherlands. French unemployment is at its greatest level ever. United States unemployment is higher than for the past five years. What the right hon. Gentleman might also have fastened his mind upon is the fact that reported job vacancies are rising, that the number of people placed in jobs is rising and that there are 500,000 more people in work than in 1979. Those are some of the facts which the right hon. Gentleman should absorb.

    Mr. Kinnock : The right hon. Gentleman is a dodger.

    [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : In the last year employment in Britain went down by 873,000. Job vacancies are still 10,000 lower than they were this time last year. When Sir Nicholas Goodison of the Trustee Savings Bank says that this is the worst recession in living memory, is it any wonder that the whole country knows that this is the Government of high unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : Some people might say that on policy rather than on personal matters the right hon. Gentleman is a tax dodger. He can give no lecture to us on unemployment. [Hon. Members :– “Withdraw.”] His policies would cut jobs across the whole country.

    Hon. Members : Withdraw.

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think that that was meant in a personal sense.

    The Prime Minister : Indeed ; I expressly said that, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman’s minimum wage would increase unemployment by putting 2 million people out of work. His plans to slash defence budgets by £6 billion would cost 100,000 more their jobs. His tax on jobs would cost another 100,000. He is the only person in opposition to plan for greater unemployment as a matter of policy.

    Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the House to settle down.

    Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions were to be removed, it would punish not just somebody earning £20,280 a year but would punish anyone who earned £390 in a single week? Does he agree that a proposal that would impose a massive tax burden on 4 million ordinary people could be produced only by a shower such as those who currently comprise the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The House is in a very excited state.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right. I suspect that the Labour party simply did not understand when it drew up its policy that everyone would pay more national insurance contributions in a single week if they earned above one fifty second of statutory UEL. The Independent pointed out, for example, that the Opposition’s tax plans would mean

    “the largest ever peacetime tax increase.”

    The Leader of the Opposition promised explicitly that anyone earning less than £21,000 a year would not pay a penny tax extra in income tax or national insurance under a Labour Government. Clearly, he was wrong about that. He should admit it, and do so publicly.

     

    Q4. Mr. Canavan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. Canavan : Will the Prime Minister confirm that he personally was informed about British Steel’s decision to close Ravenscraig over a fortnight before the official announcement last week–[ Hon. Members :– “Oh?”]–and that instead of trying to reverse the decision, he and the Secretary of State for Scotland took part in a conspiracy of silence? Will the right hon. Gentleman now, even at this late stage, intervene to try to stop the closure, bearing in mind the Government’s responsibility for privatising the steel industry, thereby allowing a butcher such as Bob Scholey to betray the Scottish steel workers?

    The Prime Minister : It is noticeable that the Labour party has not offered to keep Ravenscraig open. I was informed that British Steel would be making a decision on the day that it made the decision– [Interruption.] I was informed in confidence some days before that it would be making a decision on that day. It was a commercial decision by British Steel. It is clear, despite all their words, that Opposition Members would have done nothing different.

    Mr. Irvine : Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence cuts of £6 billion would lead to a massive loss of jobs in defence industries throughout the country? Does he further agree about the hypocrisy of those who call on the one hand for the maintenance of defence contracts in public and, on the other, plan in private for defence reductions?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our policy, both for nuclear and conventional defence, is clear, has been set out in a number of documents and is properly costed. The Opposition do not say where they stand, cannot say where they stand and cannot admit to the jobs that would be lost if their policy were carried out. The Labour party conference has three times voted to cut £6 billion from the defence budget, and we can see the extent to which that would devastate the defence industry and the defence of this country.

     

    Q5. Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. Madden : Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about which I gave notice to his office earlier this morning? Will he arrange for X-ray and metal detection equipment to be installed immediately at Armley prison in Leeds? I ask for this following a serious breach of security at the prison last Friday, when a visitor inside the prison drew a knife and sought to attack another visitor. As this is the latest in a series of serious breaches of security at prisons, will the Prime Minister call upon the Home Secretary, who has clearly lost control of his own Department and no longer enjoys the confidence of the public, to resign now or else sack him?

    The Prime Minister : First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the detailed point that he wished to raise. Security at prisons holding category A prisoners is already very tight, with rigorous searching procedures. In addition, however, we are providing X-ray equipment, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested we should. A contract has been placed for the supply of this equipment to prisons that hold category A prisoners. Devices have to be specially constructed, and they will be delivered as soon as possible.

    In reply to the hon. Gentleman’s last point, I can say that I have complete confidence in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

     

    Q6. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. Evennett : Does my right hon. Friend agree that to base defence policy on defence cuts–the North Sea oil of the 1990s–is irresponsible and misguided? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Opposition Front- Bench spokesman on Treasury affairs has actually stated this as a belief–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question about Government policy.

    Mr. Evennett : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Labour remains unsound on defence?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, it is clear that, as my hon. Friend says, Labour would cut the defence budget to ribbons. It is true that on defence Labour cannot be trusted. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the Prime Minister please answer the matters for which he has responsibility?

    The Prime Minister : I am seeking to do precisely that. It is perfectly clear that, while the defence of this country is the first priority of the present Government, it might not be the first priority of the Opposition if they were to make the defence cuts to which they have committed themselves.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Foreign Investment

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy in regard to selective intervention in circumstances of inward economic investment by foreign companies in (a) the regions of England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland, respectively.

    The Prime Minister : Regional selective assistance (RSA) is available to encourage inward investment in the assisted areas of England, Wales and Scotland. Investors with a choice of location are offered the same level of RSA to go to assisted areas of equal status. A similar scheme operates in Northern Ireland but higher levels of assistance are available and may be offered.

     

    Nuclear Waste

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what correspondence his office had with Mr. W. R. Burton on nuclear waste disposal over the past three years.

    The Prime Minister : As far as I am aware, none.

     

    World Commission on Environment and Development

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty’s Government have to contribute new proposals to the World Commission on Environment and Development when it reconvenes in London on 21 to 24 April.

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted that the World commission will reconvene in London in April. The purpose of the meeting is to enable the commissioners to make their independent assessment of the prospects for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. The commissioners are not seeking proposals from Governments but, in view of the importance of the event, Her Majesty’s Government are giving financial and other support to the organisers, the Centre for our Common Future.

     

    UN Environment and Development Conference

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what resources have been committed by Her Majesty’s Government to ensuring wide public distribution of preparatory committee reports and decisions for the Earth summit at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June.

    The Prime Minister : The Government have provided reports on decisions so far taken at UNCED preparatory committees to a wide range of interested organisations and individuals through the United Kingdom committee for UNEP.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what information he has received on the international meeting of non-governmental organisations held in Paris in December to formulate agreed proposals to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June.

    The Prime Minister : It is important that the views of the non-governmental community should be taken fully into account in preparations for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. I understand that agreement was not reached on all items addressed by the Paris meeting in December but that a partial set of proposals will be forwarded to the UNCED secretariat. These will be discussed at a meeting today between officials of the Department of the Environment and the British representatives of non-governmental organisations who attended the Paris meeting.

     

    Women and the Environment

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will obtain for his Office’s library a copy of the recently published “Women and the Environment” compiled by Annabel Rodda.

    The Prime Minister : I have already done so.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 January 1992

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Constituencies

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards equalising the size of parliamentary constituencies; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : When conducting a review of parliamentary constituencies, the parliamentary boundary commissions are required to give effect to the rules set out in schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, which include a requirement that constituency electorates should be as close as practicable to the electoral quota for that part of the United Kingdom.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

    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 – 14 January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Douglas : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

    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. Douglas : Will the Prime Minister take some time today to examine his pledge not to turn his back on Lanarkshire? Will he give a clear indication of the earnestness of that pledge by agreeing to meet the shop stewards of Dalzell plant, who have indicated that they have a plan guaranteeing the effectiveness of their own plant, together with continued steel production in Scotland? Does he accept that he has an obligation to honour that pledge by examining every possible avenue to maintain steel production in Scotland, and in particular not to turn his back on a plan which has shown great effectiveness?

    The Prime Minister : I made my position clear in Scotland some time ago. We certainly would not abandon the people of north Lanarkshire. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we shall be seeking agreement from the European Community to establish an enterprise zone such as those which, in other parts, have been very successful. He will also know that in the past year we have provided about £120 million extra assistance for north Lanarkshire through the Scottish Enterprise fund, East Kilbride development corporation, the iron and steel employees readaption benefit scheme, the Scottish Development Agency and much else. I am sure that either my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be happy to meet the shop stewards in Dalzell.

    Mr. Thurnham : Does my right hon. Friend accept that, at a time of great international instability, the whole country welcomes his decision as chairman of the United Nations Security Council to call a meeting of that council later this month? Does not the acceptance of his invitation by President Bush, President Yeltsin, President Mitterrand and other world leaders prove the importance of that meeting? Is it not an insult to world leaders that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) should describe that as grubbing around for a photo opportunity?

    The Prime Minister : We have had a very favourable response from Heads of Government, all of whom share our view that the meeting offers a unique opportunity to reinforce the role of the United Nations as a peacemaker and peacekeeper, to look at the role that they can play in both disarmament and non-proliferation, and to reinforce the role that they can play in terms of improving good government and human rights records in a large number of countries. There has been unanimous acceptance by Heads of State and Government among Security Council members to attend. I hope and believe that it will be a useful and worthwhile occasion.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bidwell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Bidwell : Is the Prime Minister aware that conflicting views about the future of the railways are coming from No. 10 Downing street and from the Secretary of State for Transport? It is said that the Prime Minister has a view. May the House hear it today? There is an old saying, “This is no way to run a railway”–I suggest that this is no way to run a Government either.

    The Prime Minister : On a non-controversial note, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his 75th birthday today.

    We are discussing within government the right way to take forward the privatisation of British Railways. Our aim is to ensure that passengers get a better deal as a result. We believe that the way to do that is to expose the railways to private sector disciplines. That is what we are discussing. In due course, when we have discussed the detail of how that will be brought about, we shall make a public statement.

    Mr. Lawrence : Since raising the quality of life of the British people is one of the main aims of my right hon. Friend’s Government, can we count on his support for my National Lottery Bill?

    The Prime Minister : An important debate on my hon. and learned Friend’s Bill is scheduled for this Friday. The Under Secretary of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), will make the Government’s position clear in that debate.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to confirm that it is still his view that, as he put it in his own words just a few weeks ago,

    “tax cuts in the Budget”

    would be “unwise”, would “recreate problems” and would be “fools’ gold”?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has been misled. What I said in the interview in Harare, from which he has quoted, was that a reduction in interest rates just to stimulate the economy would be fools’ gold–as it would be. However, to help the right hon. Gentleman, I went on to add that if there was a prospect of tax reductions, we would take it and give people the opportunity to spend their money in their own interests.

    Mr. Kinnock : Everyone will have the opportunity to check the words used in that interview and everyone will have the opportunity to ask why, if those words are so wrong, they have not been corrected before now. Does not the Prime Minister recall saying in precise terms that tax cuts in the Budget before the election–as he is precisely quoted as saying–would be “unwise”, would “recreate problems”, would be “unfair”, would “hurt” people and would be “economic tricks”– [Interruption.] Is it not clear– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : As the hopes of Conservative Members fade, so their voices grow louder.

    Is it not clear that what was fools’ gold in October is fools’ gold in January and would be fools’ gold in March?

    The Prime Minister : As I said to the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago–clearly, he was not listening –the quotation that he used refers to a reduction in interest rates, not to a reduction in taxation. The right hon. Gentleman can check the quote–perhaps he should have done so before using it inaccurately. When it is prudent to make tax reductions, we shall make them, because we believe that people are better able to look after their own interests with their own money than any Government, however benevolent, would be. It is the right hon. Gentleman’s policy to increase taxation. He proposes the sharpest increases in taxes that we have had in peacetime since the war. That is expressly not the policy of this Government.

    Mr. Kinnock : The right hon. Gentleman heads the Government who have imposed the highest tax burden in history on British families. He is the head of the party of high taxation. Why has he not the courage to stand by the words that he gave to his interviewer just a few months ago?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should not repeat what he has twice been told is incorrect. If he is concerned about the level of taxation, he might perhaps explain to the country why he proposes to increase the rate of taxation if given the chance. He might also explain why his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has suggested a luxury rate of value added tax, after all that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), has said in recent weeks.

    Mr. Mills : Does my right hon. Friend recall those heady days in the early 1980s when, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), we changed industrial relations law? That has led to fewer days lost due to industrial action in Britain than in many of our competitor countries in Europe and abroad. Has my right hon. Friend read the recent report? Has he any comments? Will he continue to change industrial relations legislation to take further the Conservative progress which has helped democracy within trade unions and reduced the number of days lost to strikes?

    The Prime Minister : There is no doubt that, as a result of the trade union reforms in the last decade, we have a far better record of industrial relations than our competitors elsewhere or than previously in Britain. When and where appropriate, we shall continue to make further improvements.

     

    Q3. Mr. Fraser : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Fraser : Has the Prime Minister noted the remarks of the Minister for Public Transport about one class of service for business men and another, cheap and cheerful class of service, for typists? Despite the Minister’s apology, does not that statement, accurately sum up the Government’s policy on public services such as housing, education and health? The cheap and cheerful version of the service is hardly ever likely to be used by Cabinet Ministers or their families.

    The Prime Minister : That is uncharacteristic, and I would not have expressed myself as my hon. Friend did. My hon. Friend has subsequently made it clear that he regrets expressing his views in that way. If every politician in government or opposition were forced to apologise for injudicious remarks, few of us would be doing anything else.

     

    Q4. Mr. Michael Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Brown : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as a result of discussions between the American company Kimberley Clarke and the Department of Trade and Industry, it is likely that a factory employing 800 people is to be built in my constituency? Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of the DTI investment and the number of jobs to be created? Will he confirm that that is Conservative industrial policy working to the benefit of my constituency in particular and the country in general?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to hear of the proposed investment and job creation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The amount of grant offered is, of course, a confidential matter between the Department and the company. On the other specific questions that my hon. Friend asks, I will make inquiries and write to him. He is entirely right that inward investment is created by the right policies of deregulation and low taxation. The enormous amount of inward investment that we have seen in recent years would be lost if those policies were reversed.

    Mr. Ashdown : Further to the Prime Minister’s previous answer, does he not realise that, while he and his Chancellor argue about the Budget, and while his Cabinet is split on the matter, there is widespread public support for the view that at this time investment in the nation’s future should come before cuts in the basic rates of tax? Is the Prime Minister saying that he disagrees with that view?

    The Prime Minister : I agree entirely with the importance of investment. Where I might disagree with the right hon. Gentleman is that I do not believe that investment is increased by increasing taxes.

     

    Q5. Mr. Squire : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Squire : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospect of a dictator or an irresponsible third-world country acquiring any of the 27,000 nuclear weapons previously controlled by the Soviet Union is literally a terrifying thought? Against that background, does he further agree that to maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent is as important and essential today as it ever has been?

    The Prime Minister : I do agree with my hon. Friend on that point. The end of the Soviet empire creates a large number of opportunities, but also some dangers. We have to be prepared for both. The diminished threat to NATO gives us the opportunity to make prudent reductions in defence, but they must be prudent and it would at this stage be imprudent to lift our nuclear shield in any way.

    Mr. Faulds : Why did the Prime Minister not have the courtesy to respond to a pre-Christmas appeal by Church leaders that he should make a statement– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Faulds rose–[Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The House is becoming disorderly.

    Mr. Faulds rose–[Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has as much right to express his view as any other Member of the House.

    Mr. Faulds : Hon. Members seem embarrassed by good works. Why did the Prime Minister not have the courtesy to respond to a pre-Christmas appeal by Church leaders for him to make a statement urging stores not to break the Sunday trading laws? Did he simply lack the moral courage?

    The Prime Minister : I have indicated the Government’s position on Sunday trading laws in the House on a number of occasions. I am interested to note the hon. Gentleman’s concern on behalf of the Churches. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not mention it to me on new year’s day when we had lunch together.