The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT – 25 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

    Ms Hoey: Has the Prime Minister any understanding of the deep anger that will be felt in the country at the way in which the directors of the privatised National Grid have used tax avoidance measures to ensure that their wives will have hundreds of thousands of bonus shares? What message does that send to pensioners in my constituency who are struggling to make ends meet?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady may not be wholly aware of what has happened. I have made inquiries to clarify the position. I understand that the only share options granted by the National Grid have been granted to its own directors and staff; but, having exercised those options and purchased the shares, directors have then given them to their wives. As the hon. Lady may know, it is a fundamental principle that transfers of property between husband and wife are free of tax, as they have been for a long time.

    If the hon. Lady and the deputy leader of the Labour party wish to change the position, are they saying that they want to make transfers of property between husband and wife taxable? Are they saying that the independent taxation of men and women should be abolished? Are they saying that widows should no longer be able to inherit property from their husbands free of tax? [Hon Members: –“Answer”.] That is the inevitable principle that follows from the point put by the hon. Lady. Once again, Opposition Members are trying to use a particular issue for their own advantage without understanding the implications of what they say.

    Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Prime Minister has heard of the result of yesterday’s meeting in America between his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the leader of IRA- Sinn Fein. I am sure that he has noted what the leader of IRA-Sinn Fein said: that there can be no progress towards decommissioning until there is complete demilitarisation of everyone–that is, the surrender of arms by Army, police and those who have guns to protect themselves–and that all prisoners must be released. Are the Government prepared to negotiate with the leader of Sinn Fein on those terms?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend met the leader of Sinn Fein yesterday to make a point that was very important for both the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others in Northern Ireland: that the best contribution that Sinn Fein could make to the conference and to Northern Ireland’s prosperity would be to promote peace, and therefore to secure the decommissioning of the IRA’s arms and explosives. That remains the Government’s position.

    Until, in these exploratory talks, there have been practical movements forward in the decommissioning of arms, it will not be possible for Sinn Fein to move to full-scale political talks either with the Government or, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman’s party or any other political party in Northern Ireland. That is the point that we have made repeatedly to Sinn Fein, and it remains our position. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our objective is to move towards taking the gun entirely out of the politics of Northern Ireland. In that, I believe that we have the support of all the mainstream political parties in Northern Ireland and all the people of Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Blair: To return to National Grid, is the Prime Minister aware– [Hon. Members:– “Oh.”] They wanted us to answer the point and now they do not want us to raise it. Is the Prime Minister aware that the issue is not independent taxation between men and women, but remuneration being paid by way of share options so as to avoid income tax? That is what is actually happening in this case. Is the Prime Minister prepared to say that that abuse is wrong and is he prepared to put a stop to it?

    The Prime Minister: Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that I favour employee share options and I favour executive share options. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does too, because that is a direct quote from his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. There is no dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and I or between the two major parties about the desirability of share options.

    In this instance, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) has raised a point that has been the subject of publicity today. Having exercised the share options and purchased shares, a husband passed his own property–the shares –to his wife. The leader of the Labour party seems to be saying that if, having done something of which the leader of the Labour party approves– accepted share options–the husband then does what has been done for many years and passes them to his wife, that should now be taxable. That is quite unlike anything that has happened in the past. If that is Labour’s policy, let the Leader of the Opposition please make it clear.

    Mr. Blair: No, that is not the policy. The only reason why the directors transfer shares to their spouses is that the remuneration is paid by way of share options in order to avoid income tax. That is why they do it. That is the issue: it is not whether share options are wrong or right, it is whether they are taxed as income or as capital gains. Is the Prime Minister prepared to say that, where remuneration is effectively given by way of share options to avoid income tax and only pay capital gains tax, he will put a stop to it?

    The Prime Minister: Capital gains are taxed at the marginal rate when the capital gain is realised. The right hon. Gentleman is effectively saying that he does not wish husbands to pass those rights on to their wives. The transfer of property between husbands and wives–be it shares, property or capital–is tax free.

    Although the right hon. Gentleman is now wriggling because his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor changed his position mid morning because he realised what he had said and what he had done, the truth is revealed yet again by what the right hon. Gentleman has said: Labour hates privatisation and it hates profit. It cannot stand share ownership. Old Labour lurks there as clearly as it ever did. Labour Members cannot stand the fact that some people receive share options and exercise share options as part of their employment remuneration.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Prime Minister does not realise that the National Grid has admitted that it used share options to avoid paying income tax. Why does not the Prime Minister stop defending the greed of a privileged few and stand up for the vast majority of decent British people?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman had better decide whether he is really in favour of share options. The glaring divide between the shadow Chancellor and the leader of the Labour party becomes more apparent day by day. They may sit close together, but clearly they never speak.

    Mr. Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today’s announcement of further measures to target taxpayers’ money on making state schools more effective and improving standards? Will he confirm that the Government’s objective is to ensure that all parents are entitled to a good-quality, high-standard state education for their children, not only if they happen to live a couple of boroughs away from a convenient grant-maintained school?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that point. I believe that the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will be widely welcomed up and down the country.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that the deadlines in Sarajevo represent a critical moment for the authority of the United Nations and its commanders in Bosnia? Will he ensure that, if our commanders on the ground in Bosnia conclude that decisive action must be taken, they will receive the full and unswerving backing of not only the Government but the United Nations in New York?

    The Prime Minister: I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view about the importance of the present situation. I am happy to tell him that we have already given that assurance to our commanders on the ground. We made that clear in New York last night and they are aware of our position. The United Nations has also reiterated its full support–by that I mean our commanders will have support for whatever action they may consider necessary in the light of the events of the past day or so.

    Let me add to that point in view of the present situation. We very much wish the United Nations protection forces to continue performing their role. They have saved many lives delivering aid and containing the fighting. I believe the reason for maintaining a force on the ground remains as compelling today as it has been in the past, but all the parties need to be aware that if they continue ground fighting and accelerate it, they may render it impossible for the United Nations protection forces satisfactorily to carry out the mandate that they have been given. I hope that point is fully understood. At present, General Smith and the United Nations forces are very much in our thoughts. They most assuredly have our total support.

     

    Official Visits

    Q2. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Southfleet, Kent.

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

    Mr. Dunn: What advice would the Prime Minister give the leadership of the trade union, Unison, which may be about to inflict a vicious national strike on the British people? The last time Unison inflicted a strike on the British people–

    Mr. Mackinlay: What has this to do with Kent?

    Mr. Dunn: People are concerned about it in Southfleet. The last time Unison inflicted a national strike on British people, hospitals were closed, schools were shut down, operations were cancelled and the dead were left unburied.

    The Prime Minister: I believe that any form of industrial action in the health service would be bound to harm patients. It is difficult to see how it could do anything else. My hon. Friend has provided a graphic reminder of what happened on a previous occasion. I am perfectly certain that no professional nurse would wish to pursue such action, and I very much hope that that will be the overwhelming view. I hope that the few people involved will set aside the language of trade union confrontation, look at the fair offer that has been made to them by the vast majority of NHS trusts up and down the country, accept it and put the issue behind us.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

    Mr. Illsley: From the Government’s overwhelming defeat in the local elections last month, it is clear that the electorate totally rejected their local government policies. In particular, people rejected the Government notion that Labour authorities are high taxing and high spending. Will the Government now abandon plans to cap the expenditure of local authorities this year?

    The Prime Minister: I have very great doubts about whether people have abandoned the notion that Labour means high taxes, both nationally and locally. If one looks band for band at local taxation last year, one finds that in band C, for example–I take the figures from memory, but I think that they are right–Labour councils taxed about £160 more than Conservative councils. That point will be understood increasingly as people examine their tax bills.

    Mr. Robathan: In the course of his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report on Islington’s social services? If so, he will have found that the Labour party in Islington put political correctness above the needs of the vulnerable and of the children in its care, and above common sense. Does he agree that, in the same way, the Labour party in general puts women-only shortlists and other forms of positive discrimination and political correctness above the interests of the nation–

    Madam Speaker: Order. What other parties do is not the responsibility of the Prime Minister. I have told the House time and time again that Ministers at the Dispatch Box answer for their policies, not for what other people do. Perhaps the Prime Minister can give some answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I hope that the House will remember in future that Ministers are to be questioned about their responsibilities, not about anything else.

    The Prime Minister: The substantive part of the question followed on nicely from the question asked by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) a moment ago. Like everyone in the House–I would hope–I read the reports about what apparently happened in Islington council and found them extremely disturbing. They show what happens when political correctness runs riot. I believe that tolerance, in that environment, becomes excess. It causes untold suffering for those in need of help. This was a sad example of what happens when the Labour party is in power. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central neglected to mention the activities that went on in Islington, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing them to my attention.

     

    Q4. Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

    Ms Quin: Does the Prime Minister recall his prediction at the 1991 Conservative party conference that Labour would introduce eight new taxes if it took office? How does that claim look now in the light of the 20 new taxes that he and the Government have introduced?

    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Lady should glance at the list of new taxes to which Opposition Front Benchers have committed themselves if they come to government– [Hon. Members:– “Rubbish.”] Opposition Members are right: most of the taxes that they propose are rubbish. Labour is now and always has been the party of high taxation at national and local levels, and while the Opposition continue to commit themselves to more spending on every occasion, they always will be the party of high taxation.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Tribute to Harold Wilson – 24 May 1995

    Below is Mr Major’s Commons statement following the death of the former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. The statement was made on the 24th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

    This morning we heard the sad news of the death of Lord Wilson. As the House well knows, Lord Wilson had been ill for a very long time and had endured that illness with courage and with great good humour. I know that the whole House would wish to join me in sending our sincerest condolences to Mary Wilson, who nursed and cared for him with such devotion for so long, and also to his sons, Robin and Giles.

    I did not know Harold Wilson personally when he was at the height of his powers, but I knew him from afar as a formidable political opponent. I believe that history will remember him for the sharpness and shrewdness of his mind; for his two periods of service as Prime Minister in difficult circumstances; and for his energy and enthusiasm, as well as for his many achievements. And also, perhaps here of all places, he will be remembered for his wit and his humour–often shown to such devastating effect on the Floor of the House. But that is the public man. His friends who knew him well speak also of the private man–of his great personal kindnesses and generosity. He expected loyalty from those around him and he offered it in full measure in return.

    Harold Wilson was a Yorkshireman whose roots mattered to him. His background motivated his politics. His family’s experience during the depression, when his father was unemployed, shaped his politics, his thinking and his future policies. In becoming Prime Minister, he broke through many of the traditional class barriers of the day. I do not believe that it is too generous to describe Harold Wilson as one of the most brilliant men of his generation. He gained an outstanding first-class degree at Oxford. He was an exceptionally young and able don at New college and then a fellow at University college. He worked for William Beveridge on his great study of unemployment. His ability as a statistician was legendary and those who knew him well will recall his remarkable memory, which was displayed with such pleasure so often and to such good effect.

    At the outbreak of war, Harold Wilson’s capacity for incisive thought and rigorous analysis took him to the economic section of the Cabinet Office and then to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. Over the years, by his remarkable work in those positions, he caught the attention of leading Labour party figures such as Clem Attlee. Then, in 1945, at the relatively young age of 28, he was elected for the first time to the House as the Member for Ormskirk. He was quickly given a ministerial post and a mere two years later he became President of the Board of Trade, the youngest Cabinet Minister in the House since 1806.

    As a Minister, Harold Wilson quickly established a strong reputation. He was responsible for the removal of the rationing controls on clothes and textiles that had remained from the war and also for the relaxation of dozens of other regulations. He was active, far beyond his time, in opening up important trade links with Russia.

    In 1950, following boundary changes, Harold Wilson was elected to the seat of Huyton, which he was to represent with great distinction for another 33 years. In 1951 he resigned from the Front Bench over the imposition of health charges before Labour’s election defeat, which, for him, led to 13 long years in opposition. It was in that time that he developed from the brilliant academic to become the sparkling political figure of later years.

    The tragic, untimely death of Hugh Gaitskell brought Harold Wilson to the leadership of his party earlier than he might have expected. His election was widely welcomed. He was recognised as a man of both intellectual and political skills. In choosing his first shadow Cabinet, he displayed his willingness to select people of ability, whether or not they agreed with his point of view. That ability to conciliate–often a scorned attribute, but a necessary one–was displayed continually throughout his leadership of the Labour party. He narrowly won election as Prime Minister in 1964 and secured a large majority in 1966. In government he placed a strong emphasis on technology and innovation, to be carried through with a new emphasis on state planning. His social policies embodied the liberal spirit of the time.

    During six years of government, Harold Wilson faced many difficult problems –the ever-present currency crisis; Northern Ireland; the Rhodesia crisis; controversy over whether British troops should become involved in the war in Vietnam; the uncertainty over whether Britain would or would not join the then European Community; and industrial unrest, particularly in the docks. Those problems faced him continually as Prime Minister. I believe that history will judge that Harold Wilson kept a clear and a cool head in the face of those difficulties. For my generation at least, as observers through television and from a distance, his ever-present pipe became a symbol of tranquillity in times of some turmoil.

    Harold Wilson had much to his credit in those days. He was responsible for the rapid expansion of higher education, including the development of the polytechnics. He was personally involved in, and rightly proud of, setting up the Open university. He was aware of the dangers of excessive concentration of trade union power and he was brave enough to tackle it, alas without the complete support of many of his colleagues at the time. Of course, he was the only British Prime Minister to preside over England’s winning the World cup. He was a remarkable man. He was not ready to give up as Labour leader following defeat in 1970. He was right, and he proved it with two further election victories in 1974. With them, he became the only Prime Minister this century to have emerged victorious from four general elections.

    When Harold Wilson stood down as Prime Minister in 1976, many were surprised, even shocked. Why had he done it? What did he mean by it? The fuss was considerable, and how much he must have enjoyed it at the time. Even those who had tried for so long to unseat him could not accept that he had stood down of his own accord; but he had. He had served longer than any Prime Minister before him this century and it was perfectly natural that he would wish to enjoy his retirement. What was Harold Wilson really like? I have formed my judgment. He was a complex man, certainly, a clever man, a sensitive man, a man who could be bruised and hurt and who never wore the armadillo skin of the fictional politician. He was a man of many achievements and, perhaps above all, a very human man who served his country well and honourably and who has earned, by that, a secure place in its history. In the ledger of life, his credit balance is very high. It is a privilege for me, as one, nominally, of his political opponents, to pay him this tribute and I do so unreservedly.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 May 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    North-West Kent

    Q7. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit north-west Kent.

    The Prime Minister: Although I have no current plans to do so, I hope such a visit will be possible in the near future.

     

    Scotland

    Q8. Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Scotland.

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

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May 1995.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

    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.

     

    Intelligence and Security Committee

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a report from the Intelligence and Security Committee on the discharge of its functions under the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that I have recently received an interim report from the Intelligence and Security Committee, setting out the broad pattern of its work to date and outlining some of its future priorities for inquiry. I do not consider that the report contains any matter whose publication would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Secret Intelligence Service, Security Service or Government Communications Headquarters, and I have therefore today placed copies of it, as submitted by the Committee, in the Libraries of both Houses.

     

    Nolan Committee

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek to extend the recommendations of the Nolan Committee concerning the conduct of Ministers and officials to include the Governor of the Bank of England and all senior members of his staff.

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

     

    Antanas Gecas

    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister for what period Antanas Gecas was employed by British intelligence.

    The Prime Minister: It remains the Government’s policy not to provide information on the operations at the security and intelligence agencies.

     

    Majority Shareholdings

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those companies in which the holder of his office is a majority shareholder which (a) are currently in existence and (b) have been wound up in the past five years.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 May 1995]: None.

     

    Bank of England

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if the statement of Government policy set out in paragraph 5 of the Bank of England press release of the text of the Deputy Governor’s speech to the City branch of the Institute of Directors on 13 December was authorised by him.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 29 March 1995 Official Report, column 640.

  • PMQT – 23 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

    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 have further meetings later today.

    Mr. Jenkin: Further to the prior notice that I have given my right hon. Friend on the subject of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, will he reassure the House that, contrary to indications in The Sunday Times this week, the Government will bid for a net retrieval of power from the European institutions? Is not our resolve in this matter an increasingly defining issue between the Government and the Opposition? Does he agree that our determination to secure the powers of the nation state contrast utterly with the Leader of the Opposition, who has nothing but a soundbite and a submissive smile–

    Madam Speaker: Order. Let us make some progress.

    Mr. Jenkin: I see that the yobs are out in force today, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, the Leader of the Opposition’s idea of a nation state is Europe.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of the broad subject that he intended to raise. I did read the speculative story in The Sunday Times , which is speculating on decisions and matters that are still under discussion, which have not remotely been concluded and will not be concluded for some time. The general approach that the Government will take has been set out on many occasions. We believe that Community action should be used only where it is necessary and valuable and should not include going into what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has called the nooks and crannies of daily life. At the IGC, I shall block any attempt to extend Community competence into intergovernmental areas such as foreign affairs, defence and home affairs and I shall aim to strengthen subsidiarity, which has already led to a reduction in Commission activity. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the differences between the Conservative party and the Opposition, and they become clearer.

    Mr. Blair: I welcome the Prime Minister’s assurance that the new committee on Nolan will look at how, not whether, it implements the Nolan recommendations. Can I take it that that includes the specific recommendation that the amount paid to Members of Parliament under outside consultancies will be included?

    The Prime Minister: Let me make it entirely clear to the right hon. Gentleman what I said in the House, without any dissent from him or any other hon. Member, when I set up the committee. I said then: “Recommendations affecting the Members and procedures of this House will, of course, be for the House to decide.”–[ Official Report , 25 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 759.]

    We have now seen the report. I have said repeatedly that I favour greater transparency and accept the broad principles of the Nolan committee. We need to examine how those principles will work and what their implications will be for Parliament. I hope that that can be done on an all-party basis, which would be in the interests of the House, so that the country can see that the House is seeking to live up to the highest standards which I wish it to have and which, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman has also said he wishes it to have.

    Mr. Blair: I welcome that and I take it that that answer ensures that the new committee will look at how but not whether the recommendations are implemented. Can the Prime Minister therefore say whether it is his understanding that the new committee will report before the long summer recess its recommendations on how the Nolan recommendations are to be implemented?

    The Prime Minister: We have set out some detailed proposals on what might be the remit of the committee and they are the subject of current discussion with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). Those discussions must continue with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in the hope that an agreement on that remit is reached. On the speed of reporting to the House, I certainly anticipate that the committee will make rapid progress. I hope that agreement could be reached on publishing at least an interim report before the House rises for the summer recess. The committee itself must determine how rapidly it can discuss the matters in question.

    There is no doubt among those hon. Members who have taken the trouble to read the Nolan committee report that it refers to many matters of great difficulty, on which the Nolan committee believes the House should decide how they are carried forward. This is a matter of great importance to the future of the House and it is vital that it is properly examined and got right.

     

    Q2. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

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

    Mr. Marshall: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, at 6 o’clock last night, the House rejected a Labour-inspired amendment that would have cost the taxpayer £250 million. Is he also aware that, at 6 o’clock last night, the Leader of the Opposition was addressing an audience of City fat cats– [Interruption.] –and promised to renounce the high tax and spend policies that have characterised every Labour Government since the war? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that was the fifth time the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he was wrong? He was wrong on the Common Market; wrong on defence; wrong on industrial relations reform; and wrong on privatisation. Five wrongs do not make a right leader for the country.

    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the coincidence of timing between the Opposition amendment, designed to spend more public money, and the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal to cut inflation and cut down on public spending. I have to say to the House that I am unsurprised by that contradiction, which is by no means the only contradiction between what the leader of the Labour party says and what the Labour party does. Every time we have dealt with monetary policy to restrain inflation, we have been criticised by the Opposition for putting interest rates up. Every time there has been a dispute of some sort, they wish to spend more money on it. Every time we have tried to restrain expenditure, they have called for more expenditure. There is, to put it kindly, a disconjunction between what they say and what they do.

     

    Q3. Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

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

    Mr. Livingstone: Has the Prime Minister had time today to read the latest edition of the “Socialist Economic Bulletin”–[Laughter]– which demonstrates that, since 1979, dividend payments as a proportion of gross domestic product have increased by £22 billion per annum, while manufacturing investment last year was only £12 billion? What can the Government do to ensure that increased dividend payments do not squeeze out productive investment?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be less surprised than others to know that I have, in fact, read the “Socialist Economic Bulletin” –not least because he invited me to do so before answering his question this afternoon. [Laughter.] Old Lambeth connections die hard.

    I believe that the hon. Gentleman understates the importance of dividends, which, with capital growth, are the reason why people invest in the first place. We have at the moment perhaps the best environment for investment in this country that we have had for very many years. Three years of steady growth with low inflation has given companies the stability to take investment decisions in a secure economic environment. We can see now that investment is increasing, and the Confederation of British Industry forecasts manufacturing investment growth of 8 per cent. in the next year.

    Since 1980, United Kingdom investment has grown quite substantially. In the present economic environment, I would expect it to continue to do so.

    Mr. Trotter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is great anxiety about organised crime in this country? Is he aware that the Leader of the Opposition is shortly to take a Labour roadshow to north Tyneside, and would it not be appropriate if that entertainment included the Labour leader’s opinions on the current police investigation into serious allegations of corruption and organised crime in the north Tyneside Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the details to which my hon. Friend refers, but I know the enthusiasm with which the Labour party likes to see matters examined and debated publicly, so no doubt the party itself will wish to hold a public inquiry into any allegations against any aspect of the Labour party.

     

    Q4. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

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

    Mr. Michie: Bearing in mind the sleaze and the conduct of this place, which is a debate that has been going on for some time, if the Prime Minister really wants to demonstrate to the public at large that we are going to get our act together in this place, will he ask the Conservative members of the Select Committee on Members’ Interests to stop blocking the consideration of evidence and remove the Tory Whip, so that we can proceed in a proper, democratic way?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the powers, influence and independence of Committees such as the Members’ Interests Select Committee.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: And the Whip.

    The Prime Minister: Before the hon. Gentleman shouts himself into trouble, I should like to say that he also knows that the membership of that Committee is approved by the House before it sits.

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ludicrous to try to set economic tax rates by taking the international average? Was not the import of the Leader of the Opposition’s speech last night simply to try to disguise, in his characteristic way, his intention of increasing income tax rates? I take that because most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have a higher rate of tax than this country. Instead of saying it directly, as usual the Leader of the Opposition tried to disguise it behind words.

    The Prime Minister: It is clear that there was a certain lack of transparency in what the right hon. Gentleman said last night. There is no doubt that the UK top rate of income tax and national insurance contributions is the lowest of any country in the European Union, and we have every intention of keeping it that way. We also have the lowest main rate of corporation tax among the major industrial countries, and the burden of taxes on business in the UK is lower than in any other G7 country except Canada. That is in spite of the increases in taxation that we have had to undertake in the past few years to deal with the expenses following on the recession.

    However, as the right hon. Gentleman is obviously worried about tax levels, I hope that he will demonstrate that, if and when we are able to reduce taxes, by joining us in the Lobby when we do so.

     

    Q5. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

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

    Mr. Banks: Would it come as a surprise to the Prime Minister to learn that I am one of his admirers–indeed, I might be his only admirer? In that capacity, does he accept my great anger at the outrageous attack made upon him by Margaret Thatcher who, in her book, likens him to some sort of incompetent train spotter? That is a disgraceful attack and I think that we all feel very strongly about it. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to damn all Mrs. Thatcher’s policies that have got him and his Government into the appalling mess in which they now find themselves?

    The Prime Minister: The fraternity that exists between former Lambeth councillors perhaps does not entirely extend to the hon. Gentleman. It is less of a surprise to hear that he may be an admirer of mine than a shock and a disappointment.

    Mr. Brazier: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern among some Conservative Members at the idea that homosexuals may shortly be admitted to the armed forces? Is it not true that a barrack room or a ship are not just places of work for service personnel but their homes? Should we not take account of the wishes of service personnel in making that decision? I ask for my right hon. Friend’s assurance that he will uphold the promises that were given to the House before legislation to remove the criminal offence of homosexual activity in the armed forces went through Parliament without a vote. Will he assure the House that, if the present court case overturns the status quo, the matter will be brought to the House so that we have the opportunity to reverse the decision?

    The Prime Minister: The House reached a decision some time ago and I do not wish to anticipate the result of the current court case. Clearly, if it produced a different set of circumstances, we would have to examine it.

    As to the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I think that the service chiefs have made their view clear about the matter, and I share that view.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 May 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Nolan Committee

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister what has been the cost to public funds to date of the Nolan committee; what payments or emoluments have been made to each member of the committee; what are the anticipated on-going costs; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the Nolan committee’s first report, which was published last week and states that the committee’s total estimated cost to the end of April 1995 was £317,200.

    Lord Nolan, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and Ms Diana Warwick do not receive emoluments for their Nolan committee work as they already receive a salary from other public funds. Other members of the committee were paid a salary of £1,000 per month from November 1994 to April 1995. They are now receiving an attendance fee of £155 per day. Members travel and subsistence expenses are met from public funds.

    The on-going cost of the committee is estimated to be £500,000 a year.

     

    Deregulation

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister what further action he proposes to take to advance the Government’s deregulation initiative.

    The Prime Minister: I have established a new ministerial committee to co-ordinate the Government’s programme of deregulation and consider how the burden of deregulation on business, charities and individuals can be kept to a minimum. Copies of the terms of reference and membership are in the Library of the House.

    MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON DEREGULATION (EDD)

    Composition

    President of the Board of Trade (Chairman)

    Lord President of the Council

    Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

    Secretary of State for Employment

    Lord Privy Seal

    Chief Secretary to the Treasury

    Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, Department of Trade and Industry

    Other Ministers will be invited to attend as necessary.

    Terms of Reference

    “To co-ordinate the Government’s programme of deregulation and to consider how the burden of regulation on businesses, charities and individuals can be kept to a minimum.”

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Comments on the Nolan Report – 20 May 1995

    Below is the summary of John Major’s doorstep comments, made on Saturday 20th May 1995 in South East Cambridgeshire, on the Nolan Report.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In the clamour of current politics it is often difficult to get a reasoned, rational debate. Nonetheless let me try to make some important points about the Nolan Committee.

    1 – I set up Nolan to allay public concern after a series of incidents. I believe public confidence in Parliament and politicians is essential. I care about the reputation of Parliament. It matters. I worry that it has fallen. It will not be rescued by warm words alone.

    I do not believe an internal report by Parliamentarians alone would have convinced the public. The decision to establish Nolan was warmly supported at the time on all sides of the House.

    2 – Nolan should not be misunderstood. It does not ban outside interests; indeed it commends them. It simply makes clear that they must be transparent. I do not just accept the broad thrust of Nolan, I agree with it. Insofar as the recommendations to Government are concerned, after consideration of the detailed implementation, we should generally accept them.

    3 – When I established Nolan last October, I made it clear that recommendations relating to backbench Members of Parliament would be for the House to consider. Nothing has changed. No one challenged that judgement at the time.

    4 – The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties now seem to have changed their mind and be doing so. Their behaviour is pure partisan posturing. They are more intent on turning this report into a party political football, than ensuring it is properly considered by Parliament. I am not going to play that game.

    5 – The Government has moved speedily on Nolan. It was set up promptly. I published Nolan on the day I received it. The House debated it within a week. The Government announced its broad acceptance of the recommendations speedily. We now intend to seek the views of a Select Committee. There has been no undue delay, nor will there be.

    6 – The Select Committee will address the report and the range of questions that arise from it. These are important. Some aspects of Nolan do need careful consideration and accurate definition. They must be examined before specific resolutions can be put to the House. Part of the present problem has arisen because existing rules are not sufficiently clear. The new rules must be incontrovertible. That requires examination by the Select Committee.

    7 – I hope the Opposition will co-operate with this Committee on an all-party basis. If they do not, the Government will consult MPs themselves and frame their own proposals.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Comments on the Nolan Report – 19 May 1995

    Below is the summary of John Major’s doorstep comments, made on the 19th May 1995 in Huntingdon, on the Nolan Report.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    – Set up Nolan committee because people are interested in ensuring high standards of conduct in public life

    – Asked Nolan to report to us. Government has said it accepts the broad thrust of the proposals. They are complex and far reaching and many could materially affect the working on the House of Commons.

    – Need to give proper consideration to this report. Have to look at it as a whole. It’s very important and must be got right.

    – Accepted the broad thrust and had debate – all within a week of report being published.

    – All too easy to say implement all the recommendations. That would be silly, partisan and purely for party political reasons. Need to exercise mature good judgement.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 May 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

     

    China

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if the President of the Board of Trade has been asked to raise the issue of human rights on his visit to China.

    The Prime Minister: The President of the Board of Trade has been briefed on all aspects of our bilateral relationship, and more generally on conditions in China, including human rights.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl, the letter from the Bundesministerium der Justif to Ms Lisa Mosey, concerning explosive material and baggage handling at Frankfurt, a copy of which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the reply of 14 March 1995, Official Report, column 498.

  • PMQT – 18 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the reduction in unemployment announced yesterday? Is he aware that it is the 24th reduction in the monthly rate to be announced since the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said that unemployment would rise month after month after month? How does Britain’s unemployment rate compare with those in France and Spain, the Governments of which have adopted the policies recommended by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to welcome the fall in unemployment and, of course, the growth in employment, particularly in manufacturing. Unemployment has now fallen by well over 600,000 since 1992 and by nearly 19,000 in the past month–the 20th successive monthly fall. As my hon. Friend intimated, the unemployment rate is substantially higher in Spain and France. In France it is around 12.75 per cent. and in Spain around 20 per cent. It is no accident that they have policies like the minimum wage, the social chapter and other policies that damage employment.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has indicated that he accepts the broad thrust of Nolan. Does he accept the recommendation that Members of Parliament with consultancies should disclose the agreement under which they are paid and how much they are paid?

    The Prime Minister: I established the Nolan committee because I am determined to see higher standards in public life. I believe that that is important. It is important not only that we ensure high standards but that the people of this country see for themselves that this House adopts high standards.

    On the specific point which the right hon. Gentleman puts to me, we must wait to see what the House has to say about that. That is the purpose of the debate this afternoon. We wish to hear the views of the House and take those into account before we reach final decisions on those matters.

    On matters related to the Government, we made it clear that we broadly accept those recommendations, and my right hon. Friends will elaborate on that this afternoon.

    Mr. Blair: What is the Prime Minister’s own view about that recommendation?

    The Prime Minister: The Government will have to table motions on the Order Paper. Not least as a courtesy to the House, we should listen to the views of the House.

    Mr. Blair: Of course. But is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the debate may lead him to overrule the independent recommendation of his own committee? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say whether he supports the disclosure of payments to Members of Parliament, and as he is refusing point blank to allow the committee to investigate payments to political parties, may I tell him that his support for Nolan will ring more than a little hollow?

    The Prime Minister: As far as political parties are concerned, I repeat the point that I made earlier this week. When the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party meet those points set out by the Select Committee on Members’ Interests, a Committee of the House, then, perhaps, they might be in a position to lecture other people on political parties.

    As for matters relating to Back-Bench Members, I repeat the point that I made a moment ago. It is right to listen to the views of the House before reaching a conclusion on the House. If, after such a brief period of Front-Bench authority, the right hon. Gentleman is so arrogant that he no longer wishes to hear the views of the House, he will live to regret that.

    Mr. Cash: Given my right hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for consultation with regard to Government policies and given that the European Commission and Mr. Santer have just published the Commission’s White Paper regarding the future of Europe in so far as it affects the intergovernmental conference, can my right hon. Friend give an absolute assurance to the House that in good time and as soon as possible–before the summer recess– we can have a White Paper on European policy as it affects the United Kingdom in relation to that intergovernmental conference?

    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear to the House on a number of occasions that we are now examining in detail, in Cabinet sub-committees, the British position as to how we will approach the intergovernmental conference. When we have concluded that detailed consideration, it will, of course, be a matter for discussion in the House. That was the case before the Maastricht treaty and it will be the case before the next intergovernmental conference.

     

    Q2. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Winnick: In view of the latest developments on sleaze in the House, is it not now clear that the recommendations of the Nolan committee are the very minimum that need to be put into effect as quickly as possible in aid of the reputation of the House of Commons? Does the Prime Minister accept–perhaps he does not–that Members of Parliament are not elected to be hired as paid lobbyists or consultants and that it is about time the practice was put to an end?

    The Prime Minister: Of course, the House will have the opportunity to debate the Nolan committee this afternoon. As I said to the House a few moments ago, and as I have said on previous occasions, I set up the Nolan committee because I am determined that the House not only has the highest standards, but is seen to have those standards. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the highest standards in politics as a whole, I hope that he will also support the suggestion that the Nolan committee should subsequently look at the position in local government. I hope that he will support that. Since the Opposition are so keen on openness in local government, perhaps the leader of the Labour party will hold in public those inquiries into Labour party activities that he is now holding in private.

     

    Q3. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a minimum wage, whatever the level, would destroy jobs? Does he have any intention of proposing such a policy, not setting a level before the next election and wanting to pass the buck to a union-packed quango, as the Labour party proposes?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I can confirm that a minimum wage would destroy jobs. The House has that on the excellent authority of the deputy leader of the Labour party, who said on one memorable occasion, “Any silly fool knows that.” There is no doubt about it, so of course I can confirm that. For the Labour party these days, a quango a day keeps policy away, because it has announced three so far this week. [Interruption.] Yes, a new quango on Monday, a new quango on Tuesday and a new quango on Wednesday. We await today’s developments with some interest.

     

    Q4. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Jones: Given that the Prime Minister’s objection to publicising the source of Tory party income is that he would not like to expose anonymous donors, what is to stop him publishing the list of non-anonymous donors and also the list of donations and their amounts?

    The Prime Minister: I sometimes wonder whether some Opposition Members understand the importance of privacy in any way on any occasion. In a free and open society, people have the right to donate anonymously if they wish. What is potentially corrupt is when donations buy favours or determine policy. That emphatically does not happen in my party. It emphatically does happen in the Labour party as a part of its constitution.

     

    Q5. Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Sir John Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my Devon constituency area, unemployment has dropped by more than 20 per cent. since 1992, that crime figures have decreased by 10 per cent. this year and last year, that a new hospital costing more than £50 million is nearing completion and that hospital waiting lists have been reduced to a maximum of nine months? Does not all that, combined with the growing economy, show that Conservative policies are working well in the west country?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend refers again to the minimum wage, with good reason. There is no doubt that the minimum wage costs jobs. I now see that the Labour party proposes to keep the minimum wage, but not set the level of the minimum wage until after the general election. That will be devolved to someone else.

    The House might recall the deputy leader of the Labour party saying– [Interruption.] I do not know why they laugh at the deputy leader of the Labour party. We are rather fond of him. He said:

    “Some party colleagues have advocated a minimum wage without having the courage of their convictions to state an amount that would make the original commitment meaningful”.

    I wonder who the right hon. Gentleman might have had in mind.

    Mr. John Evans: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of acknowledging that what has fallen in this country is the number of unemployed benefit claimants, that the number of people in this country who are without a job remains as great as ever, and that it is impossible to compare unemployment statistics in Britain, France, Spain or any other European country, because they use entirely different methods of counting?

    The Prime Minister: I know the hon. Gentleman would not like the Government to have any credit for anything, even the fall in unemployment, but the fact is that not only has unemployment fallen more dramatically in this country than in any other country in western Europe–far more dramatically than any Opposition Member proposed when the Opposition were talking about unemployment increasing to 5 million–but the number in work has increased.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q6. Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Cirencester and Tewkesbury.

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

    Mr. Clifton-Brown: If my right hon. Friend were to visit my constituency, he would discover that a large majority of people would prefer a Europe of nation states rather than a European super-state. Will he therefore undertake, at the intergovernmental conference next year, to resist vigorously giving up our opt-outs and the restriction of our veto, which both the President of the European Commission and the Labour party would like to give up?

    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is for national Governments, not the European Commission, to take decisions on Europe’s future at the intergovernmental conference. We will certainly maintain the national veto and we will certainly not accept any attempt to end the opt-outs that I negotiated in the Maastricht treaty.

    I look to see the European Union succeed, but on the basis of close co- operation between independent sovereign states. I do not believe that, in the long term, the European Union could or would succeed on any other basis. I believe that the proposition for a substantial amount of further centralisation in Europe would do great damage to Europe. It would split it asunder and it should be resisted.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Hughes: In this 50th anniversary year of VE day and VJ day and in view of the widespread support across the House, will the Prime Minister meet soon with a deputation from the Royal British Legion to hear the case as to how, at very little cost to the public purse, the four remaining injustices for war widows or service people may be corrected this year? War widows and service people often lose housing benefit or council tax; they may be ineligible for legal aid to pursue claims for injury; they may be unable to hold on to their pensions if they remarry following the death of their spouses who were killed in active service in the past 20 years; and, if they marry someone subsequent to that person’s war service, they cannot inherit their spouse’s pension.

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the extent to which we have taken care over the years to ensure that war widows and others who faced particular difficulty during the war are treated fairly. In 1979, the Conservative Government corrected many of the anomalies that the previous Government had left untouched for a very long time. If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of those four points, I shall examine them.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 May 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the name, former occupation and supervising Minister of each special adviser currently employed from any Government funding source; and if he will list the salary range of such advisers as of 5 May; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: There are 36 special advisers currently employed by Government Departments; details of their names, former occupations, and Ministers are as follows. For information on the salary range of special advisers I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 28 February 1995, Official Report, columns 484-85 .

    The following is the information:

    Name |Former occupation |Minister

    —————————————————————————————————————————————-

    1. Adams |Personal Assistant to the Right Hon. John Gummer |Secretary of State for the Environment
    2. Barnes |Management Consultant, Boston Consulting Group |Secretary of State for Social Security
    3. Bercow |Director, Rowland Sallingbury Casey |Chief Secretary
    4. Blackwell |Partner, McKinsey and Co. Consultants |Prime Minister
    5. Blunt |Public Affairs Consultant, PI Political |Secretary of State for Defence

    Miss A. Broom |Freelance Political Consultant |Secretary of State for Employment

    1. Burke* |Director, Green Alliance |Secretary of State for Environment
    2. Caine |Desk Officer, Conservative Research Department |Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
    3. Collins |Communications Director, Conservative Central Office |Prime Minister

    Dr. E. Cottrell |Assistant Director, Conservative Research Department |Secretary of State for Education

    Dr. W. Eltis* |Director General, National and Economic Development Office |President of the Board of Trade

    Miss C. Fairbairn |Strategy Consultant, McKinsey and Co. Consultants |Prime Minister

    1. Fraser |Assistant Director, Conservative Research Department |Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
    2. Hockley |Economic Adviser, Air Transport Users Council, and Freelance Adviser |Secretary of State for Health

    Miss S. Hole |Secretary to Lord Rothschild |Chief Whip

    1. Izatt |Research Assistant to Mr. Raymond Robertson MP |Secretary of State for Scotland
    2. Kemp* |Owner of ODP Nexus Ltd. |President of the Board of Trade
    3. Maclay |Economic Researcher, Pieda plc |Secretary of State for Scotland
    4. Maclay |Associate Editor, “The European” |Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
    5. Marsh |Writer and Researcher on Environment and Local Government, Conservative Central Office |Secretary of State for Health

    Ms S. McEwean |Account Executive Namara Cowan Ltd. |Lord Privy Seal

    1. McManus |Desk Officer for Wales, Conservative Central Office |Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
    2. Moman |Self Employed Consultant and Writer |Lord President
    3. O’Connor* |Self Employed Architect |Secretary of State for the Environment

    Mrs. K. Ramsay |Desk Officer, Conservative Central Office Research Department |Prime Minister

    1. Rock |Assistant Director Conservative Central Office |Home Secretary
    2. Ruffley |Solicitor, Clifford Chance |Chancellor of the Exchequer
    3. Rutley |Business Development Director, Pepsi Cola |Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
    4. Simmonds |Researcher, BBC Political Research Unit |Secretary of State for Transport
    5. Soskin |Chief Executive of Asquith Courts Schools Ltd. |Prime Minister

    Lady Strathnaver |Adviser to Right Hon. Michael Heseltine MP |President of the Board of Trade

    1. True |Director, Public Policy Unit |Prime Minister

    Miss A. Warburton |Private Secretary |Prime Minister

    Miss R. Whetstone |Head of Political Section, Conservative Central Office |Home Secretary

    1. Williams |Governing Body of Rugby School, also Freelance Journalist and Writer |Secretary of State for Wales
    2. Williams |Company Secretary, Williams Lea Group |Prime Minister

    Note:

    Special advisers fall into two categories, political and those with specialised expertise relevant to their appropriate Secretary of State. The latter are indicated by an asterisk.